Talk:David Hogg

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Remove the word "falsely" where the article says that conspiracy theories "falsely claim..."

It is not a necessary word to have. The fact that the theories exist proves that there are reasonable people with good reasons to believe that the the theories are not false. Leave it up to the reader to decide if they are false or not. Ztoddw (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The section you're referring to is well-sourced, so there should be a good rationale to remove it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't "prove" anything. There are false claims that the lunar landing was a fake despite the overwhelming evidence; the general consensus is obviously that these claims are false. Same applies here. It would be nice if David Hogg could post a pic of his driving licence to dispel all myths. User:Pcauchy (talk) 10:35, 17 Bebruary 2018 (UTC)

I ultimately made this edit (before reading this talk page entry, admittedly), and, after reversion, made a talk page post on the page of the user who reverted it. Please see my talk page post for additional information on my standing. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Just a reminder to all editors, the Biographies of living persons policy should be excruciatingly studied before adding material on this person or any other survivors, some of whom are already reporting death threats ([1],[2]). Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, primary sources should not be used, especially ones that include personal details. We should avoid victimization by only including the facts most pertinent and widely reported, or even omitting some reported details as appropriate. The dignity and safety of human beings should always be placed above the need to write a meticulously detailed article. --Animalparty! (talk)

Thank you for the reminder! CookieMonster755✉ 03:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong date

The Time article is from March 2018 not April 2018. Someone needs to fix this.--190.2.132.89 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image

This image was added to the page, with a quote by Hogg from his Twitter and map of Florida. I don't think it is relevant and seems like a personally created picture for personal purposes more than one that serves an encyclopedic purpose. I don't think it should be added, it takes up unnecessary space. The quote can be put in word form or with a quote template, but a picture is unnecessary and not commonly practiced. CookieMonster755✉ 03:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. This has been removed. I just find it odd that a picture quote would be placed on the page when a text quote can be used instead. CookieMonster755✉ 04:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I agree, and Tomwsulcer, sorry, but yeah. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't provide any more context than a simple quote, is tacky and arbitrarily decorative, and gives undue visual emphasis. This article should not serve to amplify Hogg's own voice, per WP:ADVOCACY. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Obama and political views

We going to mention the Seal of the President of the United States photograph from 23 July 2014?

d_m_h_photography M&Ms from Air Force 1! Sighed by the commander in chief #Obama

Shows Barack Obama signature. Not sure what M&M stands for. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep the David Hogg (activist) article

Keep the Hogg (activist) article. Controversy surrounds many, if not most, things in life. His activism at his age is quite notable, and worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Freudsig (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please participate in the AfD, not on the talk page, for this matter. CookieMonster755✉ 17:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he is currently in the news does is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.85.186.6 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of removal of "falsely" on David Hogg (activist)

Hi there - you reverted my edit on the David Hogg (activist) article for the removal of the word "falsely". As I referenced in my initial edit summary, I believe this is a weasel word, and also violates MOS:ACCUSED, since I would argue that, like most conspiracy theories, a conclusive yes/no answer is very difficult to obtain - hence why Wikipedia typically focuses on presenting the facts, as it does in that article. For example, see this section of the lunar landing article. While the section clearly presents the conspiracy as disputed with "empirical evidence", it does not include words that skew the neutrality of the article one way or the other. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"Falsely" and "accused/alleged/purported" do not have the same meaning. The theory that Hogg is a crisis actor has been thoroughly debunked as indisputably false. Someone was even fired for it. Some conspiracy theories are plausible; this one is not. Do you disagree with any of this?- MrX 🖋 18:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If a conclusion can be reached that the conspiracy theory that makes up ~30% of the entire page is entirely false and plausible, I question its inclusion in the page in the first place. My opinion is that if a conspiracy theory/controversy is covered at all, it should be covered in a neutral way. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

One issue at time. Do you disagree that sources ayy that this conspiracy theory was debunked? Let's continue this discussion on the article talk page so that other editors can weigh in. I will copy it there now.- MrX 🖋 18:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I personally feel that given the nature of a Conspiracy theory - it is very difficult to fully "debunk" such a claim. I feel that this theory is no different, and while the individual themselves has denied it, as well as other figures including social media sources used to share such theories, as with most all conspiracy theories, it is very difficult or impossible to fully prove otherwise. Do I personally think there is substantial evidence supporting such a theory? Not necessarily. Nor do I wish to make any changes to push personal political agendas. That said, however, I think that including the word "falsely" in front of the Wikipedia discussion of the claim, however false it may seem, slightly changes the tone of the section away from a fully neutral representation of the controversy. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't build article content based on editor's personal feelings. We use sources. Here is what the cited source says:

"Calls by student David Hogg for stricter gun laws in the days after last week's massacre have made him the subject of smear campaigns and demonstrably false conspiracy theories."
— CNN

The claims against Hogg are 100% fabricated.- MrX 🖋 19:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

As I stated in my previous post, I'm not contesting the validity of the controversy, nor attempting to use the section to inject personal opinions, but rather the way such a controversy was presented in the article. In fact, I'd go so far as to agree with you that the claims against Hogg are indeed 100% fabricated. However, that does not change my opinion that the use of the word "falsely" in a Wikipedia article's description of a controversy modifies the section's neutrality. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There is ample precedent on WP that "falsely" is required for BLP compliance where individuals are subjects of conspiracy theories. People associated witht GamerGate and PizzaGate have been subjects of false conspiracy promotion, and consensus has consistently been on the side of explicitly calling out conspiracy theories and rumors associated with these individuals as false. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - thank you both for your time in talking to me! Apologies for any time wasted! --HunterM267 ❯ talk 20:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I agree that it grates when seen in text, but the times we live in seem to demand that we make an emphatic statement that Britannica might not need ... if Britannica had articles on GamerGate, PizzaGate and Mr. Hogg. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hadn't realized this was already an issue before stepping in it myself. You definitely need a source to say someone is lying, even if you don't explictly name them. The one currently attached in the lead does not. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. When fringe sources are universally debunked, e.g. Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc... labeling the accusations as "false" is proper, even reuired for BLP concerns of the target of the spurious accusations. Your actions stray way too far into violating BLP on Hogg himself. ValarianB (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The article you cited literally calls them false repeatedly — but it has also made him the subject of smear campaigns and demonstrably false conspiracy theories and As the false theories continued circulating Tuesday both from this CNN article. Either you did not even bother to read the sources, or you willfully chose to ignore them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The CNN article calling the theories demonstrably false wasn't near our claim about them when I got here. I later moved it inline to vouch for Hogg's denial of them. Since you repeatedly removed that aspect of this two-part claim, I assumed you were ignoring its source as well, and referring to USA Today in your reversion summaries instead.

So I bothered to read that source entirely, saw no mention of "false" or "survivor", and removed what looked like unsourced contentious material accordingly. I willfully ignored most of the CNN source, aside from the (seemingly) pertinent bits about him saying he was a witness rather than a crisis actor.

After reading the Talk Page, I realized my error. But by then, your misinterpretation of my error had already gotten me blocked, so I couldn't admit you were right about "false" being sourced for two more days. Now that I have, I'll ask that we give time to understand each other before getting mad and jumping to absurd conclusions about pushing conspiracy theories in BLPs. If I'd wanted to give them credibility, the last thing I'd do is note they'd been denied by the guy who knows the truth better than anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Business Insider

Would this be considered a reliable source?

• Smith, Allan (21 Feb 2018). "The conspiracy theory around one of the Florida school-shooting survivors is getting even more insane". Business Insider. A Twitter user identified as "Laguna Beach Antifa" on Tuesday posted what they said was a photo of Hogg and his classmates in a yearbook, claiming it was from Redondo Shores High School in California and that Hogg graduated in 2015. The post has been retweeted more than 4,000 times and replicated on other social-media sites like Facebook. "David Hogg didn't attend #Parkland high school," the Twitter user wrote.
  "I went to school with him at Redondo Shores High School in California and he graduated in 2015. Here he is in our yearbook from 2015. He always wanted to work for CNN and be an actor." —Laguna Beach Antifa (@LagBeachAntifa9) February 21, 2018
  The claim was quickly debunked. People on Twitter pointed to the student wearing a shirt with "Eagles" on it two photos above Hogg. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School's mascot is an eagle.

I would like to know if this source alone would qualify as establishing notability regarding the Redondo_Beach_Unified_School_District#High_schools claim or if we should look for additional reliable sources in addition to Insider reporting on this before deciding if it is a notable enough thing to list in section 4.

This is not the only site which has reported on it, but it may be the most reputable one.

Given that the purpose of this article is to report on the successful debunking of the allegations, I do not consider it to be a BLP violation to report on a theory which has successfully been debunked. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What edit are you proposing and why? - MrX 🖋 21:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The only mistake I'm aware of that Smith may have made was "on Tuesday posted" because the date listed in the cited Tweet is February 21st, the same day the article was published, which was a Wednesday. I assume the explanation for this was that it was probably posted late at night (like 12am-2am, dunno, since it's deleted) and that Smith thought of it was a Tuesday post despite it technically being Wednesday.

Presently the 2nd paragraph of David_Hogg_(activist)#Attacks_and_conspiracy_theories focuses on the Redondo Beach interview, then the 3rd moves onto discussing Facebook policies. I would propose we add something in between these regarding the "Redondo Shores" allegation which Smith reported on above. I'm open to ideas on how to phrase it but if you're looking for a first draft, I'll have a go:

"On February 2120, a Twitter user claimed that Hogg did not attend the Parkland, Florida highschool, insisting that he had graduated in 2015 from Redondo Shores High School in Redondo Beach, California. As fake evidence, the user misrepresented a page from a recent Stoneman Douglas yearbook as being from the Redondo Shores yearbook. This caused some far-right conspiracy theorists to target Hogg. The lie was debunked within a day by other Twitter users noticing an adjacent student wearing a shirt with the Stoneman Douglas Eagle on it."

Possibly a bit too wordy though, I could use some help with brevity if that seems to go on for too long. Any proposed rephrase?

One issue I'm having trouble sorting out is the dates... although the original tweet is deleted, Smith's article links to https://twitter.com/danielwillims/status/966188600193843200/photo/1 from February 20 where the user retweeting is debunking the claim saying "he moved from California our freshman year and hasn't transferred since". The shirt with 'Eagles' on it appears to be 2 places above Hogg, it is a white sweatshirt I think. So I guess I need to flip my criticism of smith, the "on Tuesday" appears to be correct. The mistake appears to be "February 21", the false claim tweet should be dated February 20. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This material should not be covered in the article at all, per WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is a biography, not a treatise on idiotic conspiracy theories. Very few reliable sources have taken note of it, probably because it so ludicrous. Twitter is, of course, not a reliable source. Don't link to websites that are not reliable sources, especially if the they contain information that disparages a living person. - MrX 🖋 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out. Not sufficiently covered to report. This article already has too much about the conspiracy theories. Most of the press coverage about him has been about his activism, not the loony stuff, and that's what this article should be about. --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed the 'Attacks and conspiracy theories' section, but it still needs quite a bit more trimming in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 14:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done some trimming too. It is better now. Probably still too much detail about the legislative aide who was fired, I will work on that paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is still too many details, they can be removed to only focus on the subject himself. CookieMonster755✉ 15:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed considerably - took out excessive detail especially if it wasn't about him but more about the social media campaign as a whole. I think it's more in balance now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of the word "survivor"

Is it proper to call this young man a survivor? From what I can tell he was not anywhere near where the shooting was happening. He certainly did not get shot himself. --Proctris (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How do sources refer to him?- MrX 🖋 15:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look at reliable sources, it clearly states where he was during the event. He was close to the shooting where it happened, and survived the event. Reliable sources describe him as a survivor. CookieMonster755✉ 15:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe Cruz as a monster. No less flowery. We should categorize and write literally, as we do for everyone else in "American shooting survivors" except these four. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

If self-identification is worth anything around here, Hogg himself says, "I'm someone who had to witness this and live through this and I continue to be having to do that." You might hang up on "live through this" instead of "witness this", but consider that everyone who isn't shot when they see someone shot continues to live. It's a mundane sort of survival, but it does exist. We're surviving bullets that weren't aimed at us right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Quite rightly, self-identification isn't worth anything around here. I don't need a bunch of links to show that sources, including many of the majors, call him a survivor. For comparison, I see sources quoting individuals who called Cruz a monster—including the CNN source that you linked—but few if any saying that in their own voices. I think you understand the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The New York Post, known for skirting the line between newspaper and trash, uses the snippet from her quote to say its own thing about what her husband said. That's pretty close to saying it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

You use a source that you admit is "known for skirting the line between newspaper and trash" to counter my verifiable argument referring to actual solid reliable sources? I think that effectively constitutes a concession, and thanks for making it so easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here they are calling Navy veteran Richard Rojas an alleged PCP-puffing loser. No quotes, but implicitly attributed to his own lawyer. Used that in his article today, just thought I'd share. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

In the fuller quote, Hogg calls himself a witness and someone who had to witness this. Double clarity. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Here's a "reliable" witness for you. He was not there. https://twitter.com/_Makada_/status/978423596929441792 Daniel Sparkman (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you're not being sarcastic, that's just a misinterpretation. Like Ronda Rousey denying her supposed ability to go back in time. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

He's a survivor (what the news media says) but we can de-emphasize the word in the lede if that makes contributors happier. But saying "self-proclaimed" etc is really over the top.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him a survivor, and that's what we're going to use. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• My opinion is that Hogg is notable for being an activist rather than a survivor of the shooting (since obviously the latter doesn't get you individual coverage), and the first sentence/lede should reflect that. Perhaps reword it so that the activist part comes first, and then add later (either in the same sentence or in a later sentence) that he became an activist because of the shootings? ansh666 01:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Please make the change.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There's also an issue with saying Never Again MSD is "led by" survivors. The source beside it says "the group’s leadership has grown to include more than 20 Douglas students". Even if you become of the mind that some students are survivors because some sources call them so, you can't start calling all students survivors despite what the directly-cited source says. I'll suggest changing our lead sentence to "He is one of twenty student leaders of Never Again MSD, a gun control advocacy group." Or finding a source that matches what we currently say. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Saying, "someone survived a shooting event," is different from saying, "someone survived being shot." Was he a student at the school? Was the school subjected to a school shooting event? Yes and yes, so he survived it. Also, I find it weird that there's an assertion that, somehow, when one becomes an "Activist" they cease being a "Survivor." I understand that the activism is what has become more notable. But we must remember the BLP rules apply to the talk page also, so the fact of survival shouldn't be downplayed so cynically. This is not soapboxing, only concerned about the BLP rules. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A shooting event is an event wherein people are shot. This is called a "school shooting" because 34 people were subjected to shooting in a school, not becaue the school or everyone in it was subjected to shooting. Unshot students may be subjected to post-traumatic stress disorder, but that's an entirely different injury from the sort of people in the "shooting survivor" category (minus the Never Againers) survived.

Here, the term is being used purely rhetorically, invoking the same feelings Destiny's Child or Gloria Gaynor did and like-minded newswriters do. It's meant to imply they're courageous, perseverant, empowered, won't be silenced, et cetera. I'm not saying they're not, but Wikipedia is meant to speak Plain English literally. If we want to say they're courageous, perseverant, empowered or won't be silenced, we can just say that (with a citation, of course). We don't need to confuse readers into thinking they were one of the 17 who actually survived this shooting. Doesn't make them better or worse, just makes them clearly unshot. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree with your reasoning. Was just making sure. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the use. I think it's being used to suggest that the event was a school shooting that affected the entire school - everyone went into hiding or whatever and feared for their lives. Maybe no bullets were fired near them, but they still experienced the event. -- irn (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but it was an audiovisual experience only. The likelihood of a reasonably fit teenager with an elementary Western education succumbing to voodoo death is so ridiculously small that "surviving" scary sights and sounds is too obvious to warrant mention, from a rational standpoint. More people have died (and almost died) from papercuts, stubbed toes or water overdoses than from fear itself. The only reason those not physically hurt while collating, walking or drinking aren't called "survivors" is because there's no high-stakes national political feud over those, like there is with guns.

Wherever there's serialized TV drama, there's a subtly pro-hero commentator and a blatantly pro-villain one getting the basic formula over. The audience has to believe the heroes were in real danger if they're to buy into the comeback, hence the hyperbole from the side that needs our emotional investment most (as reigning champion, the NRA will retain control on a countout or disqualification). Nothing more to it than that, and Wikipedia shouldn't be sucked in by such carny tricks from "liberal" or "alternative" media. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:45, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

The only reason those not physically hurt while collating, walking or drinking aren't called "survivors" is because there's no high-stakes national political feud over those, like there is with guns. That's not the only reason. Indeed, a much more obvious reason is because those events are insignificant. Living through an event like the MSD shooting is a significant and potentially defining moment in a person's life. "Surviving" is simply another word for "living through"; an event doesn't have to be near-fatal for one to "survive" it. That this event was fatal for many makes "survivor" all the more appropriate. -- irn (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

While I don't agree with InedibleHulk's cynical/facetious analogies, I think he's trying say that using the "survivor" term for the ones that weren't wounded diminishes the wounded survivors' importance. I agree with you that all of them are survivors, but I personally compromised with him, because he's trying to be Encyclopedic with the terminology. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes it all the less appropriate, I find. Seventeen people died because they directly experienced a shooting; to say three thousand survived the same implies a mortality of 0.5% and makes the dead look like frail anomalies. It also dilutes the distinction for the seventeen who lived to tell what bullets feel like, and seriously cheapens it for the few critically injured.

While Hogg spent his spring break recuperating from scary closet time by traveling the country with his friends, meeting lots of famous people, becoming one himself and generally doing more than ever, Anthony Borges is still in intensive care after multiple surgeries, a major infection, 44 days in bed, a visit from the local sheriff and faint hope of every playing competitive soccer again.

That's not to knock Hogg for being more fortunate or telling him to not complain; it's just that Abraham Lincoln told me last night that two things both equal to another thing must be equal to each other (roughly), yet these two forms of "survivor" are clearly incompatible. The significantly impressed sort that remember seeing other people hurt in ways that shaped their own life should be called a witness/bystander/onlooker/spectator/observer/something else. We all remember seeing a lot of things forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Calling Hogg a survivor doesn't "cheapen" anyone else's experience. "Surviving" has many dimensions such that they're both survivors even though their experiences are different. Only one of them is also critically injured, and that's the distinction. Imagine a car crash involving six people: two fatalities, two people in comas, one person with just a few scrapes, and one person completely unscathed. There are five casualties; there four survivors and two fatalities; three of the survivors are injured and one not; two of the survivors are critically injured and two not. "Survivor" is the correct term for those who lived through it, regardless of how it affected them. Calling the person who walked away unscathed a "survivor" doesn't cheapen the experience of those in comas because that's not what the word "survivor" does. If you want to draw other sorts of distinctions, there are other words for that. -- irn (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you've pretty much nailed the facts, but are still falsely equating them. In a car crash (or plane crash, sinking ship, burning building, falling elevator, poison cloud or collapsing roof), the immediate area of threat ("danger zone") is wide enough to potentially doom them all. Everyone in the car has roughly the same kinetic energy and proximity to the wreck. A bullet's danger zone is far narrower, and if you're elsewhere, you're not "in" a shooting. Hogg is more like a fellow motorist who heard the crash and witnessed the aftermath. Millions of people do that each week. A few years back, I stood close enough to smell a girl I knew's flesh burning after the drunk idiot driving her home happened to flip nearby. I'll probably remember it when I'm eighty, but wouldn't dare credit making it to that age with "surviving" that night, only continuing to live for many consecutive days (like you are right now).

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was closer to a bullet and its carnage than Hogg was, during a far more famous shooting with far more significant consequences for her. We don't call her a survivor, either. Nikolas Cruz was closer than Hogg was and saw every victim, during the same shooting with far more significant consequences for him. We don't call him a survivor, though mass shooters are far likelier to die in a random attack than any one innocent.

The only people we call survivors, besides survivors, are the Never Againers. And this is only because we're following the story from the "real" equivalent of Vince McMahon on WWF Superstars. We're likewise only wasting so much space defending him from cheater accusations because we're riled up by the counterpart of a pre-Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura Jesse Ventura. We should instead take a step back from the screen, and view the current feud in a wider and historical context (where's our Dave Meltzer?) before making the editorial judgment to follow the news editor's lead verbatim. We're not a mere online aggregator and shouldn't look like one. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

And I didn't say it cheapened Borges' experience, I said it cheapened the distinction for him. If he tells people he is (or is introduced as) a Parkland shooting survivor, he shouldn't have to clarify when people naturally assume "Oh, like the ones on the news." And the longer we perpetuate this lie, the more naturally people assume (though the damage is still mostly done by the news). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

We don't really care about your opinion on who is and who is not a "survivor" of a catastrophe. We follow the cited sources. ValarianB (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Except the source where he claims to be a witness, and denies being a crisis actor. Or all the ones about Rubio. Or this fist raising. Or the law his advocacy made. These prove we're capable of making our own decisions, based on our own opinions. If you personally don't care about mine, you're welcome to ignore me. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

If you want sources for my opinion that witnesses and survivors are distinct things, have a look at these. Or don't. Your choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Your awkward linking is not really relevant. The sources refer to the subject as a survivor of the attack, along with many others. You're trying to draw some weird distinction to make a point that isn't important. ValarianB (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources use the term "survivor", but describe his actions clearly in many other words. None of what they say he did resembles the actions of an actual shooting survivor, and all of what they say paints him as a witness (including "I go to Stoneman Douglas High School, and I was a witness to this.") You might not like my linking, but I don't like the way you cherrypick one ambiguous and plainly problematic word above all else. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

You seem to think that "survive" is only applicable when there's some sort of elevated risk of death and that Hogg's risk did not meet that threshold, but that's not what "survive" means. Whether "survivor" as a term cheapens anything else or plays into some "high-stakes national political feud" is irrelevant. The way we are using the word in this article is perfectly valid, in line with the definition of the word, and backed by reliable sources. -- irn (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I know it can mean the other thing (live after), but in this context, surrounded by other kind (live despite), it strongly suggests we mean he was the second sort. It's a much clearer word when used in a "last surviving Munchkin" way or similar, but here, it's practically begging to be confused. Like calling Jane Goodall a primate rather than primatologist; both are true, but surrounded by chimps, she'd seem like a chimp (and no similar bio does it). Here, surrounded by gushot victims, it implies Hogg survived gunshots rather than existing after being in the general location of a concurrent shooting event (and only Never Againer articles do it).

I could call Abraham Zapruder the man who shot Kennedy's limo, period, but he much more honestly "filmed" it. And Hogg is much more honestly a student and witness. That's why he said he was, and has never (to my knowledge) called himself a survivor. He's an honest kid. To trust a headline department's thesaurus over a subject's own word choice is sketchy enough when it's not needlessly introducing contentious material into a BLP, but staunchly defending and reinserting it because local consensus says it's sourced rather than poorly-sourced (ours contradict themselves) is technically "violation" of two rules.

And that "Persistant Corvid" should be the only one to curl up and compromise this bird-brained idea into something more encyclopedic is downright weird. I still like you other three, despite our differences, so don't take my advice about your editing behaviour as an attack or threat. I'm not a spiteful pointy sewer rat, more like a friendly annoying book mouse. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

He recently stated he was not there on a interview. He was a witness and bystander not survivor. Jaybay91 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I just wish there were a more fitting word than "Witness " or "Bystander." I could suggest a phrase like, "A student attending MSD high school, at the time of the shooting, that was made to retreat into a classroom closet" While accurate, it's a rather clunky, long winded, and unwieldy sentence. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Mention his denial?

I find it strange that we note various social media companies and Marco Rubio defending Hogg from the crisis actor claims, but omit his own flat denial of them, despite the latter being the main focus of the source we use to quote Rubio. Anybody else think we should give the article subject's side of the story? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

No. The article makes it very clear that the claim that he is a crisis actor is false and a conspiracy theory. Mentioning his denial is completely unnecessary, since it's obviously a completely fabricated claim.- MrX 🖋 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If they're so obviously false, why do we devote entire sections to them? As long as we do, to my eyes, it seems undue to not at least mention the other side of the story in three words ("which he denied"). As it's framed right now, it's far-right figures, conspiracy theorists, Twitter users, Trump supporters, Donald Trump Jr., a YouTube description writer, Infowars, Alex Jones, unpulled YouTube videos and Benjamin A. Kelley on one side with four paragraphs and Marco Rubio with half a paragraph (who doesn't even call the claims untrue, just calls the claimants idiotic and indecent).

Is it really more necessary to have the target of so many attacks only call Trump Jr. "immature, rude and inhumane" in response, rather than straightforwardly say "I'm not a crisis actor" and/or "I'm not acting on anybody's behalf"? Isn't it a bit reasonable to imagine something might be true when dozens of people are said to agree it is and the subject appears to entirely dodge the question? Because that's what someone coming into this article cold sees. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the reason the section is so long is because, when most of it was written it was being covered extensively in the news. Now that the dust has settled, it's pretty obvious that this material is not particularly important to understanding the subject of the article. In fact, you will see a couple of sections up, we are discussing trimming it further. By the way, there are not two side to the story. There is one story: someone assholes made up some hateful nonsense, and it briefly spread to a few far-right outlets. And they all lived happily ever after. The end. - MrX 🖋 23:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute that we're clear the claims are hateful, assoholic, abhorrent, vile, fiendish, devious, rude, shameful, silly, stupid, brutish, evil or the rest. It'd just be nice to have someone other than Wikipedia's voice saying something to the effect that they're untrue. In a simpler world, we'd ask the guy who actually knows what David Hogg does and does not do (David Hogg) and relay the answers he gave on national television. But this isn't a simpler world, and instead of reading it straight from the horse's mouth, we read it vaguely insinuated by the opinion of his staunchest political adversary (staunchest in Florida, anyway). I'll admit I may be missing something here, but it feels fucked-up. I'll try to stop thinking about it, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Also, adding Hogg's denial would give the lies the slightest air of legitimacy. It would set the stage for for the reader to ponder that the lies may have some shred of truth to them.- MrX 🖋 00:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly how I feel about not presenting an alternative and opposite idea. The slightest air of legitimacy and a shred of truth is preferable to unchallenged legitimacy and a repeating chorus of truth. Nothing better for shredding a big lie than plain old evidence and testimony to the contrary. At least among general audiences; some people with paranoid personality disorders will automatically distrust almost any authoritative statement of fact. We can't help them and shouldn't try. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.X. The act of denying something that's demonstrably false lends the false claim an air of legitimacy which it really doesn't deserve. It's like giving the Flat Earth people equal space on the article about our planet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You're just coming off a 48h block and back to pushing the material that led to that in the first place? ValarianB (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I was blocked (as best I can tell) for removing "falsely" from "claimed" and adding a CN tag (it seemed unsourced at the time), not adding a clearly well-sourced denial. I've now learned some editors feel denying a claim makes it seem true, which might seem like not calling it false, but I insist that's a minority viewpoint and most people trust kids who've witnessed a school shooting. In any case, I haven't touched the article regarding this, so calling it a "push" is a stretch. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

You who? I've not been blocked. (also please remember to indent your comments one level further when commenting)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

My indenting above matches yours. We were both replying to InedibleHulk. ValarianB (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mention Rubio?

In light of the above consensus that attacking a rumour makes it stronger, is there any reason to have Marco Rubio "come to Hogg's defense" and call the rumourmongers indecent idiots? To me, it seems like opportunism rather than camaraderie, especially considering he's explicitly refused to get out of the NRA's pocket, even when directly asked to by Never Again. It's like when Skeletor teams up with He-Man to deal with the Horde, except real strange bedfellows. He doesn't even mention Hogg, just "some of the students". Probably doesn't remember Hogg's name. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

Definfinitely not.- MrX 🖋 19:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Gilchrist, Gibson and Kelly

Are these relatively unknown people worth mentioning? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, March 19, 2018 (UTC)

Was Gibson in the news? Are there articles with Hogg's name in it and also Gibson's? Yes, so yes, then Gibson is worth mentioning here in Hogg's article. The newspeople are saying that because of Hogg's (and the others) advocacy, a candidate for Maine's state legislature blurted out something unfortunate, then withdrew from the race. This is notable. Go by the sources. Note that every time you delete a reliable and relevant reference, you will attract the attention of administrators wondering, hmmm, what is he doing?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally am of the opinion that just because a news article mentions somebody's name, it doesn't necessarily mean it is of sufficient notability to include on that person's BLP article. The mention of such politician's comments in this case is an example of an instance in which it is not notable, in my opinion. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this way, too. Goings-on in the Maine Legislature matter little to either of these Floridans, and life goes on as normal for them no matter who seizes a 1/151th of power in America's 47th-most interesting House. But to the guy who chose to say something unpopular rather than retain his obscure slice of the country, it's huge. Since neither he, his district nor its election have articles where this could seem to matter, I say it's best ignored. Unless his district is synonymous with the Regional School Unit 57; if so, this "skinhead lesbian" soundbyte might work there. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Gibson-Hogg spat, I think it deserves a few sentences (or one, if it shows the context). While Gibson was running for a seat in the Maine legislature, unopposed, the incident made national news. Gibson called Hogg a "bald faced liar" -- the Internet erupted -- news media finger-wagged -- a Democrat decided to run for that seat -- Gibson dropped out of the race. Thus, impact. Stuff happened. It's an important lesson for future candidates for office -- that outlandish claims can boomerang in what's left of the public sphere. As Wikipedian contributors, it's tempting for us to play editor -- to decide what's newsworthy and what isn't, to decide what goes into an article and what doesn't -- and we'll all be on firmer ground here if we leave such judgments up to the real news editors, and follow their lead.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't debate stuff happened. Just happened to Leslie Gibson and Eryn Gilchrist. The general idea of a politician putting his or her foot in their or its mouth is as old as time and attack ads themself; if Hogg pioneered or significantly innovated something here, I'm just not seeing it. But in the spirit of being a nice guy, I'll step down from my pulpit and let the ayes have it. What about Kelly? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

This brief material should remain in the article. It's noteworthy that these individuals attacked Hogg in the way they did and then suffered the consequences.- MrX 🖋 11:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Kelly stays. Gilchrist stays. Referenced. Relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Less relevant, I'd say. Hogg didn't call for his firing, and it didn't affect a district. Doesn't even seem to have affected his boss, Shawn Harrison, by the lack of mention there. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

We should all recognize the utter lack of principle politicians have. Goal #1, get reelected. Everything else is #2. This incident slapped principle to silence the rogue tongues of politicians all across the country. After what happened to Gibson, what other of the 150 members of the Maine legislature, how many members of the other 98 legislatures across the US, or the Congress or the Senate will now dare to speak disparagingly towards these high school students or even this issue. Lesson given. And it is a significant reversal of the flow of the debate in this hot button issue. Trackinfo (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. But Kelly wasn't a politician, nor was he elected or speaking publicly. His firing is purely an internal matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

Kelly worked for a politician. Either he was acting under the orders of the politician and was thrown under the bus, or his overzealousness to back the NRA/gun side to impress his boss got ahead of him. Either way, it is the result of a change in the political tide, caused by the challenge by these kids. His politician boss chickened out and fired him. Trackinfo (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have even a shred of evidence Harrison wanted or might have been impressed by this? I have mountains to suggest using the company ink to send unsolicited libel (or dick pics) has been getting low-level staff fired from many offices for longer than any of us have lived, for plain and dry reasons. And I have the sole page our page links quoting his boss: "I do not share his opinion and he did so without my knowledge." Is this part of that newfangled shit where denying something in no uncertain terms makes Wikipedians think it's very possibly true? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

Lets make this clear, it wasn't a dick pic. It wasn't a personal indiscretion. It was promoting a politically motivated conspiracy theory . . . the same kind of accusation that came up around the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, promoted on Infowars. I don't know Harrison from Adam, but he behaved exactly as any wishy washy politician behaves when the tide reverses. And he wouldn't knowingly have anybody who espouses these kinds of views on his staff if he didn't endorse this mindset to begin with. Trackinfo (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but why not blame Infowars or another source you do know promotes this stuff? Why shift it to a politician you don't? You can't say his tide reversed without knowing which way it was already flowing. It's not wishy-washy if one just keeps believing what one always did. And you can't say an employer knows what his employees will think about shootings that hadn't happened yet when he hired them. My boss doesn't even know what I think about the Kennedy assassination or 9/11, and he'll probably go to his grave not knowing. Opinions are personal business. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, adding to my comment) We really aren't discussing the motivation as much as the relevance to Hogg. It clearly is related to the attack on Hogg. Cause and effect. Trackinfo (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is the attack on Hogg, not just related. Kelly made it, Kelly paid for it and Hogg's life goes on as if Kelly never existed. At least he responded to the politicians, which affected his own story a bit. If some nobody got fired for bashing or praising some other public figure, would we mention that in the controversial figure's article? Maybe that's too hypothetical a question. Do we do that, anywhere but here? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

It is true, a wise man does not discuss his political views with his co-workers or boss. That involves shutting up. However, they were working in a political office. Politics is their business. At best, someone working in such an environment against their views would be a hypocrite. And they would have to be a pretty incredible liar to pull it off and not be noticed. Yes, spies and saboteurs do exist, but that is espousing a different conspiracy theory. Trackinfo (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A political aide's job is somewhat political, but mainly in an office politics way, not the kind for voters. If one does what he's told, he generally doesn't get fired. A smart politician with serious power would vet his closest advisors, but a mere Maine Representative might not delve near as deeply into the guy who puts up yard signs (or whatever Kelly did). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

So where is the argument that these people do not deserve to be mentioned in this article? Trackinfo (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Just above your "It is true..." paragraph. The subject matters to the obscure figure, but the obscure figure doesn't matter to the subject. I'm (begrudgingly) fine with "these people", just want Kelly (consequently Harrison and Corcoran) gone. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

Kelly should be in as per Trackinfo. It's relevant, referenced.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's as relevant as Souza and Johnson's firings are to Donald Trump, Lentz's is to Martin Luther King or Jackson's conviction is to Anwar al-Awlaki. (Nobodies from five paragraphs up, if you're confused.) I'll drop the stick, but you might consider adding them where they similarly fit, if it's important to leave such judgments to real news editors and follow their lead (fifteen paragraphs up). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Whaaaa...? Trackinfo (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Whaaaat seems to be the problem? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

On the word, "falsely," in the first paragraph.

In the first paragraph it has been stated that David Hogg has been accused of being a, "Crisis Actor." I agree that this claim is most likely false. However, before my edit, it was explicitly stated as false. I believe, wholeheartedly, that calling it false undermines the means of truth. We can never know the truth of the entire situation. However, we can make sure we live for pure truth. The current statement is, "He has been a target of several conspiracy theories and verbal attacks falsely claiming that he is a crisis actor." All I ask is that we remove the word, "falsely," because that sends the message that it is entirely known. I don't mean to stand for one side or the other; all I mean to do is ensure the article is written in a way that doesn't mislead. Just by using the word, "falsely," we send a message that the entire truth is known. Look at each sentence objectively. We can either say, "... verbal attacks FALSELY claiming he is a crisis actor," or we can say, "... verbal attacks claiming he is a crisis actor." I understand that the first sentence sends a stronger message. I understand that most people stand for that message. Yet I also understand that Wikipedia is a place for truth; not the place for opinions. Just by using the word, "falsely," we send an opinionated message. All I wish for is that we remove that one word because that one word changes the message entirely.

Thank you for your time, Aetherian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetherian (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not most likely false; it's false. We're not going to equivocate about basic facts. Also, please read the previous discussions about this so we don't have to repeat the same discussion.- MrX 🖋 02:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec>That's not the way we do it. When crazy, libellous claims about living individuals are widely circulated without a shred of evidence beyond malicious wishful thinking, we explicitly state the falsity of those conspiracy theories. This is a project-wide consensus, established since Sandy Hook and other incidents where people have been the subjects of smear campaigns. We don't grant credibility by omission. There are ample sources to back up the falsity of the assertions: they aren't opinions as you claim. We may not leave this up for doubt, and the "we may never know the truth of the entire situation" is factually false in this case. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Earth is an oblate spheroid, Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, and David Hogg is not a crisis actor. These are facts, and we do not traffic in "alternative facts" here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd normally agree, but have learned true and false have different meanings at this particular article. Best to just do what they tell you and think about something else. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

True and false have the same meaning as always, but Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't spread false information about living people. Slathering this garbage in a coating of false balance blather about "one side or the other" or weird silliness like "living for pure truth" doesn't make it even the tiniest bit acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course it spreads false information about living people. A large portion of this very article is spreading it behind you right now. Multiple cited sources agree David Hogg, who truly is a minor who witnessed a real shooting, is in fact a paid crisis actor or wasn't there at all. This is absolutely fine to host here, per consensus. It's even fine to admit it's false, and not fine to not say it is.

It's when one slathers the blather about the one person who knows David Hogg better than anyone going on cable television to say he witnessed a real shooting, as covered in multiple reputable reliable sources, that one gets blocked for two days for violating a living person's biography (it was initially a week). Don't make the same mistake I did, Aetherian! Maybe deleting the stuff we insist is false is the way to not spread false information. In the real world, it works. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

I've tried wiping the entire idea clean, lies, denial, suggestion and all. In theory, it should suit everyone concerned with truth. In theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much attention paid to the bullshit conspiracy theories, but I do think we need one clear straight rejection of them, so I have reinserted one brief mention of fact that the claims are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I like how your readdition of falsehoods was short, but this isn't a clear straight rejection. It's Wikipedia's voice presenting Nicole Chavez' opinion on their falsity as fact. One clair straight rejection instead should be attributed in the text to particular sources, as some repeatedly disallowed. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions about trimming this material, but deleting it entirely would seriously violate WP:WEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean. In the real Wikipedia, deleting it entirely would seriously satisfy that section and your decision would make it cry. "{A}rticles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". " In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it." Every time I try adding the well-sourced majority view (Hogg is not a crisis actor and witnessed a real shooting), it gets deleted entirely.

By giving the minority view more detail, larger chunks of text and far more citations, while consistently deleting even three words of denial, you're doing the complete opposite of what the policy says, what the majority believes true and what you yourself seem to have advised (citing the same policy) 23 days ago. I tried rewriting it for neutrality, now I try to "remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

If you pass out drunk and someone shaves a dick and "I'm a stupid baby" into your hair, do you ask the barber to trim one into a smiley face and insert a "not" in the other? Or do you just cut it all off and never trust those friends again? Same should apply to merely trimming harmful lies in BLPs. Absolutely ass-backwards and counterproductive to teaching readers the truth about subjects. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Quote

Here is what I posted. Speaking at the March for Our Lives rally, Hogg said:

“It’s time for our congressmen, time for our state legislators and time for American political leaders around the country to stop and listen to us,”

I think this statement, saying to the political leaders "you WILL listen" gels down the essence of what these kids are doing. It was reverted. When I restored the content, I commented that "these kids have an ego." My commentary or opinion is not the question. It is whether this quote is important. It is the first full sentence quote used by the Miami Herald in its reporting of the March for Our Lives, obviously sourced by a major newspaper, reposted by other news amalgamation sites. Trackinfo (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your commentary and opinion is absolutely in question. Edit summaries are not an appropriate place for you to express any opinion about the subject of this article. We aren't here to share our personal opinions, but since you have done so, your personal belief that "these kids have an ego" suggests that you're inserting the quote to make an opinionated point about this article's subject rather than doing so to improve the encyclopedia. The quote may well have a place in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the lede, and it certainly doesn't belong with an opinionated edit summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The quote is fine and belongs in the article. This article is about an activist -- a person seeking change -- and this quote goes to the heart of what Hogg is trying to change -- to get politicians to take the young people seriously. Trackinfo's edit summary is no big woof.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Now: At the conclusion of his speech at the March for Our Lives rally, Hogg raised his fist, an act which some right wing websites compared to a Nazi salute by Hitler. Snopes.com addressed the accusation, confirming it was a raised fist, a traditional act of defiance. has been redacted. The revert this time said These are not reliable sources, especially for a WP:BLP. Daily Mail not reliable? Vice News not reliable? The sourcing on snopes.com showed exactly what was being said about them in the article. Same goes for the notably biased sources of breitbart.com and conservativefiringline.com, showing them DOING what was reported about them. Every (sourced) mention of his participation in the March for Our Lives rally has been reverted. This constant reverting seems like an attempt at expunging Hogg's continued coverage in the media. Trackinfo (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Our WP:BLP policy is very strict. Yes, the Daily Mail is not reliable - I guess you missed the fuss when we decided that.[3] The others look worse. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't line up fringe conspiracies in an article just for the sake of knocking them down, unless the conspiracy itself is actually what is notable, e.g. Pizzagate or the nuttiness surrounding Seth Rich's death. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well said.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth

He was born on redacted for privacy purposes. (PatLaffan (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC))

• Note As he is, for a few more days, a minor, redacting this information. No source is provided in any event and full birth date is not appropriate for this particular individual. Safiel (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding his correct date of birth to his article would help end the conspiracy theories about him supposedly being a "crisis actor". (PatLaffan (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC))

Regardless, Wikipedia policies limit the amount of personal information regarding minor children that can be in articles. At the very minimum, there can be no exact birth date until he turns 18. Safiel (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

So why is it OK to show Matty BRap's date of birth? (PatLaffan (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC))

The fact that a policy is violated in one article does not justify doing the same in another. The date, if it is appropriate at all, must wait until he turns 18. Additionally, you need to provide a reliable source to go along with that date. Safiel (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hogg's voter registration online gives his date of birth. (PatLaffan (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC))

How is he registered to vote if he's not 18? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Preregistered, according to the link supplied somewhere around here. According to the Florida DoE, you can do that at age 16. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the point of minors not sharing their hometown and birthdate online to prevent pedos from figuring out their real names? If so, it's a useless measure here; named right in the title, next to his photograph and in the headlines of dozens of mainstream articles. If there's something else to it, explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

There are a wide range of minors well under 18 with exact DOBs provided on their infobox. Looking at select members of the cast of Stranger Things alone for example - Gaten Matarazzo Noah Schnapp... --HunterM267 ^talk 03:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

But they have sources, I understand that much. Googling the forbidden date of mystery alongside Hogg's name just finds GodLikeProductions. Sometimes a fun forum to browse, but about as reliable as an average Italian housecat. We can't use public records alone, they're too primary. If no decent secondary coverage exists, it's simply a non-notable fact, by Wikipedia standards. No reason to redact it from a talk page, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

For sources we shouldn't use, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. A lot of our BLPs carry full birthdates against our BLP privacy policy, see WP:BLPPRIVACY. Doug Weller talk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Are they 18 when they graduate? (I'm not from the USA).(Redacted) DerElektriker (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I was 16. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In general, I'd say it's not fair to conclusively determine age on academic graduation alone, as US school is not necessarily determined on age so much as grade level, which can vary. Furthermore, especially given this specific person, I think a published DOB by various reputable sources would be necessary to include it in the article. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is possible to graduate early, for example Leif Garrett graduated from high school when he was 15. However Hogg has not graduated, the story about him graduating in 2015 is just another conspiracy theory. His exact date of birth should be added to the article as it will help end the theories promoted by the far right about him being a "crisis actor" in his mid-twenties. (PatLaffan (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC))

All we need to do then is list his age at the time of the shooting, as reported by news sources. We don't need his date of birth and we can't include it unless directly stated by a reliable sources. We can't use original research.- MrX 🖋 23:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

{Actual text} {David Miles Hogg (born c. 2000) is an American student who survived the massacre of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on February 14, 2018}

{Requested change} {David Miles Hogg (born c. 2000) is an American student(Redacted)} P220Stainless (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not adding fake news to article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Age

Is there any way to confirm his age? It would enable us to remove the "crisis actor" controversy from the lede. (PatLaffan (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

[4] Unless he preplanned this in September 2016 and committed felony voter registration fraud, he is currently 17 and registered to vote in Parkland, Broward County (noted, he is allowed to vote only after he turns 18, which will include the upcoming election). Trackinfo (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

How does it pertain to the crisis actor thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Various far right sources are claiming he is actually about 25 or 26. If we could prove he is 17 on this site that would help end the conspiracy theories. (PatLaffan (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Thanks. Kooks have never let facts get in the way of a good story, though, and I think they'd just call him a 17-year-old actor instead. Couldn't hurt to try, I suppose, but I can't find a reliable source. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

This is a bias article:

This unfortunately is a bias posting that brings shame to WikiPedia. It contains this sentence:

"Hogg has also been a target of several conspiracy theories and verbal attacks falsely claiming that he is a crisis actor."

Unless the writer of this article can prove that all claims of conspiracy against this person are false this is an opinion. Opinion has no place on something that bills itself as an 'Encylopedia' only facts do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.129.169 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The far right conspiracy theories have already been debunked. (PatLaffan (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Conspiracy theories

As the far right conspiracy theories about Hogg have been debunked they should not be included in the lede of his article. (PatLaffan (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Aye. No real point in the body, either. You don't see Richard Gere's article talking about gerbils. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

When we're falsely accusing a living minor of throwing fighting words at the President's son, yet nobody notices it hiding in plain sight for weeks among the other crap, we have a deeply-troubled section that's better burned than mismanaged. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

• No no no--this is still all over the place. It's a very salient fact. Snopes and FactCheck have reported on it, as have basically all the reliable sources in the US. This one single sentence deserves in the lead. Try Google News: the supposed Hitler salute is on the first page. Given the number of lies and the amount of inane repetition of these lies, this needs to stay. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. There is no good reason to remove the conspiracy theories there are plethora of reliable sources that demonstrate notability. The problem here is everyone is so focused on the conspiracies that the rest of Hogg's story is neglected. Therefore an undue weight is placed on this section, as the most edited section which grows larger. The best way to help achieve a neutral point of view is concentrate on everything else. Did anyone, for example, notice that this page makes no mention of March for Our Lives? DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Make sure the section is verifiable and reserve your efforts and time to working on the rest.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, although Hogg himself should personally confirm his date of birth to finally end the "controversy". The Death of Adolf Hitler article for example does not mention conspiracy theories about the defeated leader allegedly escaping to South America on a U-Boat, despite this theory being all over the Internet. (PatLaffan (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC))

Lede

The "crisis actor" conspiracy has been debunked and should be removed from the lede. Hogg's online voting registration shows he was 16 in 2016. (PatLaffan (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC))