Talk:James A. Lindsay

Academic label

Having a math degree does not make someone a mathematician. Just because Vox called him a mathematician doesn't make him that. He has no relevant publications in mathematics. He shouldn't have mathematician in his top line bio any more than KSM should be labeled as a prominent engineer. Lesabot (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

When in doubt, we go by the what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources call Lindsay a mathematician. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article specifically calling Adolf Hitler a painter: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46991969 Shall I add that to his top line bio or would that be silly because it is not what he was known for? Lesabot (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That article doesn't describe him being a painter as central at all, it doesn't say "painter Adolf Hitler" or something, it says the exact opposite in fact: The watercolours were created in the early 20th Century while Hitler, later guilty of some of the worst crimes in history, worked as a painter in Munich – that being, you know, Hitler, was more important than some paintings he happened to have done.

Regarding Lindsay, the label is very well sourced, e.g: [1] mathematician James Lindsay, [2] James A. Lindsay, a mathematician, [3] Mathematician James Lindsay, [4] mathematician James Lindsay, [5] Author and mathematician James Lindsey, [6] mathematician James Lindsay, etc. Your original research about how Lindsay doesn't qualify as a "mathematician" is irrelevant, Wikipedia follows what is published in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you think sources are wrong, we are interested in verifiability, not "truth". ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not independent research. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=James+a+Lindsay&btnG=&oq=jam There is a perfectly good Scholar search showing that he hasn't published a math paper. He is not a mathematician. I have a tweet from a verified twitter account with 75k followers calling him a "weirdo". Would that be enough provenance to ad "weirdo" to his list? Lesabot (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Twitter accounts are not reliable sources just because 75k people follow them. It is also original research to say that mathematicians are people who show up in that google scholar search. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So verified twitter accounts aren't good enough, but a Vox article is. Ok. Also Mathematician says that they have to use math in their work. Shall I add to that page that being a mathematician can also be because you were called that in Vox? Lesabot (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Vox is considered a reliable source. A verified Twitter account would probably not be considered a reliable source for opinions of others, and it certainly wouldn't trump neutral designations in multiple reliable third-party sources like Vox. No, you should not make that edit to the Mathematician article, because it's not notable and relevant to that subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty relevant that being called a Mathematician in Vox is sufficient to get one labeled a Mathematician. It certainly would have helped me out. I mean, I thought that you actually had to do math as part of your work (per the entry). But, if that isn't the case then people should probably know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesabot (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

But is that fact—one about Wikipedia's own internal standards for sourcing—sufficiently notable for inclusion in the mathematician article? Can you find a source outside of Vox that discusses this fact about Vox and Wikipedia? The same logic would apply to biologist and a myriad of other articles about human occupations/endeavors/areas of specialty. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The way sources describe Lindsay determines how our article describes Lindsay. This isn't that complicated. Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I think that people looking for mathematicians should actually find people who do math. Signed, a mathematician who actually does math Here, since a tweet from his account was good enough to cite (citation 2), here is another tweet from his account in which he states that he is a "dumbass" https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1379129802976858128 Can I add that to his list? Lesabot (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the lead should read: "James Stephen Lindsay (born June 8, 1979), known professionally as James A. Lindsay, is an American mathematician, author, cultural critic, and self-professed dumbass." Lol. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the reliable sources say Lindsay is a mathemetician. As as outsider looking at this Talk page, it appears that there may be editors in this discussion that are trying to influence how the guy is described in this article because they don't like some aspect of his views. Wikipedia doesn't, or shouldn't, do that. Wikipedia can say that the person is whatever they are, and also explicate their notable/controversial/well-sourced views, just as long as not WP:UNDUE and keeping a neutral point of view. N2e (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My issue is that I think things should both be verifiable AND true (as well as useful) if possible. Just because someone is described as something in a publication doesn't mean that they need that in their bio. Just like I said above, describing Hitler as "a painter" before anything else would be absurd, but even that isn't as absurd as calling Lindsey a mathematician. Or, is the going convention that we should shove every possible descriptor into a person's bio? If that is the case then game on. Lesabot (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lindsay earned a Phd in Mathematics. According to Oxford dictionary and Merriam webster which are both considered secondary sources in wikipedia a mathematician is either "a person who is an expert in mathematics" (Oxford) or "a specialist or expert in mathematics" (Merriam Webster). Thus there is no arguing whether he is a mathematician. However because he is mainly an author and culture critic and not working in the fields of mathematics one could think about re-arranging the introduction text to author, culture critic and mathematician or similar variants...Mikeschaerer (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

People, get real. Regardless of what one may think of Lindsay's politics or his various activities, he is *not* what mathematicians would ever call a mathematician. Having a PhD does not make one a mathematician; one needs to get some original work done afterwards. What Wikipedia policy indicates we should call him is another issue - but hinting (or rather baldly stating) that "editors in this discussion that are trying to influence how the guy is described in this article [do so] because they don't like some aspect of his views" is both factually wrong and non-constructive.

Two (or rather three) cents: (a) stating that he has a PhD in mathematics is, of course, objective - and I do not see who would object to that sort of statement in the appropriate place of the article; (b) having a PhD in mathematics does not make one a specialist or an expert - it is the beginning of a road in that direction; (c) a periodical may be a reliable source on some subjects yet clearly not on the subject of professional qualifications (especially those with fuzzy edges). Garald (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we can resolve this conflict by using the past tense to describe Lindsay's mathematical endeavors. He certainly has practiced mathematics and has obtained advanced degrees in the subject, but I have been unable to find any evidence that he has done so in the past decade. Stellaathena (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It was in a somewhat off-the-cuff statement but in a recent video Lindsay referred to himself as a "former mathematician." [7] Vox, "reliable sources," etc. are likely to be wrong or at least imprecise about any number of things. Persons unfamiliar with academic professions often apply these labels liberally. Persons familiar with academic professions probably would colloquially call him a mathematician in the sense that this is his area of training or expertise, but probably would not call him a mathematician in the professional sense of continued practice and/or achievement in the area. Stellaathena's suggestion to just talk around it probably makes sense. Few Ingredients (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Lindsay does not fit Wikipedia's own definition of a Mathematician. After his PhD he opened a massage studio before becoming an author on grievance studies.

Source: https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html

https://religionnews.com/2021/05/18/james-lindsay-southern-baptists-crt-al-mohler-hoax-new-discourses-beth-moorerace-ofallon/ 47.152.241.22 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Massage and Twisted Roots

Are the reports that he was offered massage and martial arts services legit? I wonder if there are reputable sources on that? -Reagle (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a different guy with the same name. Masterhatch (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? The linked article quotes the subject as mentioning his mathematics doctorate in enumerative combinatorics. Lindsay has talked about his experience with martial arts also. Seems like that was his business. Few Ingredients (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that is him -

https://religionnews.com/2021/05/18/james-lindsay-southern-baptists-crt-al-mohler-hoax-new-discourses-beth-moorerace-ofallon/ 47.152.241.22 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Association with Nicki Clyne

Regarding James Lindsay's public association with controversial figure Nicki Clyne, I decided that this information was important to include. I added Lindsay's association with Clyne and explained why Clyne is a controversial figure, given Clyne's affiliation with NXIVM. The statement I added reads:

Lindsay is friends with Nicki Clyne who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering.

However, this supported factual claim has been repeatedly misinterpreted and removed. Such information regarding associations with controversial figures is relevant and worthwhile including, particularly in the case of James Lindsay who himself is a controversial figure. I am presenting an entirely supported factual claim with evidence: James Lindsay is acquainted and on friendly terms with Clyne. The provided source is entirely adequate for this claim. Despite misinterpretations, I am not claiming Lindsay is directly affiliated with NXIVM. I am happy to edit the claim for those who find the current presentation misleading or feel it easy to misinterpret. The following presentation provides a clearer presentation of the relevant evidence:

Lindsay is friends with Nicki Clyne, who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering.

For those who still disagree with this presentation, please state how you would like this information to be presented such that it satisfies Wikipedia's recommended editorial guidelines. --MWKwiki (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

MWKwiki, are there reliable, third-party sources that discuss the association between Lindsay and Clyne? If not, this isn't notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You need a better source than simply a picture of them together to show a friendship. Besides that, without Lindsay actually being involved with NXIVM, I don't see the relavancy of mentioning an association with Clyne. Come up with a better reference that also shows why it's relevant. Masterhatch (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your constructive criticism. In response to your feedback, I propose moving this to James A. Lindsay § Views and starting a new paragraph from the existing sentence. The new paragraph would read:

Lindsay opposes critical race theory and queer theory, describing them as part of "Woke Marxism", and argues that comprehensive sex education is part of "Cultural Marxism", referring to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory. Lately, Lindsay has perpetuated the anti-LGBT "groomer" conspiracy, which has recently gained popularity and spread over social media as a result of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill. While Lindsay is vocally critical of "groomers" and sexual "grooming" in education, supposedly referring to sexual predators, he is also acquainted and friends with Nicki Clyne, who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering. Clyne's partner Allison Mack was second-in-command of the secret subgroup within NXIVM called "DOS", known for its sexual slavery and branding.

Regarding Jweiss11 and Masterhatch's criticism of the source used to establish their friendship, I have replaced the primary source with a secondary source from a third-party and which properly illustrates said friendship. However, it would arguably be better to directly cite the tweets in this instance rather than referring to a secondary source, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Regarding Masterhatch's criticism that it is not obviously relevant, I would say that someone being friends with a member of a cult known for sex trafficking and racketeering is already in itself worth mentioning. Most people are not friends with members of sex cults. However, I do understand your criticism and there is indeed a greater context missing in the previous draft. I have prefaced it with Lindsay's vocally critical views regarding "groomers" and sexual predators, which makes it more obvious why Lindsay's acquaintance and friendship with Clyne is relevant. --MWKwiki (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

MWKwiki, you're not going to establish the notability and relevance of Lindsay's relationship with Clyne with tweets, particularly from non-notable, unverified accounts. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to present the tweets from Lindsay, Clyne and others as a primary source to support this claim. The notability and relevance of their relationship has already been established by the provided context. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the Twitter source is sufficient to establish that Lindsay and Clyne are acquainted and have a friendship; a NYT article or equivalent is unnecessary. You are setting disproportionally and unnecessarily high standards on the evidence required to establish their acquaintance and friendship. MWKwiki (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with some of the pushback to this proposal. Him being seen tweeting with a person or in a photo is not worthy of wikipedia. Please keep wiki straightforwardly unpolitic, non-defamatory, and avoid guilt by association innuendos. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I question whether @MWKwiki's proposal has been taken down in good faith. James Lindsay's principal "claim to fame" is his popularization of the pejorative term "groomer." Thus, his association with known groomers provides relevant context for a reader seeking to understand the depth and sincerity (or lack thereof) of his anti-groomer activism. 2600:4041:78E4:7B00:68C1:31E0:22E:7C (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe any proposal of MWKwiki's has been "taken down". The problem here remains is that we have no reliable sources here talking about Lindsay's relationship with Nicki Clyne. Tweets like https://twitter.com/mattbinder/status/1534237823343251458?lang=en don't establish a notable relationship, much less the editorializing in this edit. Lindsay and Clyne were on the same panel, along with Destiny (streamer) and others, at a conference in Texas earlier this year, see: https://betterdiscourseevent.com/schedule, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMvRx6tKVmM. This does not appear to be notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I thank the anonymous editor for bringing this topic up again. Unfortunately, I have given up pursuing this because it has run into the usual problem with Wikipedia, which is the abuse of Wikipedia's guidelines to establish and maintain one's own editorial authority. In this discussion, rather than recognising the essentially contested nature of journalistic concepts like evidence and sources (and in particular the notions of "reliability" and "objectivity"), it has become a matter of whether the evidence I present is from a "reliable source", rather than judging the quality of the evidence in itself.

In this case, while the evidence I have provided is sufficient to establish Lindsay's affiliations with, e.g. Nicki Clyne and NXIVM, it still does not meet the other editors' standards for "reliability" since it includes primary sources (both from Twitter and other sites) and secondary sources from, e.g. Salon (which they also dispute as "unreliable"). Because the New York Times, or an equivalent authority, will never write up a profile for a small figure like Lindsay, there will never be a citable source investigating Lindsay's own connections with "groomers". The editors maintaining Lindsay's Wikipedia page, who regularly add useful information and who make sure to preserve the dignity of Lindsay's character, clearly have no conflict of interest when it comes to the evidence I have presented here. MWKwiki (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

MWKwiki, your last comment here as has no relationship to an honoring of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability. Should we add mention of Nicki Clyne to Destiny (streamer)? The Salon article you presented, which is cited in the article, does not discuss Nicki Clyne. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm admittedly new to attempting any Wikipedia edits, but your conception of "notability" does not appear to be consistent with the page you linked to. Wikipedia:Notability speaks to the standard that a topic must be held to in order to justify the creation of a stand-alone article. No one is suggesting the Clyne-Lindsay relationship warrants its own article.

Rather, Wikipedia:Notability states that "[t]he criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles."

I'll concede that Wikipedia:Reliable sources does exclude primary sources and user-generated content like Twitter, so per those standards even the original tweet from Nicki Clyne would be insufficiently "reliable". I suppose we will have to wait for that story to be picked up.

Lastly, I will point out that Destiny's page does make reference to his appearances alongside various controversial figures such as Nick Fuentes. I don't believe Destiny's appearance alongside Clyne necessarily warrants inclusion because I don't think it's particularly relevant to his biography.

Granted (and to my surprise), no journalist has written about the Lindsay-Clyne relationship either, but in the event that one does, the situation would obviously be distinct from Destiny given that "grooming" is a large part of Lindsay's brand nowadays. 2600:4041:78E4:7B00:68C1:31E0:22E:7C (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD though. I note again the disputed nature of Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, which as I mentioned in my last comment, are used largely rhetorically, and referenced as a means to establish and maintain one's own editorial authority. I also played this game when I cited this guideline myself.

I make this point because, by Jweiss11's logic, even if Lindsay were to explicitly say, 'I am friends with Nicki Clyne', it would not be citeable until a "reliable" secondary source were to write an article mentioning it, which is a ridiculous standard to hold to. Jweiss11 has repeatedly downplayed the relationship between Lindsay and Clyne as a passing acquaintance, despite the evidence to the contrary, which shows Lindsay's happy affiliation and friendly relationship with Clyne (e.g. going on the road trip to the panel together, their friendly multi-year correspondence over Twitter, etc.). Jweiss11 has been repeatedly obtuse in understanding the relevance Lindsay's affiliation with Clyne has to the page, which 2600:4041:78E4:7B00:68C1:31E0:22E:7C has yet again pointed out.

At the risk of getting off topic, an example of the contested nature of sources (even those "reliable") would be Jweiss11's abuse of a Vox article to present Lindsay as a mathematician (which is still up despite being rightly contested by Lesabot). Lindsay does not have any published articles in mathematics, let alone hold a faculty position. By this logic, anyone with a PhD in mathematics is a mathematician, which is obviously wrong. Just because the cited Vox article mistakenly claims that Lindsay is a mathematician does not make it true. MWKwiki (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Self-published sources are typically acceptable for establishing basic, non-controversial facts, like a date of birth. If Lindsay were to publicly announce that he was engaged or married to Nicki Clyne, that would probably be worth referencing, although corroboration with a third-party sources is always better. But friends? Are we going to list all of Lindsay's friends here with an editorial interpretation of what each friendship says about his work? If anyone here wants to write a personal essay about how James Lindsay is a hypocrite for associating with Clyne, go ahead. Do it on a blog or on social media. But this isn't the place for that. Also, note that the Vox article is hardly the only independent source to refer to Lindsay as a mathematician ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Jweiss11 (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The strawmanning is really infuriating. I do not want to list all of Lindsay's friends. No one wants an editorial discussion of Lindsay's friendships. There is no slippery slope here. I want to mention Lindsay's affiliation with Clyne. I have no interest in writing a personal essay. My intention was/is to add the pertinent information that Lindsay, a public figure who calls everyone who disagrees with him a "groomer", is happy to affiliate with Clyne, a member of a sex-trafficking cult. You keep claiming this is not relevant for Wikipedia because incredibly, "this isn't the place for that". You do not get to unanimously decide what is and is not relevant information here. Why do you think you get to unanimously decide this?

I do not care how many news articles you find calling Lindsay a mathematician. Look up Google Scholar. Find me a mathematics publication by Lindsay. Point to a preprint. There are none. Calling Lindsay a mathematician grants him false authority. All sources claiming such are simply wrong, end of story. He is not a mathematician -- he has only completed a PhD in mathematics. MWKwiki (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Now that Lindsay's relationship with Clyne and the ensuing online fallout has been picked up by reliable third-party sources (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/james-lindsay-photo-nicki-clyne-nxivm-sex-cult-groomers/), it's inclusion in this article appears to be appropriate, in order to give a neutral point of view on Lindsay's anti-"groomer" activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.174 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A simple resolution in the end, it seems. MWKwiki (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, now we have a third-party source, so this is a new development. We actually have a debate now. As for Daily Dot, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states "There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I stumbled into this while patrolling recent changes. Seems to me that this relationship should be filed under WP:UNDUE until a source more reliable than Daily Dot picks it up.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dot is "considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact." What is contentious about the claim that "he has attempted to suppress online discussion of his relationship with Nicki Clyne, who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering."? Is it contended that they fabricated Lindsay's tweets where he asks his followers to report the picture? Or is it contended that NXIVM and Clyne are being unfairly characterized? The former hardly seems plausible, but the latter is no minority viewpoint - NXIVM's page here itself confirms that. Rather than engaging in an edit war (impossible since the page is now locked anyway), I am curious to hear arguments as to how referencing the Daily Dot article somehow gives undue weight. 2603:7000:8D00:1E55:8D76:7725:F1AE:BF73 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've scanned at what's going on on twitter. Lindsay isn't trying to suppress the fact that he knows Clyne. It's indeed a fact that they were co-panelists at an event on April 23, 2022, in Fort Worth Texas, called "Better Discourse Conference IV", and socialized with one another in around the event. What Lindsay appears to have objected to is mass spamming of the pictures with him and Clyne by activist and troll accounts. In the last few days it seems that any time he tweets anything about any subject, there's a barrage of tweets in response reposting the pictures. The Daily Dot doesn't seem to have done any real investigating—even less than I have here. They failed to provide any context about the pictures—when and where were they taken and under what circumstances. The Daily Dot article is basically just a journalistic extension of what various twitter activists have been trying to accomplish—to paint Lindsay as a hypocrite in order to undermine his activism. And now we see this Twitter activism leaking over here, before and after the publication of the Daily Dot piece. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed edit did not claim Lindsay was trying to suppress "the fact that he knows Clyne". Instead, as you apparently concede (and the Daily Dot article states), Lindsay is trying to suppress online discussion of their relationship, insofar as he is seeking to supress the spread of those particular photos, which has occurred on both the political left and the right (e.g., @AnOpenSecret, featured in the Daily Dot article itself). I'm unaware of any reliable sources indicating that the spread of the photos is the result of any disingenuous coordinated activism or trolling (see Wikipedia:No original research). Characterizing the discussion as "mass spamming" thus appears to be contra Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Perhaps the edit can be further rewritten to make mention of the panel, as that context can also be verified via reliable source, if you think that would add balance. However, if it is simply your opinion that Lindsay is justified in such attempts at suppression, then as you suggested earlier in this thread, that would make for a great blog post, but it does not justify censoring his Wikipedia page. 2603:7000:8D00:1E55:8D76:7725:F1AE:BF73 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Lindsay is justified in calling for reporting, but he's not doing so to suppress info. Rather's he annoyed by a massive, coordinated spam campaign of scores of different accounts repeatedly posting the same photo over and over again. I'm also unaware of an any reliable sources indicating that the spread of the photos is the result of any disingenuous coordinated activism or trolling. That's my summation of what's going on (in this non-notable event), so it clearly doesn't belong in the article. Similarly, I'm unaware of any quality reporting on this entire episode, thus I don't think it should be included in the article. I would have preferred not to have had to discuss any of this on a Wikipedia talk page—I'm not the one who took content better suited for a personal blog post and put it in Wikipedia's mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree. Lindsay's affiliation with Clyne is (as this point) nothing more than socializing at an event. There is nothing notable about their friendship. Kameejl ^(Talk) 06:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, if this info is included in the page, I think we should avoid using the phrase "his relationship with Nicki Clyne" (per one previous version). My impression is that the word "relationship" could be misleading to casual readers as it could imply that they are dating which, as far as I can tell, is not the case. They did meet in person at least once and seemed to have a (very) friendly interaction. Until we know more, we should not suggest anything else. Psychloppos (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

To foster the integrity of this discussion, I want to point out once more that "notability" is not the standard for whether a particular fact warrants inclusion in an article on a larger topic (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). I have nothing more to add as neither reply engages with the substance of my earlier post. 2603:7000:8D00:1E55:852E:63FB:66AB:B042 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I had a look at his Twitter account where this drama is apparently taking place. At first, he laughed at it and did not seem embarrassed at all (though he did not bother to explain why he was taking it so lightly), only to show signs of annoyance when the picture kept showing up multiple times in his Twitter feed.

If this is mentioned in this page, I'd say it should read a bit like "On [insert date here], Lindsay spoke at [insert name of event here] where he was a co-panelist with Nicki Clyne. In 2022, in the context of Lindsay's comments about "groomers", a photograph of Lindsay posing with Clyne was used to troll Lindsay on social media, by referencing Clyne's connexion to the NXIVM sexual abuse case".

I'm not sure that this is very notable or interesting, but if we do mention it I think it should be in this manner so we can keep it neutral. Psychloppos (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"referring to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory"

On April 20, NorthBySouthBaranof added the phrase "referring to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" to the end of the Views section following mention of "Cultural Marxism". On April 24, YechezkelZilber reverted this edit noting "editorialism". NorthBySouthBaranof reverted YechezkelZilber a few hours later to restore the content. A short while ago, I removed this phrase a second time, again noting editorialism. Soon after, MWKwiki reverted my edit with edit summary "you are now unilaterally removing previous changes by NorthBySouthBaranof without any discussion. These views are well known to be a conspiracy theory so there is nothing "neutral" about this change. Please bring NorthBySouthBaranof into the discussion on the talk page."

WP:BRD informs us that this removal of the recently added content, having been challenged, should be upheld pending discussion. The onus is really on those supporting the newly-added content to open the discussion, but I'm happy to do so now.

As for the substance of the matter here, the relevant source is https://www.salon.com/2022/02/17/meet-james-lindsay-the-far-rights-world-level-expert-on-crt-and-race-marxism/. This is a biased, opinion/hit-piece typical of Salon.com. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources notes: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." This piece should not be used to impugn a BLP as an anti-Semite in wikivoice. Furthermore, there ought to be ways to discuss cultural application of Marxism or those discussing the cultural application of Marxism without devolving into the label of "antisemitic conspiracy theory". Jweiss11 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

agreed. Lindsay has discussed Marxism and it's offshoots at length, with references etc. right or wrong, it is far from what we usually call conspiracy

ofc, isn't Salon etc with no RS is unacceptable. esp in BLP Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well done removing this. This line does not belong on Wikipedia. Manchester18 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

So long as there is no reference in this article to the discredited "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, we need not explain what the conspiracy theory is. We cannot, of course, quote someone alleging that something is part of so-called "Cultural Marxism" without being crystal-clear that it is a conspiracy theory. One is not entitled to their own facts, and it is an impeccably-sourced fact that so-called "Cultural Marxism" is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. That has been settled by repeated RFCs and this article is not the place you get to try and relitigate that conclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The subject freely uses the term "cultural marxism". He has an entire podcast episode titled "Groomer Schools 1: The Long Cultural Marxist History of Sex Education" and the Salon article gives context specifically on how the he uses the term, how his use has evolved, and how it relates to the anti-semitic conspiracy theory. WP:RSP does not say Salon can't be used, but rather: "[the source] is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context." Given the detail the author provides, to characterize the article as a hit-piece is wrong -- the researcher he cites (for what it's worth) has been published for similar topics in the Washington Post, so this isn't just an opinion piece based off of some tweets. Removing all reference to the subject's use of the term is wrong. Citing (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well this WAPO piece never mentions Lindsay. It's also unclear that Lindsay's use of term "cultural marxism" is the same concept described in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Is there any coverage of Lindsay talking about Jews? Does he ever mention Jews in that newdiscourses.com piece? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My point is the Salon piece cites a researcher with knowledge of the topic (the WaPo article helps establish some credibility of Hoadley-Brill, the researcher in question) and goes into the antisemitic aspect in detail:

While Lindsay used to acknowledge on his website that "Cultural Marxism," a term embraced a few years ago by the alt-right, was associated with antisemitism and white supremacy, and warned people against using it, nowadays such caution has been thrown to the wind. In Lindsay's new book, Hoadley-Brill notes, he argues that "neo-Marxists" have successfully redefined Cultural Marxism to smear it by association with antisemitism. Last fall, Lindsay published an episode of his podcast entitled "Groomer Schools 1: The Long Cultural Marxist History of Sex Education," which argues that sex-ed classes aren't "just a fluke of our weird and increasingly degenerate times" but "a long-purposed Marxist project reaching back into the early 20th century." On Twitter, he responds to people concerned about the spread of "Don't Say Gay" bills with the pithy, "Ok groomer," effectively accusing anyone who believes children should learn that LGBTQ people are part of the human community of being a pedophile.

He [Lindsay] is well-aware of the antisemitic use of "Cultural Marxism" and is now arguing (speciously, I would say) that neo-Marxists have redefined the term to make it into something antisemitic. Citing (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of any speculation about how Lindsay is interpreting this conspiracy theory, the far-right and anti-semitic origins and nature of the theory itself are unchanged. That said, I see no reason to credulously accept Lindsay's denials of espousing far-right and anti-semitic ideas, especially given his current trajectory into the further extremes of American right-wing ideology. Who is best served by removing this important context from the article? It certainly serves the subject's efforts to decouple his extremist views from their historical context, but I see no benefit to a neutral reader. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed this bit about the anti-Semitism. It's highly misleading and possibly defamatory. We need better sourcing that one hit piece from Salon. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree: let's keep wiki just a little bit less defamatory than pieces in Salon--even the writers at Salon would acknowledge they are not writing an encyclopedia. Polular media is driven by controversy and clicks--wiki is not or should not be. I also think the ground truth is useful in deciding to take interpretations from a hit piece--I think the ground truth is that Dr Lindsay has said many things that demonstrate his argument is against Marxist frameworks of seeing the world, not a race of people. He may be wrong about those frameworks, but still. Cultural marxism to non-racist conservatives and classical liberals is taken to mean the change from economic Marxism (poor, rich) to a cultural focus (oppressor races, oppressed races) in the critical theory movement. He clearly objects to Hegel's and Marx's basic theory rather than the race of several of the first few critical theorists. I understand the left argues that the term is secretly anti-semitic (and it might actually be in some right wingers--I've never met one, but still, but certainly not all), and they have the right to propose that hypothesis--but wiki can't decide that that hypothesis is the objective truth. Notice that the idea that the cultural marxism is a dog whistle for anti-semitism is in itself a little bit of a conspiracy theory. Let's reduce conspiracy theories in general on wiki. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides his use of the term "cultural marxism", is there any evidence that Linsday is antisemitic ? And is this phrase systematically associated with Jews, and antisemitism ? I may be wrong but I'm under the impression that "cultural marxism" is a relatively ill-defined concept and that lately, it has become a bit of a portmanteau / umbrella term for "everything that is wrong in the Left". It seems to be just a more intellectual way to say "Woke" (which is itself an umbrella term). Psychloppos (talk)

The term "Cultural Bolshevism" was used by the Nazi's. I suspect much of the criticism is a deliberate or useful conflation of the concept, but it is also quite an unfortunate name given this history. It is quite clearly the case that certain conceptions of intersectional social justice were influenced by Marxist theory - it's all over the literature. But then there's revolutionary marxism, and then marxism - a fairly respected school of philosophical thought. Talpedia (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Replying to psychloppos: there is precisely zero evidence that Dr Lindsay is anti-semitic. It marks quite a disaster for wiki that left-wing-authoritarian people have figured out they can use wiki to targeted people like this. (I know most of us are agreed on this, and this comment applies not just to Lindsay--many others have been targetted on wiki in this way too). Academicskeptic9 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of content only sourced to a tweet

I wonder what the reason for including "considers the rainbow flag as representing "a hostile enemy"" is. Why include this and not any other of his numerous tweets absent secondary coverage? 129.67.117.15 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure was the reason was by whoever added it, but I just removed it because there's no evidence of notability there. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see that this had been opened here prior to the revert. Transposing the bulk of my comment here: "...notability seems self-evident: anti-LGBTQ+ activism is Lindsay's current focus and is a significant source of his current notoriety. Including his own words to this effect adds important context for the preceding text and meets WP:BLPSELFPUB." VibrantThumpcake (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to edit war so I'll leave it for now, but I would like to be pointed to the guidelines that would argue for the removal of the tweet if anyone has the time and inclination. All good if I'm wrong about this, but I've not been able to find it on my own. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If this was notable, some reliable third-party would report on it. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but that doesn’t necessarily justify removing the material, at least not according to WP:NNC: The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). And again, this is a tweet by the subject that supports the preceding text and illustrates the views for which the subject is currently most notable, in the subject’s own words. Secondary sources would be nice, but their absence does not diminish the value of keeping the text in question.VibrantThumpcake (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So, we can build the article with content based on any of Lindsay's tweets as a source? How about any tweet from any other notable person? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No, but that's an impressive strawman. I've already cited the guidelines and reasoning that justify including this specific tweet in this specific instance. If you want to argue against those, let's do that instead of hurling fallacies at each other. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. You argument is that in your opinion the content of this tweet is so important that should be included in the article even though there is no third-party coverage of it; "notability seems self-evident"—to you. What about someone else's opinion that the same is true for any other Lindsay's other thousands of tweets? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"How about any tweet from any other notable person?" is a wildly hyperbolic strawman in the context of this conversation. Now you're trying to say that my only argument is that one of my comments yesterday had the words "notability is self-evident" but in the same comment I went on to provide the reasoning for inclusion and against deletion. So another strawman, and continued refusal to engage with the substance of my argument. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Tweets are often made in jest. They shouldn’t be the basis for describing someone’s personal views, particularly someone controversial like Lindsay, without good third party coverage. Thriley (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree: tweets should not be used in wiki articles to interpret the person in negative or positive ways. Like others have noted, they are transitory and sometimes jokes, and difficult to interpret as evidence of long term views. Look to his published text in books perhaps for his more measured positions (or unmeasured). Academicskeptic9 (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

It would appear there may be a copyright issue with turning point usa, but it may be that tpusa copied WP, rather than the other way around.Jacona (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Honesty

James Lindsay isn't a conservative but a Classical Liberal. Helen Pluckrose is also a Classical Liberal. Look her up. And so is Peter Boghossian. These three people are Classical Liberals. You don't know what Classical Liberalism is because you have mistaken it for being a conservative. Look it up. 2600:1700:30F0:6E60:5DBF:70BF:8B66:9A0F (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

American conservatism is a form of classical liberalistm. You're drawing a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

References

I tend to agree with 9A0F in that Lindsay has described himself as a liberal, and it is a little unencyclopedic to be naming people into different camps due to the motivated politics of wikipedia editors. In most cases, wiki should reflect facts--for example "Lindsay has described himself as a liberal [sources], has also said .....[sources], and has attended ....[source]). Notice this approach in a sense leads to sentences that are 100% objectively correct. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Many reputable sources have characterized Lindsay as right-wing, conservative, or even far-right. At some point, there should be a recognition that Lindsay's self-description is less pertinent than the content and context of his public output. Whatever his previous work or statements may suggest, he now promotes a broad range of unequivocally right-wing ideas, is funded and promoted exclusively by right-wing donors and organizations like TPUSA and Michael O'Fallon, among others, and has a primarily right-wing audience. There is simply no credible argument that he is not conservative/right-wing, even if he is playing still trying to play the "classical liberal" card. And anyway, Mr.Ollie is correct re: the expression of classical liberalism in modern U.S. politics, so even by that standard, Lindsay is firmly on the right. 2600:1012:A005:A1A0:545A:FB05:D617:8F72 (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

wiki is not the place for this. It is supposed to be neutral and state facts. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Updating the lede to reflect Lindsay’s status as a right-wing/far-right commentator

I think that it’s long-past time to update this page to reflect Lindsay’s most notable role in modern discourse. As has been noted in previous sections, he is still referred to as a mathematician despite having no significant contribution to the field of mathematics, and has increasingly been referred to as “conservative”, “right-wing”, “far-right” by RS as prominent as NBC News:

From NBC News: “….James Lindsay, a right-wing media personality...” - [13]https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/elon-musks-twitter-beginning-take-shape-rcna58940

From the ADL: ”… conservative pundits Christopher Rufo and James Lindsay…” - [14]https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-community

From Mother Jones: “…James Lindsay, a math Ph.D., former massage therapist, and conservative commentator…” - [15]https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/08/the-most-powerful-moms-in-america-are-the-new-face-of-the-republican-party/ VibrantThumpcake (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it would be fair to present him as a conservative. I did my best to show how he identifies politically, and apparently he has no problem with being called a conservative even though he says he does not quite identify as one. "Far right" seems excessive, though time will tell how he evolves. As for him being a right-winger, he certainly does his best to sound like one on social media, although he might do so as a deliberate provocation (which I don't think is very productive, but I digress). For the time being, "conservative" seems to be rather balanced description of his political stance.

However, it would also be useful to mention in the lede that he formerly identified as a liberal (as far as 2018 if I'm not mistaken: it seems that he has gone through a very rapid political shift, which makes his case interesting).

As for him being a mathematician, he is certainly trained as one and from what I saw he worked as a math teacher; so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Doesn't having a phD in mathematics make one a mathematician ? (I'm honestly asking) I'd say this is at least useful to show that he has academic credentials - no more and no less. Psychloppos (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think far-right is excessive at all: https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/anti-lgbtq-hate-has-increased-twitter-elon-musk-officially-acquired-company Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, even this article from a pretty biased (left-wing) source calls him "right-wing" and not "far-right".

I personally wouldn't disagree with "right-wing" - at least based on the content of Lindsay's social media posts - but if we want to remain prudent we may stick with "conservative".

I really think it would be necessary to mention his rapid political evolution in the lede. As someone who had followed the grievance studies affair in 2018 and came across his social media activity in early 2021, my reaction was "Huh... is that the same guy ?"

What we could write in the lede is that he identified as a left-wing liberal (as far as 2018, unless I'm wrong) then went on to become a conservative (since he accepts that label), and that he is labeled as right-wing by various sources. IMHO that would be a fair description of his political stance. Psychloppos (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there is merit to both of your arguments re: "far-right" vs. "right-wing". I do agree with Peleio Aquiles that "far-right" is probably more accurate, and I'll note that Lindsay is referred as a "...far-right podcaster" to in this recent article from EducationWeek:

[[16]]

While I can't find any prior discussion about this source on WP, Education Week is given high ratings for reliability and is rated as neutral by the two most prominent "media bias" websites:

[[17]]

[[18]]

However, I'm also inclined to agree with Psychloppos that it may be premature (at least by WP standards) to use "far-right" until, and if, it becomes more widely used in factual reporting. With that, "right-wing" seems like a good compromise and appears to be well-supported as an accurate and increasingly commonly-used descriptor. NBC News, per my original comment, uses "right-wing" and is listed on WP:RS/P as a consensus RS with no other qualifications.

To your suggestion re: Lindsay's rightward shift, I understand the reasoning and agree that it is worth inclusion in the article. However, I think the article as currently written does a sufficient job of stating this point. I'm wary of giving Lindsay's self-description of his past beliefs the same weight as his current views, for the same reason that I agree with previous arguments against including his work as a massage therapist in the lede. He may well have considered himself left-liberal in the past, but I'm not aware of any notable work by Lindsay that reflects or advances the values associated with the modern political left. His atheist writing is the closest thing I can think of, but he wasn't a particularly prominent figure in "New Atheism", a movement which in any case has borne itself out as far from synonymous with any definition of "the left".

I also just want to clarify that I'm not arguing that the "mathematician" title be removed. Folks who pursue academic/research careers tend to have a narrower definition, but most readers probably consider a PhD sufficient to warrant the title. I just wanted to point it out as a baseline for inclusion in the lede.VibrantThumpcake (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the December 14 version with a slight edit of word ordering. I oppose adding "right-wing" to the lead in this manner. Lindsey's political orientation is clearly complex and "right-wing" doesn't do service to explain it an a neutral way. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like an argument based on speculation and your own interpretation/synthesis. Numerous reliable sources label Lindsay as “conservative”, “far-right”, or “right-wing”. Can you bring any reliable sources which speak to the complexity of his political orientation? Do you have any RSs which use a different descriptor or negate any of the labels I’ve proposed? I did what I could to identify any such sources prior to proposing this change as I anticipated some pushback, but was unable to find anything.

I can provide more RS in support of my proposed change as well. This article from Colorado Newsline refers to Lindsay as a “right-wing academic”: [19]https://coloradonewsline.com/2021/06/12/ousted-space-force-commander-defended-by-rep-lamborn-advanced-white-genocide-theory-in-book/

Colorado Newsline is part of the States Newsroom network. While this source does not appear to have been discussed on WP:RS/N, several of their affiliates have partnered with ProPublica, a perennial RS with a strong consensus for reliability and accuracy.

He has been described as a “conservative author” by the Seattle Times, an outlet which has been awarded multiple Pulitzer prizes for journalism: [20]https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/idaho-primary-pits-conservative-governor-against-trump-backed-candidate-with-white-nationalist-ties/VibrantThumpcake (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The complexity I'm talking about is already in the article in the "Views" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on self-description, not factual reporting from RSs. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No, based on two third-parties sources, which are cited. And here's another source that describes him as a defender of liberalism. [21]. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Or, to paraphrase Jweiss11 from an earlier discussion on this page:

“When in doubt, we go by the what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources call Lindsay [conservative/right-wing/far-right].”VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

So to recap, you’re citing:

1. A Salon article which labels Lindsay as far-right in the title and which you yourself have previously described as “… a biased, opinion/hit-piece…”.

2. An interview where Lindsay self-describes his own views and concedes that he may in fact be conservative, even if he doesn’t like the label.

3. A book review which states “…you soon learn that Lindsay has a shallow understanding… …of… …the classical liberal tradition he seeks to defend” and also explicitly notes that liberalism has both left- and right- flavors (“… both right- and left-liberal…”), and further describes Lindsay as a conservative in the fourth paragraph.

None of there are factual reporting and two of which appear to more strongly support my proposed labels. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, which all means we have a mess of conflicting judgements about Lindsay's political orientation, which don't suit a simple label in the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No, all of these are either based on Lindsay’s judgement of his own view, or acknowledgement of views he may have held in the past. Meanwhile, all recent reliable and factual reporting which does describe his views uses one of the proposed descriptors. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

How is someone's judgement in an opinion piece (even in a designated RS) a fact? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Which of the NBC News, Ed Week, Colorado Newsline, and Seattle Times citations I’ve used are opinion pieces? VibrantThumpcake (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

All of them fall broadly in political feature/opinion. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. They are all political news I guess, but to say they’re opinion pieces strains credulity here. The Seattle Times piece, for example, is filed under “news”. The writers on the NBC News, Ed Week, and Seattle Times pieces all explicitly have “reporter” in their bios. None are labeled as or editorial or opinion. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like potential opinion laundering to me. Nonetheless, even in a cold, AP release-style story, the political orientation of a figure like Lindsay would not be a statement of fact. It would be a judgement. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as grasping at straws. The fact that you don’t like the coverage doesn’t make it opinion laundering. By your metrics, we can’t label anyone’s politics. That’s a fine metric to have, but it’s your metric, not WP’s. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Have there been any pieces that examine his views and explain how they are right wing? I’m not sure passing mentions are good enough to support such a label in the lead. Thriley (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like setting the bar awfully high, given the long-standing description of Lindsay as a mathematician is not backed up by sources that go in-depth to support the title. I would also point to the references used to support long-standing descriptions of Stefan Molyneux as a white nationalist and white supremacist. These seem roughly on par with the available references to support labeling Lindsay as I have proposed. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is generally understood that someone with a PhD in a certain subject should have that indicated in the first sentence of their biography. Thriley (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Molyneux is explicitly partisan and easily categorizable. I don’t think Lindsay is. I think the section on his views does a good job and currently does not indicate he is explicitly right-wing. Thriley (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

But again, this is not about what you or I may think of his politics. I consider anyone who uses the type of hysterical and dehumanizng rhetoric which Lindsay employs against LGBTQ+ people to obviously be fairly far to the right. But I’m not basing the descriptors on what I think, otherwise I would be pushing for “far-right”. Instead, I’ve presented citations from high-quality, reliable sources which use one of the three proposed descriptors, all of which should, by WP standards, be weighted more heavily than the citations in the current section on his views. I have not found, and no one has presented, any citations from RSs equal weight to support any other descriptors. Instead, the objections so far seem to be based primarily on subjective assessments of Lindsay’s politics and/or attempts to delegitimize the credibility of citations I’ve presented. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I run the risk of repeating myself, but I really think that highlighting Lindsay's political evolution is essential. "Cynical Theories" passed very well as the work of center-left authors and if memory helps it was an essential part of the book's promotion. The grievance studies hoax also worked from that perspective. Since then, however, Lindsay appears to have shifted rightward at breakneck speed. Being critical of current gender-identity politics does not make one right-wing, or even conservative, per se: but his rethoric on social media goes much further. Even though I think that calling him a far right commentator would be premature, I also think that if he goes on like that, he will probably qualify unequivocally as such in the future (unless he shifts so much to the right that he does a 360° turn and ends up on the left again). I can accept the idea that Lindsay's current political stance is more nuanced than that and that he is just being a provocateur: but if he wants to appear as something else than right-wing he really needs to rethink the way he communicates on social media. To someone who read "Cynical Theories" in 2018 and followed the grievance studies controversy, the evolution is spectacular to say the least. So it really has to be mentioned more than in passing: if not in the lede, at least in the article.

The problem is that Lindsay is a pretty recent public figure: apparently he did qualify as a left-wing commentator back in the day, but the general public only became aware of him in 2018 at the time of the grievance studies hoax. So we don't have that many sources about him, and as far as I know we don't have yet a detailed, in-depth account of what made him change like that and so quickly (my theory is that he spent too much time on Twitter, but that's just me). However, that should not prevent Wikipedia from trying to give a balanced view of his public positions and the way they evolved. Psychloppos (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with much of psychloppos and jweiss11's position. Dr Lindsay's wiki page should not include inaccurate statements or defamation. It should also nto idea-launder opinion pieces as fact. He still appears to be a classical liberal who really beleives that freedoms are under attack. WHether right or wrong, he is essentially opposed to Hegelian/Marxist frameworks, as many classical liberals have been for over a century. He is not anti-gay, but he is anti-critical-gender-studies that has a Marxist framework underlying the theory. He should not be labelled far-right on wiki. Write a piece on Medium if you wish to label him such, instead of vandalising wiki. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m not going to engage with most of this word-salad because it’s not relevant to this discussion. I’ll just keep asking: where are all the reliable sources that label him a “classical liberal” and outweigh the references I’ve cited? What can you cite to back up your claims that factual reporting on Lindsay is “opinion laundering”? Because as it stands, we’ve got WP:RS/P vs. a growing chorus of WP:JDL VibrantThumpcake (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Psychloppos, there’s definitely truth to this. I’d argue that your point about how Lindsay’s work with Pluckrose and Boghossian was marketed is a good illustration of why Lindsay and others might profess to be liberals or leftists, and why we should be wary of taking them at face-value. But it’s also clear that Lindsay’s trajectory has been radically different than Pluckrose’s, and the speed of his lurch to the right has been wild to see. I guess I’d say that while I’m still opposed in principle to discussing it in the lede, I’ll withdraw my formal objection to including it. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

People should not use wiki to defame a person in/on an encyclopedia--you should do that somewhere else. The way to fairly describe a person's position would be to use their words in context, and describe the events they have attended without commentary. For example, Dr X has described his poistion as " ....". He has written y books, on the subjects of .... He has attended ...., and appeared on .... Keep everything descriptive and do not idea-launder opinion pieces. In addition, do not use Twitter as a source--because it is a highly antagonistic setting without enough context. It would be more encyclopedic to use what he says in his books or online articles. PS: To address the title of this section: I see no evidence that he is right wing or far right. I estimate former left leaning and now either the same or centrist--he is antagonised not by the tradiational left, but by what he sees as neo-marxism. Left wingers can be anti-cultural-marxism. If he ever comes to consistently describe himself as right wing, then put that in as a quote. Eg Dr Lindsay has described himself as "....." Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

No, we can absolutely describe someone as conservative or right-wing if that’s how they are labeled by the majority of reliable sources. I don’t think Richard B. Spencer has ever called himself a “neo-nazi”, but he is widely understood to be one, and is referred to as such in most news articles. None of the citations for the proposed change are from Twitter, so not sure why you’re bringing it up. The rest of your comment is just your opinion and a bunch of hyperbolic multi-hyphenate adjectives that have no bearing on this discussion. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm repeating myself again, but we might write something like : "Lindsay says that he originally identified as a left-wing liberal but no longer does so, and considers himself a classical liberal instead. He is strongly critical of "woke" politics: various sources present him as conservative (a label he accepts) or right-wing". Do you think this would be fair and balanced enough ?

At the very least, I'd say his vocal opposition to "wokeism" has to be mentioned in the lede. It is something hardly debatable and IMHO it's one of the most useful infos about his political positions. Psychloppos (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

This is the most slanderous and deceitful communist slanted entry I have seen on this sold out communist slanted sight. Wikipedia needs to be called out and cleaned up.This is way more compromised, biased and deceptive than Twitter was before Musk bought it. Is Wikipedia colluding with the big government, globalist authoritarians and CommunistCCP as well? Certainly seems this is the case. As for the information published in the USA Wikipedia certainly knows that censorship and blatant SLANDER and extreme bias is not tolerated by the American people. Pathetic and this entry is so skewed that it constitutes slander and liable. Why is the truth so terrifying to wikipedia and the ideologues running the place? Because the TRUTH destroys every slanted lie wikipedia is trying to force on the people and it shines light on your unconstitutional communist impositions 173.94.17.95 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lots of vague complaining about various scary shadow bodies, no reasonable or actionable request made. You should probably read WP:TPG or the big popup that the website showed you when you made this request Cannolis (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory rejected by mainstream scholars

The citations for content are about as good as they get. There is no evidence that they are 'biased marxist sources' as the deleter claims. It is worth noting that assuming these authors are Marxists is the same as assuming the conspiracy theory is true. MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No they are not. The citations themselves are from two marxist authors who specifically writing about marxism as a focal point of their writing that is being dismissed or contested by the living person's biography that you are editing. Specifically, it is not an assumption that they are Marxist or Critical Theory supporters, it is written in their university biographies as a primary source. This would be like relying on self-proclaimed oil executive author commenting upon the living biography of a famous environmentalist. Not a single wikipedia editor would allow such a biased source on a living person. I made no comment on the conspiracy theories that James A. Lindsey believes or doesn't believe and I have not changed any citations that were from a credible source. But trying to claim something is "mainstream scholarship" and then citing two biased authors is not called educating people in an encyclopedia, it's called misinformation, bias, and poorly-sourced citations. It should be easy to find a better citation for you, if you claim it is "mainstream scholarship" that everyone rejects a theory. In other words, you are the one making the assumption that mainstream scholarship is a certain way, and then not even bothering to come up with good citations to back it up. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Specific citations for why you are misinforming readers by claiming that they are not Marxist and "Critical Theorists" would be their own university biographies and their own works:

"Joan Braune works in Frankfurt School Critical Theory, Critical Hate Studies, and intersections of religious experience and the socialist philosophical tradition (specifically the role of Jewish messianic hope in social movements, and Marxist-Christian dialogue). She has published two books on Erich Fromm’s critical theory, Erich Fromm’s Revolutionary Hope: Towards a Critical Theory of the Future (Sense Publishers 2014)"

Citation for Joan Braune Biography

Any honest reader after reading what I wrote, would realize that this is a biased author who specifically writes from a marxist point of view. So using their statements as "mainstream scholarship" would indicate misinforming readers on the biography of a Living Person. It would be like citing only Russian authors on the Ukraine war and then calling those Russian authors "mainstream scholarship." — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This would be like relying on self-proclaimed oil executive author commenting upon the living biography of a famous environmentalist. This is more like relying on a NASA scientist to comment on flat-earth theory. That mainstream thinking is the target of a nonsense conspiracy theory does not somehow make them too biased to point out that the conspiracy theory is nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't make sense. A NASA scientist is an expert in astronomy, in measurements, in observations from space, in satellite imagery. A flat-earther is a layperson advocating for a theory that is very controversial by almost any standard. Additionally, your hyperbolic analogy depicts the most far-fetched, the most unbelievable theory (flat-earthism) to ever be claimed on planet Earth.

To correct your analogy, just your analogy, "This is more like relying on a Trapezoid-earther to comment on flat-earth theory", an equally absurd theorist commenting on another theorist. Or in our analogy, a marxist theorist, commenting on a fascist theorist. Both are equally absurd conspiracy theorists and highly controversial theories mind you (marxism and fascism; or Trapezoid-earthism and Flat-earthism). So why not use a more credible source if it is such "mainstream scholarship"? Why fight so hard to use bad citations and edit-war when it's so easy to find a better citation? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This bizarre equating of Critical theory with Marxist politics is a part of the conspiracy theory. It's not what Critical theory actually is. To reject sources on this basis is to accept the conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Differentiating Critical theory from Marxist theory would in fact, be your person opinion. Not what is considered mainstream scholarship.

In mainstream scholarship, and you can even look at Critical Theory and see that several Marxists are mentioned including Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács as the primary supporters of this type of theory. You differentiating them as something other than complementary or like-theories with similar authors would be your own conspiracy theory--not James' conspiracy theory. The mere existence of two labels does not mean that the meanings of those labels are polar opposites. A sphere and a circle are different, but you may need circles to draw spheres and there is a relation between them that cannot be detached. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be discussed, really. Revert, block, ignore. Zaathras (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be discussed? Of course it does. The truth matters most of all. Not using poorly cited sources as a way to smear a living person. At a minimum when you make an extraordinary claim that mainstream scholarship rejects some "theory", then you should provide good citations for it when it comes to biographies of living persons. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your fraudulent edit summary ("biased marxist sources") pretty much invalides you from this discussion. The material is not contentious, nor is it poorly sourced. You have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT-itis. Zaathras (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing fraudulent here. What invalidates your fraudulent reply is that you replied saying "Doesn't need to be discussed, really. Revert, block, ignore." You are arguing in bad-faith. You have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when there is no good citation involved here. What you used are biased sources on a living persons' biography and anyone can see that with their own eyes regardless of the politics of the living person. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that someone writes about Marxist theory does not make them "biased." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does. That's like saying that someone who only writes about fascist theory or marxist theory, and using them as a citation for an article about democracy--it wouldn't make sense. Any honest writer or editor would see that as biased. They would prefer unbiased citations that are not of an ideological writer that is directly opposed the the very existence of democracy. It would be unthinkable.

Additionally, the citations used are worse than that: the original writer tried to call the citation "mainstream scholarship" not that "marxist theorists reject Lindsay's theories as a conspiracy theory." They write instead "wholly rejected by mainstream scholarship" and then cite a Marxist, Critical-Theory professor. That would be like saying "(environmentalist author)'s ideas are wholly rejected by mainstream scholarship." And the citation is an Oil Executive's information website. It would showcase bias and misinform the user reading it. Especially the violation is even worse since it is a living persons' biography. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does. No, it really doesn't. Your personal opinion of the author is irrelevant, what matters is the source that has chosen to publish it. If that is deemed a trustworthy source by the Wikipedia, then that is what counts. End of story. Zaathras (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not state my personal opinion about the author. You appear to not be reading what I write or not understanding me.

"what matters is the source that has chosen to publish it."

Huh?

If that is deemed a trustworthy source by the Wikipedia, then that is what counts.

Again, it is not a credible citation due to author bias, on a living persons' biography. You can simply find a better citation from a credible primary source. An Argumentum Ad Populum isn't good either. And neither is simply what website it appears on but rather what the credibility of the authors are. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I agree. But the what about a person who subscribes to or promotes Marxist theory? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)