Jump to content

Talk:Matthew Heimbach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

Okay, let's discuss whether this guy is notable or not. Is there any reason why you believe that he is not notable enough to meet notability standards? This sounds like an easy standard for him to meet, as he has dozens of biographies and profiles written about him. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does he really? See WP:BLP1E. We already have an article for his defunct club. Gossip about his love life doesn't belong even if it's published by reputable outlets. If you absolutely must, start a draft article, but crap like "In 2018, he was accused of sleeping with his wife's mother." as a full sentence is such an abysmally bad WP:BLP violation that it should never be included in an article even breifly, even while it's a work in progress. Try harder. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should stay as a redirect. The subject is not notable outside of his group (at least not yet). It's also clear that TWP was Heimbach; without him, there's no group. Anything worth saying about him could be said in the TWP's page and a separate article is not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2018, he was accused of sleeping with his wife's mother." I figured that had to be a joke, but no, it was central to his entry. I say that's the most notable aspect of this fellow's life! 2604:2000:1580:425C:185F:DE0:D144:BF3E (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current ideology

[edit]

I recently removed a short section on Heimbach's self-described current beliefs. I removed this section because, as far as I can tell, no reliable sources have discussed this matter, so the section was undue and possibly contained OR. My suspicion that this is undue is demonstrated by the lack on non-primary, non-video sources in the section. If there is reliable sourcing, then perhaps a full section could be useful. If this sourcing does not exist, then that is okay too--wikipedia is not news. Jlevi (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this text again as the WKRC video source only provides words directly from Heimbach's mouth. Also the PRA source actually claims that his rebranding is disingenuous and calls it "image laundering", so it can't be used to justify adding the exact opposite claim to the lead. WinogradSchema (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2021 Capitol Protests

[edit]

It appears that Matthew Heimbach has been identified as one of the protestors inside the Capitol building [1] I'm not sure that this is conclusive evidence to his presence there but I feel it is worth being raised at least. Lindwigtoon (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC) (Lindwigtoon) 03:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC) True and also worth being noted as fake news if it turns out to be someone else. Many mainstream news organizations are portraying it as an absolute fact.[reply]

Buzzfeed reporting it as fact [2] PB57 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://forward.com/news/461612/a-guide-to-the-extremists-and-hate-groups-that-invaded-the-capitol/
  2. ^ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/theres-no-evidence-antifa-was-involved-in-the-attempted Apologists For Trump’s Mob Have Tried To Falsely Blame The Coup Attempt On Antifa
  • Forward source is invalid: it relies solely on a tweet that violates WP:TWITTER exception because it involves claims about a third party.
  • BuzzFeed source is invalid: it relies on a photo published in 2018 that has nothing to do with the January 2021 protest.
NedFausa (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these sources are too weak. But we are wp:notnews anyway--the job of wikipedia is not to get people arrested, it is to be an encyclopedia, so let's wait until strong sourcing is available (or not). Jlevi (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's now being picked up by AFP, and Baron's which are reliable news agencies. I added it to the article since at this point (a day later), it's pretty well confirmed. But if someone objects, then pull it and we can discuss the reliability of the sources later. I believe I have the original source (AFP) in the most recent edit, and that contains the capitol photo being referenced. Butlerblog (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFP does not identify Heimbach in caption of photo at U.S. Capitol. There is no clear reporting anywhere that Heimbach was even in DC that day. NedFausa (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the photo caption does not state Heimbach is in the photo, the article specifically states he is in it. He is included in the article because they are saying he is in the 2021 photo (not referencing 2018 - I believe that's an incorrect reading of the text - why would they even mention him if referencing something the article isn't even about). But no problem holding off for additional confirmation and clarity. I'll agree it's contentious and your call for patience is valid. Butlerblog (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFP is not saying Heimbach is in the 2021 photo. Rather, they are alluding to their photograph of Heimbach standing alongside Angeli at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, last November, in order to associate Angeli "with the face of a new generation of white nationalists." NedFausa (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: As stated in banner at top of page, this article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. (Emphasis added.) I immediately removed such material today as it was repeatedly inserted. If this pattern recurs, I will report the issue to the BLP noticeboard. NedFausa (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support continuing to wait, even after the AFP article. Many sources are hedging on this or seem to be misinterpreting their sources:
-Indystar: "It is also unclear if Heimbach was in Washington, D.C. Wednesday."
-Fox is citing Indystar to say: "A man seen at Wednesday's storming of the U.S. Capitol has been linked by local media to Matthew Heimbach", but they're not saying it themselves and seem to be misreading Indystar
-The Forward tweet above links to a tweet by Robert Evans (journalist), but Evans makes it unclear if he's talking about the photo from the Capitol or the photo taken in a previous year--not the focus of the tweet
Given this hedging and misreading by other outlets, I continue to say that we should wait. This is still breaking news. Jlevi (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On an OR basis, looking at the IndyStar article, I think ya'll are right - I don't think Heimbach is that photo. If you look at the twitter pic they're using as the basis for this, it's the OTHER guy next to Heimbach in the photo. I definitely at this point withdraw my previous position (see above) based on the photo and agree, this is dubious. Butlerblog (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having found at last a reliable source, I added a new section placing Heimbach in the Capitol building. NedFausa (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't cite it in the article because it's not WP:RS, but out of BLP fairness, I think we should at least note Matthew Heimbach's appearance tonight on Radio Free Indiana, a podcast hosted by his Traditionalist Worker Party co-founder, Matt Parrott. "I wasn't in DC," said Heimbach. "I was in Tennessee." Perhaps that's what you'd expect, but I'm nevertheless uneasy about WBEZ's identifying him in their photo caption as "Neo-Nazi Matthew Heimbach (second from left wearing a blue mask)." Honestly, if you compare the eyebrows of that masked man with actual, unquestioned headshots of Heimbach, he doesn't look like the same man. It's also worth noting that Fox News has deleted its story "Photo links Capitol protester with Indiana man identified as white nationalist," referenced earlier in this thread by Jlevi. We may have to revisit the issue if more robust news stories follow up. NedFausa (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Participants in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

[edit]

Today I added the captioned category. It was then reverted by MagicatthemovieS. It was then re-added by Jack Cox. Perhaps we should discuss this and reach consensus as to whether or not to include that category. NedFausa (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just regurgitating what the article says -- which is that there's no evidence he was there.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS
That's what one source says, but two other sources say he was there. NedFausa (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: One of the sources was deleted. Another only cites social media posts. We don't want anything on here that's potentially libelous.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Should we remove the source that says he was there? NedFausa (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Heimbach was at the storming is a subject of current dispute in the real world. We cannot, in WP:WIKIVOICE, definitively say he was there. In fact, given that this category is potentially libelous, it should be removed NOW, and the discussion should be over whether it should be re-added. Editing as such. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AllegedlyHuman: Doesn't your reasoning hold equally true for the {2021 US Capitol Storming} template? If so, that should also be immediately removed. NedFausa (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as that specifically names him as an "individual participant." I have removed accordingly. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matthew_Heimbach&oldid=1206496287"