Talk:John Rustad/Archives/2024/October

Opponent opinions

On 2 October 2024 PoliticalPoint added in the lead about racism, anti-LGBTQ, anti-human rights, conspiracy, eating bugs, etc. I reverted with edit summary = "Undid revisions as of 2 October 2024 by PoliticalPoint. This makes much of the lead a list of accusations by political opponents. Perhaps seek consensus on the talk page?" Instead of doing so, PoliticalPoint re-inserted with edit summary = "exceptionally well-sourced". Actually I believe that at least some of the sourcing is poor or doesn't directly support, but what should be clarified first is: WP:BLPUNDEL says "If [contentious material] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Apparently PoliticalPoint doesn't follow that policy so I am appealing for input from others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can fully ascribe Rustad's own public statements which have been reported on in the non-partisan press as "opponent opinions". Dan Carkner (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: Ak-eater06 has removed. Good. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: PoliticalPoint reported Ak-eater06 on Administrator intervention against vandalism, without success. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That lead was added in without any consensus. I reverted it. Deathying (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The content is in accordance with biography guidelines as it is supported by multiple reliable sources. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You can keep saying that all you want and I will keep reverting it. In my opinion it violates WP:NPOV, and has your opinions mixed into it rather than presenting what your sources actually discuss. Deathying (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The conspiracies and controversies should be covered in the lead as is the case on the article for Mark Robinson (American politician). --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

User:PoliticalPoint This will not do anything as me, User:Deathying and User:Peter Gulutzan, have already agreed that you should not promote your personal views on the lead of an article such as this. You can "warn" me all you want, but you in reality are the one who is creating vandalism. Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like PoliticalPoint has created a sock puppet User:Factsoverfiction118, who joined Wikipedia a couple minutes ago exclusively to edit this article. Deathying (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Always be careful before accusing someone of sockpuppetry. Best to get confirmation first. Masterhatch (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No idea who PoliticalPoint is but spam deleting direct sourcing from CBC, Global news and the National Observer seems a pretty clear violation of wiki policy. Factsoverfiction118 (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to get consensus here before re-adding it. The onus is on you to get that consensus. Please stop edit warring. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: Factsoverfiction118 has been blocked. The article has been fully protected till October 8. Do we mostly agree that the lead can stay as is? If so, if anyone has suggestions about making changes that are not in the lead, perhaps that can be a in a new thread about the specific issue? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should mostly stay as-is. There are sections in the article for his opinions and statements. Deathying (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think a line in the lead describing conspiratorial views would be more than appropriate. This is not to support the way it was done during the revert war. But those views are the reason he was removed from the Liberal Party and ultimately moved to the Conservatives, and support for conspiracies within the party has become well known and attracted plenty of independent coverage. Other justin (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. A line addressing it in the intro is appropriate, not only because it's in the article, but because it's regularly mentioned in news coverage of him. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Deathying; the reverted additions were NPOV violations. I support the lead staying as is. While he has expressed some controversial opinions it doesn’t seem to me to have defined his identity to the extent of other politicians, so I think mentioning notable instances in the body is enough. JSwift49 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously the material added to the lead during the edit war was an inappropriate balance. If we do add a line about some of Rustad's conspiratorial views there, I think it should also include a line about his non-conspiratorial views, which is also well-covered given he's the leader of a major political party.

I also want to note that I accidentally made these edits [1] on Rustad's recent "Nuremburg 2.0" story while the article was fully protected without realizing it. While not related to lead balancing, it is related to the underlying content in dispute, so I would invite fellow editors to review and edit the material as necessary. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert war

Article talk page discussions should focus on content, not conduct. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This revert war is getting silly. You guys better stop b4 blocks are handed out. Factsoverfiction118, clearly you need to come to the talk page to get consensus. So, please stop and come to talk. Masterhatch (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC) My reverts are justified under BLP rules. Factsoverfiction118 is misattributing a claim made by one of Rustad's candidates as Rustad's words himself. Deathying (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 October 2024

Remove "despite being accused of fear-mongering and misinformation on Indigenous rights and reconciliation" as this appears to be unsourced. JSwift49 17:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Land Claims

Muaza Husni on 30 September 2024 added a section which, despite the edit summary "Opinions on SOGI: Conservative Party of British Columbia", is actually section "Opinions on Land claims": Rustad's comments about Indigenous peoples in Canada include that the efforts of the provincial government of British Columbia to recognize Indigenous land claims in Canada are "a direct assault on private property" citing Langley Advance Times. Hmm. Mr Rustad has used the words "assault on your private property rights" in reference to the NDP's changes to BC's Lands Act, and has tweeted The Haida deal means First Nations title could end up being applied to ALL private property in BC". But the "direct assault on private property" quote is partial, if the other statements are valid then this was not about recognizing land claims in general in Canada. Of course anyone should be removing poorly sourced material from this BLP "immediately" but I'm cautious, and asking: who thinks this section should be in / out / different? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A WHOLE YEAR!?

Which childish admin protected the page for a whole year? Shill for the party, or corrupt paid editor? Music Air BB (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Music Air BB: One, see WP:NPA. Two, it's in the page logs, accessible via the article's "View history" tab. Three, see WP:BOTTOMPOST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)