Talk:David Hogg/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

was David Hogg actually at the school when the shooting started. He said he was not. You've written he was a survivor. 139.216.106.36 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

He was at the school during the shooting. He heard gunshots.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:38, 3 April 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)

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, 14 March 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, 14 March 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, 14 March 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, 15 March 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, 15 March 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, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Date of birth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing and collapsing. The issue is currently being discussed in another thread and the user that started this thread is now indefinitely blocked for topic ban evasion. Non admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Extended content

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, 28 March 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, 28 March 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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))

[3] 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, 29 March 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, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Right wing nutcase always abandon their theories when presented with a contrary evidence. 69.116.73.17 (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a bias article:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boss Hogg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When people hear Hogg don't they think of Boss Hogg because Dukes of Hazzard was a very big show? Nookie123456789 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This page is not Hogg or Hogg (surname), but David Hogg (activist). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe? I certainly don't, and, as Emir pointed out, there's a big difference between "Hogg" and "David Hogg (activist)". (I don't think you're a troll, but I see so little confusion there that when I followed the link to Boss Hogg, I thought you were just trolling.) -- irn (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

It also needs to be stated that he and his fellow gun activists were some of the ones responsible for bulling the shooter! Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018

David Hogg (by his own admission was not at the school at the time of the shooting) He stated on television media that he went from home to school to record the shooting incident. Please correct this discrepancy. 2001:5B0:4FC5:31F8:698D:F1D8:B793:191E (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an honest mistake. He went to school again later (after leaving the shooting), around six to record aftermath. People just assumed he meant earlier, because his CBS soundbite didn't explicitly say it was later. But he was clearer in Vox. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 1 April 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)

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, 12 March 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, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Gilchrist, Gibson and Kelly

Are these relatively unknown people worth mentioning? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 19 March 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, 21 March 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, 21 March 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, 23 March 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, 23 March 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, 23 March 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, 23 March 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, 23 March 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, 23 March 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, 23 March 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, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Whaaaat seems to be the problem? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 24 March 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, 25 March 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, 25 March 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, 25 March 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, 27 March 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, 27 March 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.[4] 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)

Conspiracy theories

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenAs 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, 29 March 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, 30 March 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)

You use Snopes and the Hitler salute here. I get a horse head in my bed for using Snopes and posting the same content. Trackinfo (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Also not a paid actor with any foreknowledge of the shooting, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 31 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)

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenI 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))

I'm kind of leaning with Drmies here, although I see PatLaffan's point that we don't want to give it undue weight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the conspiracy theories and attacks are an important part of his biography and ought to be included (and mentioned in the lead), but as it stands now, I think the section is too long and goes into too much detail. Just about all of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs (from "Twitter users who" to "without my knowledge.'") could be cut. -- irn (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The lies are all over the place, to be sure, but everywhere they go, trouble follows. Can anyone dispute this? It's just the nature of well-poisoning. This article is living the parable of that stupid bunny who hosted and fed a snake that promised to destroy him. It doesn't matter how fat and healthy the other bunnies in the warren (the factual enlightening sections) become, a well-nourished snake can (and will) undo all that good work in an instant. If we can't kill the snake, we must contain it in a section at the shooting article, rather than let it propagate in each and every BLP of minors who've already been been through more than Wikipedia traditonally puts most adults through. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems the anger was preventing Jorm's left hand from seeing what his right hand's undoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenI think Jorm is a troll. He is trying to sabotage the article. (PatLaffan (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

I don't know about that, but Googling "Jorm's hand" finds an oddly even mix of Many Shades of Evil and mental health literacy. That's not an attack, just an observation. Googling my own hands was far more boring and predictable. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why my name keeps coming out of your mouth?--Jorm (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the two times right here when you're relevant, I hadn't heard of anyone named Jorm or looked at their hands. Sorry for finding it interesting. I'll never mention you again. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I get that it's OK to revert someone who's been topic banned without it counting toward 3RR, but what about reverting someone who probably will (or should) be topic-banned for repeatedly defying the "false" consensus? Is it illegal to rollback preemptively, or should I wait till someone else finds him guilty and bans him? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Lede

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenThe "crisis actor" conspiracy has been debunked and should be removed from the lede. Hogg's online voting registration shows he was 16 in 2016. Unless there is some kind of evidence the conspiracy theories should only be in the main body of the article, not in the lede. (PatLaffan (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

Still totally agree, but still think the age revelation is more like a fart in the windstorm of evidence simply placing him where he said he was during the particular event the news says the police say the witnesses say actually happened. Even in my relatively mellow pre-Columbine Canadian high school, the teachers didn't let strange men, boys or little lambs hang around inside. If you weren't on the roll call or a special guest, you were never supposed to be there. You had to hang around in the smoking area till lunch.

In modern America, the rules are even tighter, and every bit of authoritative credibility with give this conspiracy theory another bit for the unspoken conspiracy theory about the staff and security allowing strangers to follow kids to school. Makes him look bad, makes them look bad, makes the theorists look bad and makes us look bad.There's a reasonable case to be made that presenting this hokum doesn't make uninvoled readers, future world leaders or any omnipotent god look bad, but there's not much suggesting it make them feel any better about themselves, either.

We should delete the poison/shit/vitriol and give them a dose of how Never Again actually reformed gun law to make a second Florida school shooting at least a lot less likely. As is stands, this smoldering heap of trash is easily the hottest point of contention on the Talk Page, and I count no less than seven editors who've killed seven others in Edit War since we started huffing the fumes. Even I, the nicest man on the planet, wound up in Wikiprison. I'd only just visited Wikijail for an hour, six years prior to my corruption. Nobody's safe from this cloud of lies (barring people who use non-English Wikipedias, perhaps). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

He has received death threats as a result, and the conspiracy theories have generated a lot of coverage for him (indeed, I would imagine a lot of people have only heard of him because of the conspiracy theories), making them an important part of his biography. One line in the lead stating that they exist and are false seems appropriate. -- irn (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing, per the close of the RfC thread Since the RfC thread has been formally closed and was a fork of this thread, probably can go ahead and close this down as being settled. Safiel (talk)

---

ValarianB, since you reverted me, I believe I am due an explanation. The content that I added was non-POV because it relates to the issue of gun control and comes from Hogg himself. The content that I removed is clearly included for no reason other than to promote Hogg and comes from a dubious source. I'm willing to compromise and include both, but I'm curious to see how you're going to justify the quote that I included being unacceptable and the one that I deleted being OK. Display name 99 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your removal of Yahoo News for an allegation of bias is eyeroll-inducing; they aren't an originator of the piece, it is from Huffington Post. The other part, "Hogg has also been strongly critical of Republican politicians who differ from his view" kinda goes without saying, we don't need a large, verbatim quote from Hogg explaining why he opposes gun owners, sourced to a blog, no less. "Media Bias Factcheck" is not an arbiter for the Wikipedia, if you have an issue with a specific citation, WP:RSN is over there. ValarianB (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

On the Yahoo News article, you have a point about Yahoo not being the originator. But the quote isn't from Hogg and it doesn't describe his activities or philosophies in a substantive way. The fact that it's included in a separate quote template is clearly meant to distinguish it from what's around it. It seems intended to favor Hogg. As for the Hogg quote, it does include things which aren't discussed in the rest of the article. For instance, the idea that NRA-supported politicians don't enact gun control measures because they don't want to lose money is alluded to but not clearly stated in the rest of the article. A significant part of the media coverage of the pro-gun control Parkland survivors centers around the idea that the adults aren't getting anything done, and so it's up to the teenagers to take matters into their own hands. That idea becomes much more clear in the quote. I also couldn't care less whether Media Bias Factcheck is an arbiter of Wikipedia. Until you can show otherwise, the Outline is a reliable source. Besides, the audio can be listened online, so there's no question that he said what's attributed to him in that article.

Basically, there's no concrete reason why that text shouldn't be in the article and plenty of reasons why it should be. The editor who originally reverted me said that it was POV. That's the worst argument yet because it comes straight from Hogg; him being uncomfortable with facts does not make the facts less real. Like I said before, I'm totally fine with ending this discussion by agreeing to include both quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I support the revert. We should only be using the best sources and lengthy quotes from the subject do not make for a good article.- MrX 🖋 22:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, as I said, the source is considered reliable and there is no doubt that he said it because you can listen to the audio. Also, there's already a lengthy quote from the subject right above where that one was. Would you support a somewhat shorter version of the quote that was reverted? Display name 99 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Considered reliable by whom? Why is that particular lengthy quote noteworthy, or alternatively, is it covered in other (reliable) sources?- MrX 🖋 23:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with MrX -- it's a rather lengthy quote. The quote should be cut or trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Outline is, according to Media Bias Factcheck, a left-wing publication with "highly factual" reporting. Here is the link. The story was also covered here in the NY Post. I explained why it's important above when responding to ValarianB. I've put the relevant text in bold. That should explain why it's noteworthy. I add also that it shows how Hogg regards those who don't agree with him. On the other hand, why is the very last quote in the article noteworthy? Doesn't it just glorify and promote what Hogg is doing without imparting any actual encyclopedic information? Shouldn't that be removed? Display name 99 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

it shows how Hogg regards those who don't agree with him, what the actual fuck does that mean? How is it unusual or noteworthy to say that an activist doesn't agree with his opposition? TheValeyard (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You know exactly what it means. Don't bullshit me. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with TheValeyard -- what does that phrase mean; it really isn't clear to me, or how it's relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's one thing to disagree with people and a totally different thing to call them "sick fuckers." Still, I think both of you more or less knew what I meant. I call BS, if you will. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's really not clear exactly what is meant, but more important, the discussion is getting off track -- my sense is the quote you added is way too long as per WP:UNDUE, and POV-ish; it should be cut or trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The idea that it's POV-ish is absolutely nuts because it's literally an exact transcript of what Hogg said. You being uncomfortable with the facts doesn't make those facts any less true. I made several arguments already for why the content should be in the article to which you have yet to respond. I also don't believe that the quote should have to be shortened, but I am willing to shorten it in order to achieve consensus. Here's what I have:

Hogg has been strongly critical of office-holders who differ from his view. "It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected," Hogg said. He believes that pro-gun politicians refuse to take action on gun control because of the money they receive from the NRA. He claimed that adults "don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to." Display name 99 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Still pointless. TheValeyard (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not an argument unless you actually back it up with something. Display name 99 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no way we should take Hogg's most emotional comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of Republicans.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no way we should take Leslie Gibson's most emotional comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of Emma Gonzalez. There is no way we should take Lara Ingraham's most emotional comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of David Hogg. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm sorry that no one agrees with you thus far, that's just the way it goes. TheValeyard (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That policy concerns articles, not content within articles, and I don't think it's particularly relevant here. But that means I can take those two parts down right, because after all we shouldn't be interpreting their most emotional comments as representing their true feelings? I can do so now, and if I do I'll assume that I won't be reverted. The basic point that I'm getting at is that the content is factual, relevant to the article, and supported by reliable sources. This seems for you like a case of wikilawyering in order to maintain the article's bias. Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Display name 99's synopsis of why the content needs to stay in the article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is still going on? Goodness. I think the points raised by others of late get to the point, namely, undue weight given to a overlong quote. Do Wikipedia politician bios contain lengthy diatribes against ones' political opponents? Unlikely, and we got 1 person insisting on doing it to a teenagers'? No, not even remotely appropriate. ValarianB (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not overly long. In fact, I agreed to shorten it. It's not lengthy and it's not a diatribe. It's literally an exact quote in the article. The fact that he's a teenager isn't relevant at all here. When you enter the public discourse, you open yourself up to scrutiny. What Hogg doesn't realize, and what you don't seem to either, is that it is very hypocritical to call your opponents "sick fuckers" and then whine about being a child after somebody criticizes you. Winkelvi, thank you for your comment. (It's especially appreciated given our rocky history.) However, the content in question (the Hogg interview) currently isn't in the article because it got taken out. It seems you're saying it should go back in. Is that right? Display name 99 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely should go back in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What Hogg doesn't realize, and what you don't seem to either, is that it is very hypocritical to call your opponents "sick fuckers" and then whine about being a child after somebody criticizes you. Including quotations because they highlight an individual's hypocrisy is WP:SYNTH. If the person's hypocrisy is important enough, it will have been covered by reliable sources, and we can go with that. -- irn (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yea, that comment there seals the deal for the motivation behind Name 99's intentions here; adding his own criticisms of a blp subject to an article, where said criticisms are not supported by the soruces. ValarianB (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

He can state his criticisms here. Reliably sourced and largely covered direct quotes, however, are not criticisms. No matter how many times you continue to say they are. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The material is cherry picked and it's not representative of the totality of Hogg's comments. My god, he was sleep deprived and it was only a couple of weeks after the shooting. Let it go.- MrX 🖋 15:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"My god, he was sleep deprived and it was only a couple of weeks after the shooting." Irrelevant. Doesn't make these comments any less "encyclopedic" than his other comments. They are reliably sourced, they're notable, they are verifiable. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree that the format in which the content was originally added to the page, I do think that the Hogg quotes it discussed are notable and verifiable. --HunterM267 ^talk 15:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wake me when his comments are discussed and analyzed by the mainstream press. Meanwhile, WP:ONUS applies.- MrX 🖋 15:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point us to which policy you are referring to regarding such content and that it must be "discussed and analyzed by the mainstream press" to merit inclusion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The argument for inclusion is that it is criticism. If it's not criticism, why should the quotation be included? What does it add to the article? -- irn (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Content in a BLP is to help the reader better understand the article subject. His words are what this David Hogg is about, even beyond him being at the school during the shooting. His words are what make him notable, if it weren't so, he wouldn't be interviewed or a featured speaker at rallies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, everything he has ever said could be included in the article. Why should this particular quotation be included in the article? -- irn (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's already been answered previously. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me summarize where we are now. Previously we were basically at a consensus to not include the material. I know there's no way for anyone to verify this, but I was actually preparing to wrap things up when I saw Winkelvi's comment. Now, no such consensus exists as two other editors have spoken in support of including the quotation. The quote has been shortened from its original size. I've dropped all attempts to remove the very last quote in the article, even though it's irrelevant, imparts no information, and is clearly just there to promote Hogg. I'd say that leaving that quote in, as dumb and as POV as it is, and allowing a shortened version of Hogg's comments into the article is a reasonable compromise, both from where we were at the beginning and now that there is more support for including content from the interview. Display name 99 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Well, somebody else got rid of the last quote, so nevermind on that account. But still, a shortened version of the quote at least is merited. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Where we're at is there is no consensus to include that material. If you shorten the quote, I would still be opposed. I can be convinced that the quotes are noteworthy if someone can produce a couple more reliable sources that discuss the specific quote(s).- MrX 🖋 12:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have shortened the quote and provided a new version of it already. As to your other comments, the interview was discussed in the National Review, which, despite its conservative bias, is rated "High" by Media Bias Fatcheck for factual reporting. The Federalist, another conservative news outlet rated "High" for factual reporting, also covered the story here in the last five paragraphs of that article. The interview was from the Outline, a left-wing source but a generally reliable one nonetheless. It was also covered by the New York Post, a center-right but reliable news source. I posted the link already. That's 4 factually reliable sources. There are plenty of others, but those are largely unreliable. I will note that you only said "reliable" sources, not non-partisan. Those are especially hard to find these days anyway. The National Review and the Federalist are both right-wing news sources, but reliable on factual issues. I've already explained why the comments are significant. I think we have enough now to put in the shortened version that I added to the talk page above. Display name 99 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the inclusion of the quote.--Jorm (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No shit. If you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I'm trying to get consensus. You don't read very well. Display name 99 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Second what Jorm said. Furthermore, @Display name 99:, you keep citing some website called "Media Bias Factcheck" and their ratings of other news sources; near as I can tell we have no indication that "Media Bias Factcheck" is itself a reliable source for fact checking other sources; it seems to be just some dude and his website. Anyone can open a website and call it anything. There are reliable fact checking services; such as FactCheck.org and the Poynter Institute. If you want to convince people that your sources can be trusted (or not trusted) you should use fact checking services which have a known reliability, and not Randy in Boise's homemade website. --Jayron32 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: You lost me. You "shortened the quote and provided a new version" where? What are you currently proposing and where are sources for it?- MrX 🖋 16:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As alternatives, I tried factcheck.org and the Washington Post fact checker. Unfortunately, they only seem to rate particular stories as true or false rather than news sources as reliable or unreliable. I couldn't figure out how Poynter Institute's online fact checker works. I then looked on a variety of other websites and couldn't find much. One source gave the National Review credit for not questioning Obama's birth certificate, but that's about it. Still, the NY Post is a widely respected news source that is near the center, and it covered the interview. I put the shortened version of the quote that I would like to include in the article in bold. My sources are the Outline interview and the NY Post article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY Post is neither widely respected nor near the center. -- irn (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the Post has been a well known source of sensationalist tabloid journalism for decades. If a media checking resource rates them neutrally in this regard, it says more about the resource than the NY Post. It's a fairly good yardstick for sensationalist journalism. --Jayron32 18:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note I have started an RfC for this discussion below to assist in determining a consensus or lack thereof. Safiel (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle. - MrX 🖋 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)- MrX 🖋 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Content of media interview

https://theoutline.com/post/3571/david-hogg-parkland-interview?zd=4&zi=5suerw7k

There are some statements in that interview that should be included in the article. Brookaxes (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note You might want to refer to the threads above. Consensus has already been reached to exclude the statements above. If there is a particular statement that you feel hasn't been discussed above, you need to precisely refer to which statement you mean. Safiel (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Quote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include the quote as described in the immediately preceding discussion, revert?

This is the original material. The proposed shortened version is bolded above. Safiel (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please preface your comment with support or oppose and include a brief summary of your position? Safiel (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - We should only be using the best sources, and lengthy quotes from the subject do not make for a good article. There is no way we should take Hogg's sleep- and hunger-deprived comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of Republicans. The material is WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 21:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's totally fine to portray Leslie Gibson's and Laura Ingraham's comments as calculated criticisms of the students, right? And how do we know he was hungry and sleep-deprived? Because he said so? This is the same person who said his sister lost 4, then 2, then 3, and then 2 of her "best" friends. So is his testimony really reliable? Now I know I can't put that information in the article because even fewer sources cover it than the ones that do the quote, but it's worth pointing out on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We're not doing that at all. Those are not apt comparisons. In addition to quoting Hogg's most inflammatory words, the wording of you proposed text (original and revised) really doesn't accurately paraphrase the source, which says: "... he and his classmates feel that adults — both voters and policymakers — have failed them."... "Hogg places some of the blame on voters, but his primary targets are pro-gun politicians and the NRA, both of whom he thinks care more about money than saving lives." Your second version is more faithful to the source, but worded in a way that makes Hogg sound like an intolerant bigot (not saying that was your intention).- MrX 🖋 00:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's our problem that he sounds "like an intolerant bigot"? We have to suppress his remarks and keep them out of the article because of same? Interesting comment from you, X. Revealing, too. Just as interesting and revealing as you claiming we have to keep the quote out of the article because he was hungry and sleep-deprived when he uttered words that made him sound like an intolerant bigot. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point WV. I admit I do have some personal bias, but I don't think I'm the only one. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No it's not a good point. It completely misses the point that you misrepresented the source and cherry-picked quotes that, whether intentional or not, misrepresent the substance and tenor of the interview. - MrX 🖋 00:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it is a great point. The quotes actually make the tenor of the interview. Outline themselves noted the tenor in the headline, "DAVID HOGG IS MAD AS HELL" and noted further: "There’s no denying that Hogg is young, and it would be hard to claim he’s unbiased or dispassionate. His anger was palpable from the moment he walked into the room. He said “fuck” so many times during our interview that he jokingly said he hoped it wouldn’t be televised, “because you guys are fucked if the FCC is regulating this”." The "tenor" of the article and its direct David Hogg quotes are within the quotes that should be in this article. Outline certainly thinks they are central to who David Hogg is, based on their assessment of him. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Aye. When you (referring to them) refer to "pro-gun politicians" as "Republicans" or "the NRA" as "office-holders who differ from his view", it becomes your problem (meaning it's their problem). They know who they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. When we refer to pro-gun politicians, etc., even though that's clearly who Hogg meant, it becomes our problem, even though it's actually their problem, whoever their is referring to. I'm confused. Display name 99 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly who Hogg meant, according to you. According to Hogg, that includes Democrats. Including Conor Lamb, who wasn't an office-holder. It's not whether anybody agrees with him that makes them sick fuckers, it's about whether they put NRA money over gun reform (according to your source). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your mentioning of Conor Lamb actually totally disproves your point. Conor Lamb did not receive NRA money. The NRA endorsed his opponent, Rick Saccone. You literally just proved that it is about policy disagreements. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You really are confused. Conor Lamb is a "pro-gun politician". "The NRA" is Hogg's other "primary target". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, so his targets include anyone who doesn't agree with him on gun control, whether that be pro-gun politicians or the NRA. Got it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, his targets are only pro-gun politicians and the NRA. At least in this "sick fucker" context. Plain Republicans or office-holders with differing views weren't mentioned until you brought them up. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Office-holders with differing views are the same as pro-gun politicians. Come on. I remind you that the revised version of the quote, which is what really matters, makes no mention of party. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Rick Saccone is a pro-gun politician who holds no office. Just wanted to get reelected, and spent NRA money trying. What really matters is the sort of people The Outline says Hogg means, not which of your interpretations is closer. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• What quote? The above discussion is all over the place, and editors are already apparently confused about this. Please be more specific and copy the quote here, as it would be added to the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  Hogg has also been strongly critical of Republican politicians who differ from his view. "It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected," Hogg said. "What type of shitty person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs." Furthermore, he said, "When your old-ass parent is like, 'I don’t know how to send an iMessage,' and you’re just like, 'Give me the fucking phone and let me handle it.' Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government; our parents don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to."[5]
  — diff

I wish to note that I included (and later bolded for people who couldn't find it) a shortened version of that quote. Hogg has been strongly critical of office-holders who differ from his view. "It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected," Hogg said. He believes that pro-gun politicians refuse to take action on gun control because of the money they receive from the NRA. He claimed that adults "don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to." The discussion should preferably center around this version, not the longer one that was included above. Display name 99 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Okay then. Even the shortened version is far too lengthy and poorly sourced. The article already contains too many cherry-picked quotes supported by weak sources. We don't need more. Find a reliable source explaining why this quote, taken from the middle of a lengthy interview, is a notable representation of his views, or is otherwise significant. As proposed this is obviously POV and undue. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The quotation does not add anything that can't be done better in Wikipedia's voice using reliable sources. It is intended as criticism of Hogg [6], but using a quotation in that manner would be WP:SYNTH, which is completely unacceptable for criticism of the subject of a BLP. -- irn (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Direct quotes from the article's subject are. not. criticisms. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, For all the reasons I stated in the discussion above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. Display name 99 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose What this is about is a user with a declared bias ("What Hogg doesn't realize, and what you don't seem to either, is that it is very hypocritical to call your opponents "sick fuckers" and then whine about being a child after somebody criticizes you." source) attempting to introduce his personal criticism into the article, using an out-of-context, cherry-picked quote to do so. It does not belong in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: please read WP:BIASED and only consult WP:RS – we need reliable sources, not neutral sources, per WP:NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:, you need to work on your reading skills. The "bias" I was addressing was the bias of Display name 99. The "source" I cited was his own post earlier on this talk page. At no time did I address reliable sources or bias of sources. TheValeyard (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure how this adds any light; it's only smoke.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your analogy. Display name 99 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not about Republicans or office-holders. It's about death and money. Even if the gist was right, the lack of significant coverage makes it wrong for inclusion. Fine to say "shithole countries" or "fuck her right in the pussy", in context, but this ain't that. More like the time I pushed to call Jim Powers "goddamned Jim Powers", just because X-Pac said it once during an hour-long podcast. Cheap heat. If people want to believe God hates Powers, they can figure it out for themselves, same as figuring Hogg hates the GOP or anyone who disagrees with him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have a clue what you were saying throughout most of your comment. I will say though, as I did already, that disagreeing with people on policy is one thing. Calling your opponents "sick fuckers" is a totally different one. The interview was conducted by the outline. No-one so far has managed to show me that this is not a reliable source. Display name 99 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bit of a strawman there, as no one is arguing that it isn't a reliable source; what some users are asking is "show me a source that says the quote is important". You're trying to include this quote because you feel it reflects poorly on Mr. Hogg (please do not waste our time denying this, it is borne out in several of your comments), but the problem is that this characterization of "reflects poorly" is a concoction of your own making. Show us a passable (i.e. non fringe) citation that offers critical commentary of the passage, then we can talk. TheValeyard (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What about Real Clear Politics? They have this article. Display name 99 (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a straight recap of the first article. Adds no critical commentary of the quote you want, just repeats it, with five other bits. Seems to think the profanity-lacing is the most important thing in the whole interview, as do many other recyclers. Maybe you'd have better luck framing it as something about the swearing, in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If profanity is the most important thing in the interview, there's plenty of it to go around in the quote that I chose. Display name 99 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose quote adds little value to understanding the subject beyond what is already in the article without it. --Jayron32 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all true. We cover in detail the strong, sometimes untrue, and sometimes vicious attacks made on Hogg and his fellow gun-control student activists but fail to cover Hogg's even more vicious attacks on his opponents. One fails to see how strong these criticisms are unless we cover them. Display name 99 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99: You are aware that you don't score extra points because you respond to everyone's comment, right? You only get one "vote", and badgering people who present a different perspective than you doesn't mean you'll get your way. --Jayron32 13:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I am going to go ahead and chime in, on the general point (as expressed by the comment immediately proceeding mine) that the quote adds little to understanding the subject. Hogg is pretty much a typical "big mouth, know it all teenager" as are many "typical" teenagers. Mouthing off profanely is hardly an unexpected behavior. Safiel (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So if Hogg truly is a "big mouth, know it all teenager," shouldn't the article portray him as such? Right now he comes off as a hero/victim. You seem to think that mouthing off profanity is tolerable/to be expected in this case. But as soon as somebody says something bad about one of the students, we have to cove it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that teenagers are that way, the article doesn't need to reiterate common knowledge. Teenage decision making is driven by the amygdala, due to the fact that the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until around 25 to 26 years of age. The amygdala is the center of emotions, while the prefrontal cortex governs rational thought. That is why teenagers, such as Hogg and his peers, spout emotional and irrational ideas. They cannot be held to the same level of responsibility as can a fully mature adult, who does rationally choose their words. BTW, I oppose everything Hogg stands for. But I cannot ignore the fact that he (and his peers) are (by reason of biology) hindered from thinking in a fully rational manner. Safiel (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm 19 and while I've said stupid stuff before, I haven't said these sorts of things about people. And no, it's not common knowledge that teenagers are this way. The people I've talked to don't speak in this manner either. You seem to still be insisting that the information should be kept out of the article because it's embarrassing to Hogg. Once again, that's not our problem. He wants to be taken seriously. The only way to do that is to treat him like an adult. Display name 99 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So many things become so much clearer now.--Jorm (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The idea that "its just a direct quote, and direct quotes can't be POV" needs to be put to bed here. A simple statement of fact can violate NPOV, depending on how and where it is presented in an article. See Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 6#Cause of death, where the mere addition of a cause of death to an article is a blatant push of a fringe conspiracy. Context matters, and in this case we have a long quote that is being pushed for inclusion to add critical commentary to a minor. ValarianB (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ValarianB and MrX and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• False dilemma. Oppose both versions per WP:SECONDARY. Hogg criticized both Democrats and Republicans that received NRA money (Reuters). Even in the interview in question, Hogg referred to gun advocates and not Republicans as "sick fuckers" (National Review). Some editors supported the content as important strong criticism of the NRA, which I strongly agree with, as it is the whole premise of most of his actions/words/positions (MSNBC, National Review). Summarize the parents/democracy quote (New York Post parroted by MarketWatch, Chicago Tribune, National Review). A better topic for discussion about democracy would be the Ingraham boycott (Los Angeles Times). wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem not to have read very carefully. The shortened version of the quote makes no mention of either Democrats nor Republicans-only "office holders who differ from his view." In other words, "gun advocates." And thank you for providing me with the Chicago Tribune article that I was previously unaware of. TheValeyard, would you now support including at the very least the democracy part of the quote, seeing as it has been included in a Chicago Tribune article? Display name 99 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I would not. The Tribune article simply repeats a part of the quote, that's all TheValeyard (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose While I generally support using quotes from a controversial subject to allow them to clearly state their own position, rather than have it interpreted through the eyes of non-neutral editorialists, this is not such a case. I have submitted several, more articulate quotes from the subject and each has been deleted. I have even been threatened for submitting such quotes (see above). This expletive laden quote is included deliberately to impeach the subject, rather than explain his point of view. That goes against WP:NPOV. As often as Hogg appears on interviews, there is a lot of superior, quotable material from him. Trackinfo (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: "superior" quotes? We include quotes that have been in WP:RS, not those that you like. wumbolo ^^^ 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think we can snow close this. --Jorm (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Display name 99 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus seems clear to not include it. --Jayron32 14:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC's can go up to 30 days. This is just a few days old. Closing it now would be premature. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Presuming everyone who wants to ignore the quote doesn't want to discuss it further, that's 12-2. The proposer has also jumped ship, making it 13-1 for a timely snow close. Why prolong the inevitable? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. Consensus is clear, it's very unlikely to change, and RfCs do not have to be formally closed. We can all just move on, content in the knowledge that WP:DR has once again worked it's magic.- MrX 🖋 23:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think the candid quote throws light on Hogg's personal anger, transformed into political activism. It covers quite a broad range of feeling directed at his parents generation and their (perceived) failure to deal with pressing issues. It's a pertinent quote, and I can't find a good reason in the preceding discussion for not including it. Bennycat (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DOB deleted

Two of the sources don't seem to have mentioned it - did I miss something? I'm not sure checkyourfact.com, run by The Daily Caller, meets RS anyway, especially for a BLP. The third, an unofficial source, had a slew of personal information in it so I ended up suppressing it. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe there are one or two reliable secondary sources which list DH's age as of a given date, giving us a two-year range of possible birth years. I think DH's age is somewhat of an issue because it will determine whether DH can vote in the upcoming November election; but we can keep the information out if the bday/age stuff works against the idea of privacy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC) For example, in Time magazine it said The 17-year-old... and the Time article date was Feb 26th 2018, so our Birth year as of date template can figure out the birth year range.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it encyclopedic to know if he can vote in November? I can't see that, but I am pleased that our BLP policy is paying more attention to this sort of issue. I know from my former OTRS work that it can be a big deal (even just the year is a big deal for some celebrities). We should always err on the side of caution with this sort of personal detail. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, DH's age is an issue -- Hogg's campaign is largely focused on the upcoming election in which he may or may not vote (or be eligible, or not to vote), ie, it's relevant to this subject, tangentially. And the information is out there -- he told media reporters in several instances how old he was, so it's not like it's such a big secret. Now, the exact birthday -- yes I'm with you on not posting that for the reasons you've given above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Since he posted on Twitter celebrating his 18th birthday, I don't think privacy is a concern at this point. -- irn (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Youtube Channel

Article says his Channel started in 2014, but it's first video was one year ago. I believe the 2014 is being taken form when his YouTube account was created, not how long he has been doing a vlog itself. I noticed while wondering do we really need regular updates on view and subscriber counts for such a small channel. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The template documentation reads year of channel's creation until its discontinuation or present day. If we do include the YouTube information in the infobox then it should be updated regularly, in deciding this we should not be looking if it is "such a small channel" but rather at if it what Hogg is most notable for. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I said I was just wondering whether to consider having the specific stats, but my question was in regards to 2014 start date. The account, which every registered youtube user was started(joined is how they describe it) in 2014, The vlog/channel was started last year. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Are the conspiracy theories really WP:DUE for the lead, especially on a BLP?

It seems to me that this is undue weight of a fringe theory for what is only a one-paragraph lead. Alex Jones has circulated many conspiracy theories, but we wouldn't mention birther or secret Muslim conspiracy theories in the lead section on Obama, or ill-health/Pizzagate conspiracy theories in the lead section on Hillary Clinton. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I'm on the fence on this one. I can imagine arguments for and against.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have shortened it. We are not some advertising for Alex Jones, but it looks like Hogg has received significant coverage about the conspiracy theories. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the theorists received significant coverage for things they said about him. He played no role at all in their decisions, was just their focus. It's different when someone says someone is or did something reliable sources say (or at least suggest) he/she really did or is. Then it actually reflects on the subject. Nobody understands anything on Wikipedia if implausible and unsubstatiated crap is treated as defining characteristics of a biography. Some editors will always want to see everything that's in the news on Wikipedia, but this strange desire should be appeased by centralizing the lies in a general article, like the shooting or movement one, not by spreading the venom to each and every (or any) related BLP. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's the same recent discussion, if anyone missed it or forgets. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

Shouldn't there be a "Controvery" section for this article? One, he lashed out against the NRA without demonstrating any responsibility for the murders that could be attributed to the civil rights organization. CRCobb (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Two, he called for a boycott of Laura Ingram that nothing to do with violence - just a personal vendetta. CRCobb (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies: An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply...best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section.

TLDR version: No.

Also for your reading pleasure: WP:FORUM. --Calton | Talk 13:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Such sections exist and plenty of editors who also edit at this article are fine adding to said sections at articles related to Hogg's targets. My opinion: If it's acceptable at those articles where Hogg is highlighted in such sections, it should be acceptable at the article on Hogg. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

He is not above criticism and is prone to controversy. This section should be added. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Actual Effects of Boycotts and Fox News Viewers Not Verified

There are no evidence supporting the accuracy of claims in this Wikipedia piece that the boycotts against Laura Ingraham affected opinions, nor that polling is not scewed, nor that viewers of Fox News actually declined, which is highly unlikely due to the continuing popularity of Fox News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.103.121.58 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There should be supporting evidence for any claim. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

American "child" activists

Right now, David Hogg is in the category "American child activists". As he's now 18 and considered legally an adult in America, would it be more appropriate to perhaps move the article to the "American activists" category? Piratesswoop (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he is an adult under U.S. law, I think child activist should stay, since his activism started while he was a minor child. CookieMonster755✉ 01:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So what; we all started as children. I don't think of 17-year olds as "children", teenager possibly, but now David Hogg is a man.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how these categories work. Malala Yousafzai was a child activist and is now an adult activist; she is still categorized as a "child activist". Drew Barrymore was a child actor and is now an adult actor; she is still categorized as a "child actor". Every single person in a "child [x]" category will eventually no longer be a "child [x]", but the category stays. -- irn (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think David Hogg came to our attention here in Wikipedia as a man -- in the sense of emotional maturity -- even though he may have been younger than 18 at the time, and my sense is that calling him a "child activist" is somewhat pejorative in this context and against the spirit of the WP:BLP; maybe "teenaged activist" might be more appropriate. Plus, Drew Barrymore appeared in films as a child and so the category makes sense for her, even though now she's a woman; but Hogg did not do anything noteworthy during his childhood years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Except he didn't come to anyone's attention as a man. He came to everyone's attention as a high school student. Which is not a man, regardless of when he turned 18 (which was after he started his activism, by the way). He rode his bicycle to school, he still lives with his parents. He may be an adult legally, but he's far from truly being a man. And then there's the science behind neurodevelopment in young adults and how human brain isn't even fully developed until at least age 23. Studies even show the male brain takes longer to reach full development than the female brain. Man/woman really isn't really neurologically appropriate until development is complete. Young adult, yes. "Man"? No. Not to mention, the talking points Hogg and his other teenage fellow activists from SDHS have been talking about guns killing children in schools. So, which is it? They referred to themselves as children, not adults. They/we can't have it both ways. All that said, I could go with "teenage activist". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Children already explains this. In categories on Wikipedia, teenagers are generally included under 'children'. He was under the age of majority in his country when he became notable, therefore he is categorized as a child according to those guidelines. Changes in how Wikipedia categorizes child activists would effect many other articles, so this should be discussed elsewhere. Probably Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? Not sure where, but not here. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Neurobiology and the opinion of when one becomes a "man" is frivolous and has nothing to do with the conversation. He started his activism as a child (a legal child – though he is a legal adult now), so the category child activist should stay. CookieMonster755✉ 01:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The category explains perfectly that when a person below age 18 becomes notable or if something about their life was notable before 18 (or the age of majority if different), it should be listed as "children X". CookieMonster755✉ 01:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Bill Maher

It should be noted that comedian Bill Maher did not support the comments made by Laura Ingraham and referred to her comments as "horrible" but expressed concern over the immediate impulse many internet users have to try to get someone fired over an offensive comment. He further expressed worry that getting corporations involved in matters like these could potentially make anyone a boycott target regardless of whether or not someone said something controversial. It is misleading to lump him in with Ted Nugent and Russian bots because they actually agreed with Ingraham's comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneofmanyusernames (talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes Bill Maher was himself the subject of a boycott a while back, lost his show for a while, so he has a point. So noted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Add political party "Democrat" Donald156 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: Unsourced and he's not a politician. (Also, there is no such party as the Democrat Party.) O3000 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We really should add a controversies or validity of claims section

It's definitely been pointed out many times that Mr. Hogg has often said/done many controversial things. We want to avoid being opinionated, but a lot of these activist pages are too positive towards the activists. Yes he is a survivor, but we're supposed to be supplying information, not advertising for him. He is not perfect. We should focus on the facts. It's a solid fact that, while he does have good information sometimes, he is prone to mis-stating information, or is using bad statistics. I'm sure we've all seen him get lambasted the news (online or televised) whenever he quotes bad information. There are plenty of other things that he has done that people don't agree with sometimes, but his misuse of information sticks out like a sore thumb. 69.117.224.165 (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you provide no reliable sources for your claims. Wikipedia editors are always willing to add information sourced from reliable independent sources. In a biography of living person, we need to be extra careful to ensure that we do not give any material undue weight. Please read the policies linked to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the matter. I currently see no issue with the article, it gives the proper amount of weight to each topic relative to the attention given to it by secondary sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll gather some sources that are reliable and I'll display them here once I do. 69.117.224.165 (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Now that the celebrity fervor surrounding Hogg has died down for the most part, I believe it would be encyclopedic to include rebuttals to his claims made since 15 February 2018. As long as it's all reliably sourced, mind you. That might be hard to do since much of media favors Hogg no matter what he says. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources? Winkelvi, the IP may be new but you are a highly experienced editor. It is incumbent on you to provide reliable sources if you want to advocate adding content about "controversies". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure we are just brainstorming at this point, Cullen328. No one has made a move to add anything yet. When that happens, then you can be worried. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You have been "brainstorming" about these alleged "controversies" since at least 13:29, 19 April 2018, Winkelvi. That is nearly four months and further speculation on your part without furnishing reliable sources will be considered a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"You have been "brainstorming" about these alleged "controversies" since at least 13:29, 19 April 2018" Diffs? I'd be interested to see them. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Here your go. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your one link is supposed to prove, Coffeeandcrumbs. Cullen made it sound as if I've been talking about such a section non-stop since April. I can't see how that's possible, but would like to see diffs to support the claim as well as policy that speaks against mentioning/discussing such an animal. It seems as if you and Cullen saying talking about a controversies sections is a bad thing, something that is off the table for BLPs and should never be discussed. I certainly am not aware of any policy that states such. Bottom-line: "Controversies" sections exist in many BLPs -- Off the top of my head I know such a section exists in the Sean Hannity article, the Laura Ingraham article, the Stephen Miller article, the Alan Dershowitz article, the Sebastian Gorka article. To name just a few. In fact, I've seen editors work very hard to keep those controversy sections packed full of "stuff" adding every little tidbit uttered on/in the news on a frequent basis that is seen as/perceived to be controversial. To the point of WP:UNDUE, in fact. Hogg is a pretty high-profile individual now with a platform. He's said stuff that raises eyebrows, just as the above people I mentioned in this response have said stuff that has raised eyebrows. Still not getting what the issue is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue, Winkelvi, is that you persist in discussing this without bringing forward even a single solitary source that would support a "controversy" section. If those sections in those other articles are unreferenced (which I doubt) then they should be removed immediately. Personally, I do not favor separate controversy sections but I am not on a campaign to eliminate them if they are well-referenced. It is the lack of possible references to discuss that is the problem here. As for "talking nonstop", I never said, implied nor hinted that was the case. You discussed it in April without sources, and here you are again discussing it in August without sources. Any further discussion of "controversies" must be based on evaluation of reliable sources, or it will be considered a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, I just addressed lack of appreciation and swift doling out of negative criticism to another admin at my talk page. I'm going to ask that you read it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I commented on that matter at your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed: unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:CSECTIONs are almost always a bad idea, or at best a last resort. Figure out the sources first and build the content from those sources. To do otherwise is POV pushing. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per all of the above opposes, and also because of introducing a false balance. Simply because an opposing viewpoint exists does not mean that Wikipedia remains neutral by giving it equal prominence, doubly so for public figures where such false balance introduces WP:BLP issues. This subject is a fairly uncontroversial figure; his public statements might attract opposition, but this article is not the place to rebut those viewpoints, it is merely the place to report that he has given them. We do that fine here. --Jayron32 11:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous opposers. The only controversy has been in the echo chamber of far-right publications that rational people should be ashamed to read.- MrX 🖋 11:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above arguments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above arguments. There's no "controversy" except that he's a young man who doesn't want to be killed by gun violence and some people seem inside of deplorable echo chambers seem to think that's a problem.--Jorm (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose adding a controversy section when no one has come up with any. And I would hope there aren't any editors searching far and wide to find any. O3000 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. Not only would it be a BLP vio, but a NPOV one, too. If Hogg actually did something wrong or said something untrue, let's see it. Otherwise, the hell with it.

But to be fair, the people here badmouthing Hogg to advance their POV have NOT committed a BLP sin just for suggesting something—even if they suggest it repeatedly and even if I don't like it. Only when they force-feed propaganda into my beloved Wikipedia will I stir from my indolent horizontal quietude.

I have, like, zero gravitas, but ima say it anyway: We ought not condemn anyone for saying anything on a talk page unless it's disrespectful, bullying, or otherwise Trumplike. People who act civilized can tell me any bizarro thesis from the Tucker-Hannity comedy act, and I don't have any problem with it. Verdana♥Bold 22:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Verdana Bold: Fair point. I hope you would also agree we are similarly within out rights to respond, "NUTS!" --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably should avoid Godwin's law. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

From the intro:

David Miles Hogg (born April 12, 2000)[3][2] is an American student who survived the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on February 14, 2018...

That statement is not 100 percent true. Hogg was not at the school when the shooting was going on. Ergo he was not a survivor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.69.12.5 (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

False. Hogg was on campus and in an environmental science class. Please do not spread lies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, Cullen! And note that the lie was posted as fact by an IP (not registered) editor. Someone is making an organized effort to spread lies about Hogg, and presumably, the things he supports. Let's keep our eyes open for instances of this (edits by an ip address) in articles about him, the other stonemann-doughlas kids, gun control, and democrat-related issues. Verdana♥Bold 08:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed (purported) place of birth

I want to point out that in this edit ([7]) I removed the place of birth from the subject’s info box. Because this is a BLP and I cannot find a single reliable source that explicitly mentions the place of birth, (a thorough fact-check also confirmed that he did not attend high school there: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/david-hogg-attend-california-high-school/) I have decided to remove it. Codyorb (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I also went through the same process after noticing your edit. I similarly could not find a definitive source for his place of birth. I made one additional correction to the body of the article removing Los Angeles as his place of origin. Snopes only says, "Hogg did live in California, but relocated with his family to Florida before starting high school; he returns to visit every year, as many people do."--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Codyorb (talk) 22:33, 7 September 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, 12 March 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, 12 March 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, 12 March 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, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In the fuller quote, Hogg calls himself a witness and someone who had to witness this. Double clarity. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 12 March 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, 28 March 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, 14 March 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, 27 March 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, 28 March 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, 29 March 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, 29 March 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, 29 March 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, 29 March 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, 29 March 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, 29 March 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 also (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, 29 March 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)

Aye, someone low to the floor and behind a closed door doesn't quite stand or see a lot. Witnesses may be earwitnesses, of course, but eyewitness is the common default assuption and sounds less stupid (largely due to every TV station having an Eyewitness News program). How about "an American Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student in a classroom closet during a shooting on February 14, 2018..."? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with a version of this, just in case most everyone likes it, and with full knowledge that someone won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That word is "survivor". It's not just Hogg or MSD; it's what we use for all events of this nature. In any mass shooting, "survivor" is consistently used to refer to people who lived through the event regardless of whether they themselves were in danger. Reserving "survivor" for those who were injured goes against the meaning of the word, which can be easily attested to by its use by reliable sources. -- irn (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you show me another shooting article that has unhurt survivors? Wikipedia search only finds this crew for "school shooting survivor". "Mass shooting survivor" finds only gunshot victims. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I just did a very brief search, and these were simply the first results: "As a survivor of the incident" (no injuries mentioned), "He asked her, "Did I shoot you?" She replied, "No." Then, he said, "Good, 'cause we need someone to survive, because I'm gonna shoot myself, and you'll be the only survivor." [...] that survivor", "The boy got up and ran out of the classroom and was among the survivors.", "nine survivors" (3 injuries), and "uninjured survivor". -- irn (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not too shabby. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I heard him on MSNBC today calling himself and his fellow witnesses "survivors of mass murder". I think he's just believing in himself now and silently insist that Cruz will never be charged with any of their attempted murders, but will drop the stick here because self-identification means more than news jargon. Even if he's wrong, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And I think you should resist future temptation to do more amateur psychoanalysis, lest you run directly afoul of WP:BLP policy. --Calton | Talk 13:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody sees the thousands of things I do stop from saying for the sake of following policy (unless admins track me while I type). Those count for something, though. I can't stop myself from saying something potentially offensive if I can barely even tell what was wrong with it after it's pointed out to me, though. I can only try. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Critical thinking exercise.

Something that is bothering me, David being called a "survivor". Was David injured during the event at his school? Was David in direct contact with the perpetrator? If no, why is the word survivor used? It's like calling everyone along the parade route during President Kennedy's assassination a "survivor". It is inaccurate and unfair to the students who were shot or who were in direct line of sight of the shooter at the school. This wiki article should be edited to remove the word survivor and replace it with something to the effect of "student on campus during the shooting"; that description is much more accurate. A guy80 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't shared by the reliable sources which discuss this event, or other similar events - sources refer to survivors of the September 11 attacks or the Boston Marathon bombing all the time, regardless of whether or not they were specifically injured. Because your personal opinion is not relevant here, that's the end of this thread. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

We follow sources.[8][9][10] That is a core Wikipedia policy. See WP:V.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect mindset. We don't follow the lead of sources, blindly or otherwise, we create content and use sources to support the content. Wikipedia is not meant to be a parrot of media it is an encyclopedia, an informational source that provides facts, not tone set by media. Wikipedia is not news. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Our articles are required to be based upon reliable sources. We are explicitly prohibited from contradicting reliable sources. That you or I or anyone else disagrees with reliable sources is of no consequence to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing to suggest otherwise. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

But if you don't want us to "parrot" "the media", then what do we base the content of this article on? You didn't have a problem with saying "end of discussion" after saying (incorrectly) the Daily Caller was (considered) a reliable source on Talk:Kyle Kashuv. Generally speaking, A guy80, why is it that I don't find any question about Kyle Kashuv's "survivor" status on that talk page? Why? Seriously? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The same sources that say "survivor" in the leads also devote many paragraphs to describing the things he actually did. We're basically ignoring the largest chunk of reliable accounts casting him as a hider/recorder/student/witness/advocate (summarized somewhat like so) in favour of the one tiny problematic word, just because it's there. I would've removed Kashuv's status with the rest back when, but missed him because he showed up late. I won't now, because I know it's a big deal, but he's just as much a survivor as the three thousand others who weren't harmed. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note We have already gone through this issue. Please review this thread. Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)/Archive_1#Use_of_the_word_"survivor". Safiel (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note Thread now restored from archives, placed immediately above this thread. Safiel (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note This thread now merged into the original thread as a subheader. Safiel (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it's still okay to talk about this, but nothing says not to, I think. I have observed that "survivor" is used when someone was a target at one of these go-crazy shoot-em-ups, whether they were hurt or not. Thus, Jackie Kennedy is not a survivor, but every kid and teacher in columbine is. Irrelevant note: I don't LIKE calling Hogg or anyone else not wounded a survivor. I don't think it's semantically valid. But that's the way it is universally used, so integrity demands we use it that way, too. Verdana♥Bold 09:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Is David Hogg a shooting survivor?

David Hogg IS NOT a shooting survivor. You cannot be in a school shooting if you are sitting at home on your couch... FlBicyclist (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What is your source? O3000 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Effect of Florida boycott

My edit updating the Florida boycott with tourism estimates were revered for being "original research." The information is not my research, but rather that of studies commissioned by Visit Florida. The edit only mentions periods that would include any traditional spring break, but the studies cover demographics for 2017 and 2018. This information speaks to the effects of the called boycott, hence relevant to the boycott itself. If anyone can show this to be an unreliable source, please bring that information forth. Until then, the reversion will be corrected. --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No, the edit will remain out until you have consensus for inclusion. It's a bold edit (good), but you were reverted (also good) and now you must discuss. Gain consensus for its inclusion; in the current state it will not be.--Jorm (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a classic original synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jorm and NorthBySouthBaranof. BobiusPrime if you can find a secondary source suggesting that the effect of Hogg's boycott was minimal, then we can add it; but one of Wikipedia's rules is that us contributors are not allowed to make new conclusions on our own.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Hogg's call for a boycott did not appear to negatively affect Florida tourism..." is not found in the cited source. It's your conclusion, thus original research.- MrX 🖋 02:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I will remove the conclusion, thus leaving that to the reader. Will that satisfy the objections? --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition, my edit removed a sentence that was obviously out of place in context. The information seems to have been covered elsewhere. --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

In what planet does "thus leaving the conclusion to the reader" not mean that you've inserted content without context, that implies original research and synthesis? No, it's staying out.--Jorm (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

What would be your suggestion given the information? It is entirely relevant and my attempt at adding context was rejected. These articles must maintain a NPOV. --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is the same as others: find a reliable secondary source that states in unmistakable language the claim you're trying to insert. You really need to learn what "NPOV" means; it does not mean anything as puerile as "both sides are represented equally or even at all."--Jorm (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't satisfy my concerns. Tourism statistics unrelated to the article subject have no place in the article.- MrX 🖋 02:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand the point. Though information is available, it cannot be cited until a news organization decides to report on it or a very specific study shows it. --BobiusPrime (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly correct. The two pieces of information could be unconnected, correlated or there could be a causal connection, but it takes more than simply the existence of two facts to include them in an article as in some way connected. As explained, that falls foul of WP:SYNTH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, BobiusPrime, all of us (I'm guessing here but I'm pretty sure it's right) here -- have learned in the past, just like you're learning now, how Wikipedia works by having our own episodes of synth and NPOV, only to be reverted by previous contributors. It's how Wikipedia works, how we all learn from each other, and it is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is touted as being the good grown-up of the Internet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post interview

@Jorm: the inclusion of cherry-picked statements from this interview is undue. It is also unclear if he meant that all 7 alleged attempts were targeted towards him. It is an interview and I believe it is being misinterpreted. We have no reliable sources to help us interpret it correctly, except Fox News and NYPost. I think you can see the problem with trusting their interpretation. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to object to the categorization of my insertion of the Hogg assassination attempts text as "cherry picking" and I can't help but consider it insulting. Inclusion of the issue that Hogg is the subject of assassination attempts seems like the no-brainer of the century, and calling it "undue" is incomprehensible to me. Anyway, is the Huffington Post "reliable"?. Because they seem to have interpreted it well: "On Tuesday, Hogg, now 19, shared with The Washington Post the high cost that’s come with the teens’ activism. His and his family’s safety have been put at risk, he said. In the past year alone, “there have been seven assassination attempts” on his life, Hogg said." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-hogg-parkland-assassination-attempts_n_5d131d2ee4b04f059e4c0e1a Mildly Abrasive (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying you cherry-picked it. I am saying Fox News, NYPost and Huffpost cherry-picked it. All three publications are weak on journalistic integrity. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh. How embarassing. Thank you for clarifying, and my apologies for getting huffy on you. Mildly Abrasive (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

---

• David Hogg (activist) → David Hogg
• David Hogg → David Hogg (disambiguation)

– Since his notability in 2018, David Hogg the teenage (he turned 20, so no longer a teenager) activist, is clearly the wp:primarytopic. If you look at the page views, the activist has 30,001 views per month, with the disambiguation page (currently at David Hogg) the next contender with 1,413 views per month. It is clear readers are trying to find the activist over the other individuals named David Hogg, so it would be beneficial to readers to have the activist at the base name. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&redirects=0&start=2019-04&end=2020-03&pages=David_Hogg cookie monster (2020) 755 05:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - page views are not everything, and the activist's views are dropping steadily month after month (currently half the views compared to a year ago). On balance with the long-term significance of the other entries compared to what looks like possibly fleeting popularity of the newest entry, I don't see any long-term benefit to this rename. -- Netoholic @ 06:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The other David Hoggs have meager attention, if that, in the neighborhood of only 1 to 5 pageviews daily. In contrast, the activist David Hogg gets incredible attention, averaging almost 800 pageviews per day so clearly CookieMonster755 is right. The activist David Hogg hogs all the attention. Put in context, if a Wikipedia reader types in the two words 'David Hogg', there's a (5+5+5+5)/800 or 97.5% chance that they're looking for the activist. Plus, he's young, at Harvard, and most likely he will again be in the news. Clearly, CookieMonster's proposal is on solid ground.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. He does seem to be the primary topic at the moment. If that changes in the future, then the article can always be moved later. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom and the other supporters to this point. - MrX 🖋 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Right now the activist is the primary topic in terms of usage, but I believe the representatives likely hold more long-term significance. Here's how WP:PTOPIC explains this conflict:

In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic.

Since the guideline does not state whether long-term significance or usage should decide which is the primary topic, I believe the status quo should be maintained. – Anne drew 17:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support as the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The dab page is getting 22 hits per day and the activist over 800, compared to 15 for everyone else combined. Approximately 98% of readers are looking for the activist.[11] The downward trend is slight; it may take decades to approach the tiny amount of interest shown in the other articles, but if it does, the title can always be changed again. No evidence has been presented that politicians automatically have more long term significance than activists; that's purely subjective. The numbers show that the vast majority of WP readers do not consider them to be more significant. Why inconvenience readers? We should do our best to get them where they want to be, not where we think they should want to be. Station1 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC appears to apply here. Looking at the page views of everyone listed at David Hogg it is not even close. If in the future they are no longer the primary topic it can be moved again. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, there are too many notable people with this name for any one to usurp primacy without a much more enduring showing of long-term significance. BD2412 T 03:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• At this point they are far and away the most significant for the past two years. What other things would you look for to fill that roll? PackMecEng (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Case is made. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The nom has made the case most effectively that this article meets the requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Support the move fully. --Jayron32 17:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There does seem to be a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The question would be the dominance of one name over the others and this is clearly such a case. Trackinfo (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - this seems to be a no brainer.--Jorm (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The other David Hoggs are historical nobodies, relatively. This is the primary topic. ValarianB (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admission to Harvard should be included in the lead section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

David Hogg’s admission to Harvard is a significant event that warrants concise inclusion in the lead section of the article. I don’t know why someone reverted this addition without explanation. 95Larick (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Where a person attends or attended university is not generally ledeworthy unless that person is specifically notable for being associated with that university (a college football player, for example). Hogg is not noteworthy for going to Harvard, he's notable for his activism after surviving a school shooting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused, what does “ledeworthy” mean? 95Larick (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see and read WP:LEDE. As per bold, revert, discuss, please do not insert contested material into the article absent consensus that it belongs.

The fact that Hogg attends Harvard is, in fact, already mentioned in the lede; it is clearly not important enough to be in the first sentence of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m trying to understand here, so please correct me if I’m wrong and thank you for your help... but does one person establish consensus? It seems that’s what you are implying by stating that there is no consensus, when you are the sole editor disagreeing with the edit. 95Larick (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct, and you are the sole editor proposing the edit. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.

You are welcome to bring broader attention to your proposed edit by opening an RFC and seeking broader opinions; if the result of that RFC is a consensus that your edit is appropriate, then it will be implemented. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to dispute a traffic or parking ticket? And if so, have you noticed that the channels to dispute the ticket are intentionally designed to be as inconvenient and intimidating as possible in order to discourage any dispute? This is what your invitation for me to post at a notice board I have never heard of amounts to. 95Larick (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. You're welcome to learn about Wikipedia's policies and procedures for resolving disputes; you're not welcome to ignore them. Your proposed change has been objected to and it is your responsibility to engage in dispute resolution mechanisms and attempt to gain consensus for your change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if I understand the dispute. The lede says "As of September 2019, Hogg is a student at Harvard University." Bus stop (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, it’s a style issue at this point. The information reads better when it is rolled into a sentence up front rather than at the end of the “lede” where it seems choppy. 95Larick (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

95Larick, I reverted your repeat attempt to insert mention of him getting into Harvard in the first sentence of the lead. NorthBySouthBaranof has already explained to you why this is inappropriate, at great length. I reverted before I even saw you’d already had this conversation, because it’s manifestly not worthy of the lead (especially the first sentence), nor is it something he’s generally known for. It also seemed pointy to me, given that you inserted it before any mention of what he is known for, and only mentioned him surviving the shooting at the end of the sentence, which also had the effect of connecting his admission to Harvard to his being from Stoneman Douglas. This is clearly inappropriate, and you don’t have consensus for this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have partially blocked 95Larick from the article for one week. Indeed, making the connection between the admission and being a survivor is pointy. It is also a living persons policy violation. El_C 15:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, I did not say that him being given a position at Harvard was connected to him being from Stoneman Douglas. 95Larick (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

95Larick, yes you did. With this edit you wrote "... is an American gun control activist and student who was granted admission to Harvard University ... after surviving the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018.". A reader could infer a causal relation, as if (1) surviving the shooting caused (2) admission to Harvard, which is an untrue and unwarranted synthesis of two unrelated facts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note: 95Larick has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE.

I agree it's inappropriate to insinuate that his admission to Harvard is related to his status as a survivor of the shooting. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid in the checkout aisle. But. I think it's quite clear to all reasonable people that if not for his association with that terrible incident, he would not be attending Harvard. He publicized that fact that his application to UCLA was not accepted. Again, I agree, that sort of content does not belong in the article, but let's not kid ourselves here. 2601:18F:4101:4830:9CD7:3792:16EA:83A8 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, it's a truism about anyone who has achieved anything. Dwight D. Eisenhower wouldn't have been elected president if he had spent World War II as one of thousands of obscure staff officers (many of whom did not become president). David Hogg wouldn't have been accepted to Harvard if he had just been another student at Stoneman Douglas who survived the shooting (many of whom were not offered admission to Harvard). But neither of them did - Eisenhower led Allied forces to global victory, and Hogg publicly documented the shooting's events in real time and then led a movement for social and political change related to the shooting. It is their specific personal achievement, not the mere temporal association with an event, that is responsible for Eisenhower being elected president and Hogg being admitted to Harvard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave it to anyone reading this to decide for themselves what comparisons can be made between Mr. Hogg and Mr. Eisenhower, if any. 2601:18F:4101:4830:9CD7:3792:16EA:83A8 (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement of UCI acceptance

The article linked as a source states "Tom Vasich, a spokesman for UC Irvine, said in an email on Monday that, because of privacy regulations, students’ admissions information cannot be disclosed by the university." The title of the article states that Hogg "says he’s been accepted to UC Irvine". The sourced article does not make any claim as to his acceptance, it merely relays a statement that he made. His claim is not "contested" per se, but it is not confirmed either. To state anything beyond the fact that he says he was accepted will require more evidence than the provided article.

We have no reason to doubt his statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe it either. To assert that he was actually accepted goes beyond what is stated in the sourced article. If there were reliable sources that said "Hogg got into UCI", then it would be fair to say "Hogg had been accepted...", but none of the provided sources make that claim. All that the provided source states it that he reported that he got into UCI, meaning that all that can be said is that "Hogg reported to have been accepted...". Your proposed phrasing is not supported by the source. DiscoStu42 (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:VERIFY, "all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". The article currently contains a claim which is not supported by the source. A source that simply reports a claim made that was made by an individual does not assert the truth of that claim, even if the claim seems fairly credible. The source in question only states that the claim was made, not that it is true. The article can not present information that does not originate from a source. Does this make sense to you, or do you still have objections? DiscoStu42 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

In this instance, CNN is the source. That they quoted Hogg saying it is, um, kind of how news works. ValarianB (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither the LA times article nor the CNN article actually affirm that he got in. The CNN article quotes what his mother said and the LA times article quotes what he said. Again, per WP:VERIFY, "all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". The statement that he says he got in is backup up by sources; but the claim that it is objectively known that he got in is not backed up by the sources. DiscoStu42 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Harvard accepted him; seems logical that U. California would accept him too. That UCI accepted him is a reasonable claim, reported by a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, what reliable source says that he got in? All that I see are sources that relay his statement that he got in without stating it in their own voice. The LA Times article is careful to quote a UCI spokesperson who says that they can't confirm or deny his acceptance. Secondly, Harvard accepted him after all of his activism, initially he openly complained to the news about his rejections. His SAT score (1270) was barely above the 25th percentile for UCI for that year (middle 50% range is 1250-1510), so it is certainly not a given that he got in. Regardless of if the claim is reasonable or not, a source reporting that "x said y" is not them asserting "y". It would be a false use of the the source for a Wikipedia article to state "y", because that is not backed up by the source. DiscoStu42 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify the change that I'm proposing. I want to change "Hogg had been accepted..." to "Hogg reported to have been accepted..." to accurately reflect the content of the sourced articles. DiscoStu42 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's time to drop the stick and move on. Your change is not going to happen. You do not have consensus for it. Continuing to make the change without consensus will be edit warring.--Jorm (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The current form of the article is objectively wrong in its interpretation of the sources, but you are correct that ultimately what matters is consensus; so there may be nothing that can be done.DiscoStu42 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is not objectively wrong; we just don't assume bad faith of people. You're trying to push a camel through a needle.--Jorm (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I just object to the article making a claim that is not backed by its sources. Perhaps "Hogg reported to have been accepted..." is too harsh in its wording and implies bad faith. Would "Hogg announced acceptance at..." be more reasonable in your opinion? DiscoStu42 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My newly proposed change is "Hogg announced acceptance...", which accurately describes the content of the articles without insinuations of bad faith. I can understand how "Hogg reported to have been accepted..." seems cynical and negative. Are there any objections to this change? DiscoStu42 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No. The text will not be changed. Have a nice day!--Jorm (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What is your actual objection? I don't see what gives you the authority to unilaterally make that decision. DiscoStu42 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My actual objection is that you're trying to twist this to make it sound like he's lying, which is bad faith on your part. My "authority" comes from the fact that there's consensus for the current language, it's what's in the reliable sources, and you have provided exactly zero compelling arguments for your change. If you want to continue to challenge the reliability of... CNN.... the reliable sources noticeboard is thataway. Right now you're just wasting everyone's time. I expect that if you continue you'll get a visit from the topic ban fairy for tendentious editing, so please feel free to continue.--Jorm (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How does "announced" make it sound like he's lying? It just describes what is stated in the article. I'm not disputing the reliability of CNN, on the contrary I'm trying to make the article accurately represent what was reported by CNN. I think you are misattributing malicious motives to me, I am not a conservative and I am not trying to make Hogg look bad. My desire to make these changes is rooted in respect for UCI, not any sort of right-wing agenda. I would like to hear from at least one person besides you on the new wording before I completely drop this. DiscoStu42 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Four people here have opposed your wording. I will make it five: your wording is clearly trying to make Hogg look bad in a way that is not supported by any sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are only the second person to object to the new wording, so you clearly did not actually read this discussion enough to know what you are talking about. The LA Times article explicitly states that officials at UCI refused confirm his acceptance. I have personal attachment to UCI, and was proposing this change out of respect for the university. I have absolutely nothing against Hogg or his movement, but it is apparent that most editors who follow articles that are connected to politics are unable to look at the world though an objective non-political lens and will interpret almost anything as a right-wing attack. I will not be pursing this change further, but I am very disappointed by the inability of politically-oriented Wikipedians to look at these matters objectively. My proposed changes were never to suggest that he was lying, but rather to indicate that his statement was never officially confirmed. You have to be seriously paranoid to think that the statement "Hogg announced that he was accepted to UCI" is phrased to make the reader think that he is lying. If this were part of an article that did not have connections to such a controversial topic, I think that people would be able to see this point much more clearly. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hogg was mocked in April last year by Fox for being rejected by colleges.[12] Your wording suggestion here, "Hogg reported to have been accepted at several universities" has to be evaluated in that light. If someone wanted to support the Fox mocking incident, they would choose your wording. Only if Hogg's assertion of acceptance by UC Irvine was actually questioned by mainstream sources would we change the wording to reflect the doubt. There's no need to introduce doubt based on your own assessment. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Finally someone who gives a substantive counter argument, thank you. I hadn't considered the context of Fox News mocking his rejections. If this were about a someone without that context getting into UCI I would stand by my edit, though I probably wouldn't face any push back. I definitely understand why my initial suggested edit could be interpreted as feeding into a particular narrative. I still don't quite see what is wrong with "announced" though. Do you have any objection to "Hogg announced acceptance at several universities"? I never actually tried to make that edit, and I think some of the other people didn't read enough to realize that I wasn't still trying to push through my most recent edit. This whole discussion honestly doesn't really matter that much, but when I get dragged into something like this I typically try to finish it. Are you okay with putting "Hogg announced acceptance at several universities"? DiscoStu42 (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We. Are. Not. Changing. The. Language.--Jorm (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll gladly move on, no worries. I'm sorry if I caused this to escalate more that it should have. This was meant to be fairly brief/small edit that I wanted to make so that the content would more accurately reflect what was included in the sources, specifically the statement of the UCI spokesman. I inadvertently entered a very controversial/touchy issue and let the combative side of me take over when I faced pushback. I still think including "announced" would be more accurate, but it is essentially a non-issue. I can see from your profile that you have dedicated a lot of your life to supporting the mission of Wikipedia. I respect that, and I understand that you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. DiscoStu42 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on July 18, 2020

Please change ""During a June 2019 interview with the Washington Post Magazine, Hogg said there have been seven assassination attempts upon his life" to "During a June 2019 interview with the Washington Post Magazine, Hogg said there have been seven attempts on his life". "Assassinition" is redundant, and "attempts on his life" (rather than "upon his life") is standard usage. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:C099:998A:4F7E:E64B (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, while the wording would have been better; it doesn't match the source. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 13:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate opening statement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

David Miles Hogg (born April 12, 2000)[1] is an American gun control activist and student who survived the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018.

Hogg did not "survive" the shooting. He was not present at the school when it occurred.

216.152.18.131 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to provide a source. O3000 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recreation of boycott article

• Boycott_of_The_Ingraham_Angle

This has been in the news again lately. I recreated this article, previously deleted in 2018. I invite development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

In March 2019, Marjorie Taylor Greene was filmed heckling and harrassing Hogg as he was walking toward the US Capitol. 94.252.111.129 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: And how is this relevant to this article? I mean, WP:NOTNEWS is a thing, and simply because a rather unseemly character harassed this person isn't reason for us to note the occurrence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Wording under "Reaction by politicians" is uninformative.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hogg#Reactions_by_politicians

The wording "Hogg and others put Boebert in her place" doesn't say much. Looking at the referenced article, a better wording would be "Boebert received negative backlash from notable U.S. politicians, journalists, and Fred Guttenberg on social media for her comments". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kebw (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone has already removed that sentence. Station1 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Parkland

Should the article mention that Hogg did not know any of the students who were killed at Parkland? (86.149.119.165 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC))

Even if true, what is the point? ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

As above, who cares? Is this question asked of anyone else who survived a school shooting? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering Hogg has attracted national media attention in relation to this event it would seem noteworthy. 140.158.252.132 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see the relevance. There are lots of things which are true about people that we don't mention in articles about them; because they are rather incongruous and don't matter. That's even presuming it is true. I did a quick Google search, and couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning it. If it isn't important enough to be a prominent part of his story outside of Wikipedia, it probably isn't important enough even in Wikipedia. And again, we're taking the OP at face value. I haven't seen any evidence that the OP is even correct. --Jayron32 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32, no relevance, and probably untrue at that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hogg openly admitted he did not know any of the victims. (81.136.26.39 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC))

So, provide a source to prove it. Even if true, not sure of the relevance. ValarianB (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Age

His age should now be 22. He was born on April 12th, 2000. 83.51.57.17 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Refresh your browser and you'll see it. Binksternet (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"right-wing accusations"

lol "right-wing accusations" is such a terrible sentence, what is he being accused of being right wing? Or is it so terrible to be right wing? This is pathetic, its not just right wingers who support gun ownership, the left wing bias of this article is laughably bad hahaha Gd123lbp (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It means accusations that come from the right-wing.Blobstar (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

and as I said it's not just right wingers who support gun rights who have been critical of this guys views. Gd123lbp (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You would need sources for that, not just your say-so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but the cited sources don't say anything about "right wing". I checked them. As an aside, I agree that broadly the attacks against Hogg have come from the political right. However, the sources in the article still don't say that, so we should not. --Jayron32 16:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

Add the following to his opening bio and to the Business Venture section: David Hogg is the co-founder of Leaders We Deserve, a political PAC dedicated to electing young progressives to State Legislatures and to Congress.

Here are the references: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191455776/young-voters-david-hogg-pac-campaign-elections-genz-millennial https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/youth-activists-launch-plans-elect-leaders-age-rcna97611 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parkland-survivor-david-hogg-leaders-we-deserve-political-organization-launch/ WikiWriterGA2017 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Someone had already added this information in the Political activism section (where I think it's more appropriate), so all I did was put a short blurb in the top section. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Please provide actual credible sources when locking pages to people like this. 2600:1008:B077:383C:B15E:60C2:5FA6:F684 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 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. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)