Talk:Mike Lindell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article title

Is there any reason why his middle initial, "J", does not have a period after it? Is this intentional? Or is this an error? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The initial is punctuated with a period by Bloomberg[1] and Washington Post[2]. I'm going to move the title accordingly.– Gilliam (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Mike Lindell will no longer lend his name or foundation name to any program that is not a God-centered group reversing the foundations previous claims of supporting any other type of organization. Additionally he will only support recovery organizations that are 100% faith based. ThomasREN234 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

He probably wants this sentence edited:
"The foundation's focus was then broadened to help people with any issue, including addictions, work and spousal problems, cancer victims, veterans, and active duty military members.[5]" --Prince Ludwig (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems likely, but that doesn't change my reply - in "change X to Y", you've given the X, now we need the Y (and the sources to back it up). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article reads like a MyPillow press release. Most of the citations are sources affiliated with Lindell or the company; it badly needs neural, objective sources. Treybien (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Really? To me it reads like a hit-piece. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Manannan67 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This guy is primarily known for his incessant infomercials promoting My Pillow; yet My Pillow has a separate page when both could be handled in one article. The only reason would appear to be to distance him from the criticism of his company's dubious business practices. Manannan67 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo correction request

Under "Donald Trump Advocacy", it is written, "Lindell met with the-Republican presidential candidate". The phrase "the-Republican" should be corrected to "then-Republican". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.45.73 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I corrected this on 1/12/2020 Earthquake64 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Earthquake64

Requested move 30 March 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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Michael J. Lindell → Mike Lindell – per WP:COMMONAME. A quick google search for "Mike Lindell" will ping 2,420,000 results while "Michael J. Lindell" will ping 1,410,000. Additionally, his twitter and the official MyPillow website emphasize Mike Lindell. Its very obvious that "Michael J. Lindell" is not his common name and "Mike Lindell" is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Clear cut WP:COMMONNAME. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per obvious WP:COMMONNAME. --Kbabej (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Mike Lindell is what he goes by. Here's a good source: Mike Lindell sets record straight on political aspirations in Minnesota JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Companies and their names do not change each time they get a new CEO, nor should the article in the name of the company. If Lindell steps down and a new CEO takes over, where will that leave this article? It will be under the name of the previous CEO, which would not be appropriate even though he is the founder, and will then just have to be changed back. - JGabbard (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

JGabbard, you realize we are talking about his personal article, right? Not his company article. --Kbabej (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that now, but I was redirected here by the hatnote on the company article, which is proposed to be merged into his name, and responded to that. - JGabbard (talk) 19:28, 2 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

In August 2016, the New York State Attorney General's office charged that My Pillow failed to collect and remit over $500,000 in sales tax. The company denied any wrongdoing and agreed to pay $1.1 million in settlement. In November 2016 My Pillow settled a lawsuit brought by the district attorneys of ten California counties regarding unsupported health claims "that My Pillow 'knew or reasonably should have known' that the marketing claims were likely to mislead consumers." The company admitted no wrongdoing, and agreed to pay $995,000 in civil penalties and donate $100,000 to homeless and domestic violence shelters in California. "In addition, My Pillow must stop promoting itself as the 'official pillow' of the National Sleep Foundation because it failed to disclose its financial connection with the foundation to consumers." 2600:1700:EEA0:7FE0:6434:BA3D:72B4:94ED (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

merge

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.

---

Lindell is founder and CEO of My Pillow and therefore intrinsic to its operations. He is primarily known for his infomercials promoting his product. Neither article is particularly long. No reason for My Pillow to have a separate article. Moving it here provides more accurate information about the founder's business and business practices. By itself, this page looks too much like a fan site promoting Lindell (which is inappropriate whether or not he decides to run for governor.) Manannan67 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would oppose such a merge. Both articles appear to satisfy WP:GNG, and contain info that would be out of place were they to be squished together (Lindell's avid support of Trump would not be relevant in the My Pillow article, and My Pillow's various lawsuits and consumer criticisms are not especially relevant in a Lindell article). Also, both pages are close to 1000 words, so I don't agree that they are not particularly long. Sure, it's not War and Peace, but far from undeveloped stubs. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Actions on the part of a state's attorney general, eight county attorneys, a class action lawsuit, and a BBB rating of F is more than "consumer criticism". There are many articles that discuss a businessman and his company on the same page. It's not exactly as if he's running some international conglomerate. But the point is that he is running it. It's more than a bit disingenuous to tout Lindell as an "entrepreneur" who has created "a multi-million-dollar business" and eliminate any mention of how he does business. One article is about 16K, the other 17K; that is hardly too long and puts all the relevant information in one place. Manannan67 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose a merge. Both of these subjects are notable and pass WP:GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong opposing to a merge. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Each article has a raison d'etre of its own. True there is some overlapping between the two, but still each has its own relevance and notoriety. werldwayd (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let’s not merge these. Mr. Lindell is becoming more active in politics and as such his biography may start to get lengthy for sure. BTW, his company is now making other products than just pillows, I suspect it will continue to expand as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iamreallygoodatcheckers, both meet WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge into one Mike Lindell article, with My Pillow as a section. J.D.718 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The founder is notable beyond his company, partly for his support for the president of a country. There are centered references for both topics. Let's keep them separate. --Deansfa (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Both subjects are independently notable and the articles sufficiently developed to stand alone. —ADavidB 02:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Merging the articles sets a bad precedent. It'd be like merging John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil - they are sufficiently disparate topics. If the concern is based solely on the article size, then the solution is for both articles to be improved. Both topics will continue to grow as a) the company expands its product line, and b) the man expands his personal activities. Furthermore, it would make for an irrelevancy to taint his non-political product with his increasing political activity (regardless of one's own political persuasion).      — BoringJim (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge First of all, I would argue the other way around would have a stronger case for a merger (Lindell into My Pillow), and even that I'd oppose. My Pillow is a company that has achieved notability. It therefore is worthy/eligible of having its own article. Lindell has achieved notability, and therefore is eligible to have his own article. There is no need for a merger. SecretName101 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 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.

Undue weight banner

The editor who placed the "undue weight" banner on the 'Donald Trump advocacy' section didn't include reasoning in the edit summary or on the talk page. The section's single topic has about the same size as the article's other broader sections, which may be the concern. Before I trim some details and otherwise summarize the section content, do other editor's have input on this? —ADavidB 13:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why the banner has been placed on this section. Most of the material is based on Lindell's own words and actions and seems neutral to me. JimGibson1 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to its placement either. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What Are The Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO

Mike Lindell has a new book that was published in 2019 by Lindell Publishing, LLC. Title:

KingofPepsi (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)The King Of Pepsi

I'll make a works section. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Amy for America - Amy Klobuchar Booth at Minnesota State Fair (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

error in Political activities section

Relevent section: "Following the storming of the United States Capitol by Trump supporters in January 2021, Lindell was among those who advanced the conspiracy theory that people associated with antifa were responsible for the attack, saying they were probably there "dressed as Trump people"."

should now read:

"Following the storming of the United States Capitol by protesters in January 2021, Lindell was among those who advanced the now, known to be true theory, that people associated with antifa agitator (John Sullivan in BLM also Jade Saker, a CNN photographer) were responsible for the pre-planned attack, saying they were probably there "dressed as Trump people".

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/01/16/robert-gehrke-what-we/ https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/utah-man-charged-federal-court-following-events-united-states-capitol https://rfangle.com/politics/cnn-jade-sacker-celebrating-capitol-break-in/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with you I don't think that sort of information is really "in the spirit" of Wikipedia ;) 124.169.150.131 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Does "in the spirit" of Wikipedia mean that things marked "conspiracy theory" that have become true cannot be changed to reflect the truth? Mike has been very vocal that Wikipedia is now misrepresenting him due to his conservative views. Snoopyjc (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Lindell 's WH meeting

Please add: "Lindell spoke to 6 January 2021 rally crowd outside the White House before Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. On 15 January 2021 Lindell entered the West Wing of the White House bearing notes referencing martial law and Insurrection Act. His meeting with Trump came after 25,000 National Guardsmen descended on DC for the Biden inauguration."

Sources:

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/15/mike-lindell-mypillow-trump-white-house-martial-law
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/mypillow-lindell-white-house-martial-law-b1788176.html
• https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/15/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-west-wing-notes-captured-washington-post-lead-collins-vpx.cnn
• https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/frank-colon-who-mike-lindell-wants-for-a-coup-is-confused.html
• https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2021/01/16/trump-supporter-mike-lindell-suggested-imposing-martial-law.html
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/01/15/mypillow-ceo-meets-with-president-about-plan-to-install-new-cia-director/ --87.170.206.245 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Lindell image relevancy?

An editor has restored the image to the left within the article's infobox. When the arguably better image to the right was put back into place, that edit was reverted with an edit summary that it "contains an image of a person that is not relevant to the article". While the bottom right does include an eyes-up portion of someone else, I don't think it detracts from the image's usability. Other's thoughts? Would cropping out the lowest part of the image make a difference? —ADavidB 13:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as the person who uploaded the image at the left (before cropping), so might be a bit biased ... the User:GageSkidmore image is sharper, brighter, and just better. I cropped off most of the other person, at the expense of Lindell's tie, which is no great loss, and will replace the image in the infobox with the cropped version. --GRuban (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I swapped the image back to the previous image. I do agree that the User:GageSkidmore image is higher quality. But, the woman was distracting. The cropped image is better, but there is still what now looks like a hairy corsage. Is there a way to crop out the hair? Thanks! WikiGJay (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There are mugshots available, also, from one of his multiple arrests, including in Las Vegas. P37307 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Lindell has been Banned from Twitter because of his rants

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/business/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.startribune.com/lindell-says-twitter-ban-won-t-stop-his-campaign-to-claim-election-fraud/600015222/

As of January 26th,2021 Twitter has banned the CEO of My Pillow due to his rants in relation to the 2020 election according to some news outlets.2601:640:C600:3C20:5473:53AE:7FC3:3FA6 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-business-elections-7cda3dffd77c1386ebb75f16924ee02c

Bed Bath & Beyond and Kohl’s have boycotted Mike Lindell's company My Pillow after his rants. 2601:640:C600:3C20:A005:1BC2:6B8D:807D (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I added a mention using two of the proposed sources. —PaleoNeonate – 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Lindell the target of a Boycott

https://www.newsweek.com/mypillow-products-no-longer-stocked-these-companies-1562510

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/534805-bed-bath-beyond-kohls-pulls-mypillow-from-shelves-after-ceos-meeting-with

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-says-products-were-dropped-major-retailers-n1254676

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/politics/dominion-voting-systems-sends-letter-to-mypillow-ceo-threatening-lawsuit-over-false-voter-claims/89-4174cb4f-822b-4817-8ea4-a07ee4e02910

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/if-trump-doesnt-keep-you-up-all-night-mypillow-will.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/19/my-pillow-ceo-lindell/

Update there are news outlets reporting as of January 19th, 2021 that several Retailers have cut ties to MyPillow over his role in the January 6th Riots at the US Capitol and his rants over the 2020 elections. 2601:640:C600:3C20:2183:743D:39AE:9D30 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/02/newsmax-anchor-walks-out-after-my-pillow-ceo-mike-lindell-rant/4363781001/

Update there are now reports of Mike Lindell continuing to do election rants in a Newsmax interview that lead to their pundit walking off the set.2601:640:C600:3C20:B8FF:D500:1054:947C (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Update Youtube has Banned Mike Lindell's Movie "Absolute Proof"

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/technology/three-false-claims-about-the-election-made-in-mike-lindells-new-film.html

According to the New York Times Youtube Flagged Mike Lindells 2021 movie over disinformation of the 2020 elections

"YouTube took down “Absolute Proof” on Friday, saying it violated the company’s presidential election integrity policy, which prohibits false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches changed the outcome of the vote.

Two companies that provide election technology, Dominion and Smartmatic, have filed defamation suits in recent weeks against people and organizations that have made baseless claims about the companies.

Here are three much-examined areas that come up in the film. One America and Mr. Lindell did not respond to requests for comment." 2601:640:C600:3C20:8AF:4B2E:D5EB:8DFB (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the correct name of this film? I've seen both "Truth" and "Proof" used in the title. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The correct name is Mike Lindell's Absolute Proof Documentary. 124.169.150.131 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Mike Lindell is now accused of ranting about COVID-19

https://www.newsweek.com/horrible-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-calls-covid-19-vaccine-mark-beast-stuff-1567437

Here is My view Mike Lindell is in the spotlight ranting like crazy because he wants the Qanon vote in 2022 and 2024 which ever turns out to be true. Here is a quote from Newsweek

"I think we're going down a communist path, the socialism is coming in here, everybody can look at what happened in Nazi Germany. I mean this is—we're going down—it's happening so fast, when I see and experience the cancelation of people, canceling out people's jobs, they don't exist," he said.

Lindell went on to claim that the COVID-19 vaccine was the "mark of the beast"—a prophecy mentioned in chapter 13, verse 18 of the biblical Book of Revelation.

"Now it's this 'One World Order,' this stuff is in Revelations, you know that's what I was talking about, and you combine that with this vaccine, that's 'mark of the beast' stuff," he said. "I mean, this is horrible, keeping us indoors." 2601:640:C600:3C20:69A1:A951:E06A:C388 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

False Claims in Mike Lindell's film, “Absolute Proof”

The “Attempts to overturn 2020 election" section mentions “Absolute Proof, a documentary making his fraud claims.”

Detailing what these fraudulent claims are might be good. According to the 2 articles, below, these fraudulent claims include falsehoods about:

• Manipulation of Dominion files
• Foreign interference
• Votes for Biden being counted multiple times
• Dead voters
• Georgia voters registering to vote in another state after their Georgia registration date

All of these have been de-bunked by fact checkers. . No they have not. "factcheckers" are just people, people who agree with you and use Orwellian names like factchecker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It also might be good to add the following: “The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its election partners called the 2020 election ‘the most secure in American history.’” (From the Politifact article)

See the following references (note that the NYTimes article has already been referenced in the page): 2600:1014:B00B:7C8B:8C4B:815F:38F4:6B4 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)JA

References

I don’t claim to be a writer, so feel free to change this. But maybe change this:

Lindell purchased three hours of airtime on One America News Network, which had also been sued by the Dominion executive, to broadcast Absolute Proof, a documentary making his fraud claims.

To this:

Lindell purchased three hours of airtime on One America News Network, which had also been sued by the Dominion executive, to broadcast Absolute Proof, a documentary making his fraud claims. These claims include: that Dominion files were manipulated; that there was foreign interference; that votes for Biden were counted multiple times; that there were dead voters; and that Georgia voters registered to vote in another state after their Georgia registration date. All of these claims have been de-bunked by fact checkers. In fact, “The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its election partners called the 2020 election ‘the most secure in American history.’” 2600:1014:B00B:7C8B:8C4B:815F:38F4:6B4 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)JA

"All of these claims have been de-bunked by fact checkers" is not going to cut it anymore. Results like these simply do not emerge from fair elections and the point he made was valid even if your local rag tells you to disagree. Rather than turn this page into a political mess, perhaps all election fraud talk should move to a special page. Leave this page solely for the human being Mike Lindell. A single documentary production should not cause Wikipedia to change an entire artle to paint this man as a political enemy - 6 months ago this article was great. 124.169.150.131 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Alleged Krakowski relationship

Should there be mention in the Personal Life section of the Daily Mail's report of a relationship with Jane Krakowski and Lindell's subsequent denial? It has been very widely covered in the press. Gershonmk (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, per WP:RSPSOURCES. —ADavidB 13:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, exactly, but THR, The Daily Beast, and Vanity Fair are, among many others that have covered this issue. Gershonmk (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to have a sentence about how he is suing the Daily Mail over the allegation. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Inserted a line per this discussion Gershonmk (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Works

I don't think a works section is really appropriate for this page, especially because the book is self-published. What do other editors think? Gershonmk (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall it wasn't originally in a separate section, but moved there by an editor. While I believe the book information should remain in the article, I don't care if it's not in its own section. —ADavidB 05:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

NYTimes

Musdan77 For the purposes of editing on Wikipedia, the news side of the NYT is trusted as a reliable source-- see WP:RPS. Gershonmk (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

lede

@El cid, el campeador: Not going to edit war but the source literally says he is famous because of the commercials, in which he stars. I put the relevant quote, which is the opening line of the WaPo profile, in the edit summary: Lindell "vaulted to national fame for his loud and proud support of President Trump and the commercials for his bedding company that have aired in heavy rotation on Fox News, making him the network’s top advertiser in 2020." Neither source says the company is famous for its TV presence, though the CBS one also calls him "Mike Lindell, the informercial star. . ."

I think you misunderstood my last reversion comment, which was in reference to this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Lindell&oldid=1006366665 which had "Trump's efforts to identify and resolve voting errors, which opposing media have referred to as attempting to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election." I don't think you put that there? That's the only edit I reverted for being out of line with the community. I was saying it was the overwhelming wiki consensus to refer to the efforts as an attempt to overturn the 2020 US election on the site.

You can suggest language that reflects these edits if you want a particular structure/format, but reliable sources say Lindell is notable for appearing in the commercials and Trump support, including election stuff now. I would also note the oleandrin thing because it's so much of the wiki page; ledes shouldn't say different than the content. Gershonmk (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The language you returned to the article stated 'He is known for advertising on Fox News,'. This is misstating the article; the article states he is known for his ads AND is Fox News' biggest advertiser - saying he is known for his ads on Fox is synthesis (and untrue, from my knowledge). Other than that, the only significant change is listing the number of My Pillows sold. I stand by that because we do need to mention his business and not just his recent political foibles. I definitely agree about removal of that commentary, and I kept that out when I 'reverted' back to the old lead. Is there anything you take issue with the current lead? In any case, I appreciate you opening a discussion. Edit conflict - per your most recent comments, I don't disagree, necessarily, and the lead as it stands now mentions ads, Trump, and his Covid 'cure.' Again, the one thing I omitted was the Fox News statement, which I think it simply not true. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, I just looked for a clean version and reinserted the language; there had been a lot of edits so I couldn't revert. My comments in the revert summary really had nothing to do with your edits, and I'm sorry that you took them personally.

See hereherehereherehereherehere I'm going to stop googling but the company isn't famous for advertising on Fox, he is -- his advertising there is responsible for/mentioned in almost all his coverage in reliable sources -- NYT says Fox is 60% of the total ads and he is regularly involved in related controversies, ad boycotts, etc. The original WAPO article I cited doesn't say "vaulted to national fame for . . . the commercials for his bedding company. These commercials have also aired in heavy rotation on Fox News." but rather "vaulted to national fame for . . . the commercials for his bedding company THAT have aired in heavy rotation on Fox News." Yet it also wouldn't be completely right to say "Lindell is noted for his commercials on Fox" because, as I noted/cited, Lindell is famous qua Fox advertiser extraodinaire, viz. famous for his financial support of controversial programs, etc. Note the next few paragraphs in that profile.

Unrelatedly, I wouldn't mention the sell-count, which is something more for the company's page.Gershonmk (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. He is famous for appearing in his ads, period. The profile mentions Fox News because it fits into the context of him being a conservative darling. The entire sentence reads: " the commercials for his bedding company that have aired in heavy rotation on Fox News, making him the network’s top advertiser in 2020." The entire article is about him being Fox's biggest advertiser. The sentence may imply but does not mean that he is famous for ads on Fox News but merely that he is famous for his ads, and they have aired heavily on Fox News. The objective fact is that My Pillow advertises across a wide range of media, and he is well known simply for being in ads. And, he was well-known even before 2016 and his association with Trump. I don't support changing the lead to entirely focus on his political dealings. And if we take the sell count out we should include something else about his business. I don't feel strongly about Lindell but I do think we shouldn't just pile on all his controversies and ignore the fact that he has (had?) a very successful business. I think the lead is fine as it is and frankly I don't see how mentioning Fox News will do anything but slant this article further toward a POV. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that's why he's famous -- cite a source saying something different if you want to make a different claim. He is well known for defending Fox programs by advertising on them when other advertisers pull out, that's why Fox is 60% of their advertisement (and Newsweek/OANN another big chunk). The idea that his company is successful is entirely a POV -- they don't release data others can evaluate. Gershonmk (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

As was just pointed out to you, the source says Lindell is famous for his ads. It notes that the ads have appeared on Fox, but not that their appearance there is behind his fame. It would seem you are going beyond the source to write what you want it to have said. This is known as WP:SYNTHESIS and is prohibited. —ADavidB 03:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As always, WP:AGF. The source says "vaulted to national fame for . . . the commercials for his bedding company that have aired in heavy rotation on Fox News." And it's not just the one source: here's another, linking his fame specifically to Fox. Not a source, but interesting to note how Donald Trump referred to him -- "the guy with the pillows on Fox." Or here, "Lindell has become a darling of the religious right, which instantly recognizes him from his ubiquitous Fox News ads." Or here, "Donald Trump crony and Fox News advertiser Mike Lindell."Gershonmk (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I think you're ignoring the significance of the word "that" in the original source's sentence. No one is saying his ads haven't appeared on Fox News. What I (and I understand El cid) are saying is that this source says his fame is due to his ads. Because the source article concentrates on his being that network's top advertiser, it is quick to point out his ads there. Again, that's different from saying their appearance on Fox News is what he's "known for", as you consistently worded it. Is it your understanding from the sources you cited that only Fox News ad viewers have given Lindell "national fame"? —ADavidB 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's the Fox ads specifically, and the attendant coverage, that have made him famous. Most TV pitchmen don't get Wikipedia articles, and Lindell wouldn't be notable enough for one except that he got famous for advertising heavily on Fox (this page was created in 2017, about when he became notable). See the sources I quoted -- this is not me making a claim. Fox ad viewers, and anyone who watched/read a news report about his Fox advertising, which was by far the most famous thing about him (other than MyPillow itself) until the 2020 election stuff. Gershonmk (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That first additional source you added includes "perhaps" and "I'm on every channel. Not just Fox." Trump's knowing Lindell has ads on Fox doesn't mean a majority know him particularly for that. From the next source, are you suggesting that because the politically right know Lindell from their seeing his ads on Fox that we should write generally that Lindell is famous for ads on Fox? From the fourth article you quoted, again, no one is saying that Lindell does not advertise on Fox or that he doesn't support Trump. —ADavidB 05:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Lindell doesn't decide what he's famous for, he's a businessman; the reporter implies it's Fox. His first ever mention in WaPo is here. His next two were about his Laura Ingraham ads. In the fourth, he's described as "Mike Lindell, a Trump fan who refused to join an advertiser boycott of Laura Ingraham’s show after the Fox News host mocked a school-shooting survivor." His first ever mention in the NYT is here. Is there a source that says "Lindell is famous among liberals for his ubiquitous CNN ads"? Lindell isn't a "darling" of the left. The AJC mentions him as "Donald Trump crony and Fox News advertiser Mike Lindell" -- those are what he's known for, along with MyPillow itself and maybe the COVID stuff. Gershonmk (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

As editors, we shouldn't go by reporter's implications. You haven't specified the right in your "known for" claims. If you want to specify he's known by political conservatives for his advertising on Fox, that would be different (though I don't know that it improves the article). I would agree that the AJC wants to label Lindell as a political crony and advertiser on Fox News. That doesn't mean that's for what he is primarily known generally by others. —ADavidB 06:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Here another reliable source, Buzzfeed News, describes him as "Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, whose ads feature incessantly on Fox News." Reliable sources like NYT and WaPo have only ever covered him because of his Fox ads. At a certain point, enough sources have said that's what he's famous for. Obviously Buzzfeed/AJC/NYT/WaPo/etc. aren't conservative outlets, but liberals who have heard of him have heard of him because of coverage there, coverage of his Fox advertising. He's Mike Lindell, famous for advertising on Fox, to both liberals and conservatives. Gershonmk (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources have said he's advertised heavily on Fox News, which isn't under dispute. Being reported as having done something is still different than saying someone is known generally for having done it. —ADavidB 06:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is, it's what they call him to identify him to the audience -- it's what reliable sources think you might have heard about him. And advertising on Fox specifically is what got him into the newspapers, his Fox advertising specifically is still the subject of the majority of his references in reliable sources, etc. Plus WaPo and THR say explicitly that he's famous for it.Gershonmk (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your tying a source that says Lindell's known for his ads (that appear on Fox News among other stations), with other sources that say he's advertised heavily on Fox News, to say flat out that he's "known for" the advertising specifically on Fox News goes back to my comments previously about WP:SYNTHESIS. News sources writing about an individual doing something is simply not the same as that individual being known generally for doing it. (Not everyone follows news media closely, for example.) I'd be very surprised if a majority of people associate Lindell with oleandrin, which you've included in the same "known for" sentence. —ADavidB 04:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Lindell is not the FORMER ceo. 2600:1014:B00B:E2CB:29E6:C613:EE19:DC14 (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This is corrected. His son was named chief operating officer, which apparenly lead a prior editor to misunderstand Lindell's continued CEO role. —ADavidB 15:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

January 6 and Antifa

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.

---

Hey guys, the part of the page stating "Following the Capitol storming, Lindell was among those who advanced *** the false conspiracy theory *** that people associated with antifa were responsible for the attack, saying they had probably "dressed as Trump people".[38][39]" is now refuted information. Footage exists showing agitation, not just filming by John Sullivan, and [2] below will reveal further details of 20 individuals from Antifa.

[1] https://www.oann.com/court-documents-reveal-cnn-nbc-paid-antifa-activist-john-sullivan-70k-to-film-riots-at-capitol-on-jan-6/
[2] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/breaking-exclusive-list-20-individuals-interest-capitol-january-6th-appear-connected-antifa/
[3] https://www.ibtimes.sg/john-sullivan-antifa-member-admits-disguising-himself-trump-supporter-inciting-violence-54920
[4] https://www.theepochtimes.com/ex-capitol-police-chief-intel-indicated-antifa-proud-boys-other-groups-would-join-on-jan-6_3708098.html
[5] https://www.newsweek.com/john-sullivan-capitol-attack-leftwing-antifa-1561898
[6] https://nypost.com/2021/02/17/accused-capitol-rioter-john-sullivan-sold-footage-for-35k-to-nbc-cnn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by F darkbladeus (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC) F darkbladeus (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Gateway Pundit (RSP entry) is a fake news website, and is not considered a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 11:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

===============

Thank you for your feedback.

References [1][3][4][5][6] plus:
[7] https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/utah-man-charged-federal-court-following-events-united-states-capitol
[8] “Let’s burn this shit down.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfiS8MsfSF4&feature=youtu.be
[9] https://twitter.com/i/status/1299448086956322817 Speeches in Black Lives Matter Plaza in DC, with one Salt Lake City organizer (John Sullivan) calling to pull Trump out of the White House before Election Day #DCProtests #DC #WashingtonDC
[10] SoCal publ.2/23/2021 https://noqreport.com/2021/02/23/ex-capitol-police-chief-we-had-intel-antifa-would-be-at-capitol-riots-mainstream-media-thats-debunked

Mainstream media and Democratic politicians have a narrative to maintain. They do not want you to know that Antifa was present at the Capitol riots and were involved in sparking the storming of the Capitol Building. Even after ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund admitted it to be true, both mainstream media and Democrats are busy calling it a debunked fake news story. In testimony on Capitol Hill today, Sund acknowledged that Antifa was not only there but that police had intel beforehand that Antifa was coming. His statement sent to Congress said, “The assessment indicated that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, Antifa, and other extremist groups were expected to participate in the January 6th event and that they may be inclined to become violent.” Ever since the January 6th event, mainstream media has gone out of its way to claim that President Trump and his supporters were the only ones who were to blame for what happened. They went so far as to quash stories and suppress evidence that tied Antifa and other radical leftist groups to initiating the Capitol riots. James Sullivan, the brother of Antifa provocateur John Sullivan, claimed in a leaked text message that 226 Antifa members start the riot itself. That and other stories were ignored by mainstream media.

Kind of addresses the "reliable source" argument. Sad that purposed omission is considered proof of no proof, if that makes sense. Not cool. F darkbladeus (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The majority of the sources provided do not meet the requirements of WP:reliable sources, while the one that does is a WP:primary source that doesn't mention "antifa". Not properly supported, so not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

===============
What is "the one". The DOJ link? Newsweek? NYPost? The video with first-hand filming of John Sullivan? The article citing Steven Sund's testimony under oath to Congress? Why don't you be more specific in your response. Has Wiki become so "on task" as to not allow corrections for errors? Truthful reporting shouldn't be something you are flippant about.
ps. Activism should never supercede objective or truthful reporting. I am deeply saddened that years of activism to create a world of equality and inclusiveness resulted in such an environment of oppression.

F darkbladeus (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Your problem is that you need to look beyond the right-wing echo chamber you apparently inhabit. In the meantime, no reliable sources to directly support your contention, nothing gets added to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

===============
I do not live in "the right-wing echo chamber". Thank you very much. Unlike some, I am Independent. The words from the ex-Capitol Police Chief and direct video of John Sullivan inciting insurrection being stated as unreliable and unable to directly support the truth is preposterous.

We need future generations to grow up intelligently, not intentionally handicapped by bias force fed as “facts.” F darkbladeus (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we need them to grow up intelligently, which is why Wikipedia requires that all information in the encyclopedia be directly supported by citations from WP:reliable sources. We don't allow WP:original research or WP:synthesis of information from multiple sources. Those are all mandatory policies which you clearly don't understand, and which you should read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

===============
I do not live in "the right-wing echo chamber". Thank you very much. Unlike some, I am Independent. The words from the ex-Capitol Police Chief and direct video of John Sullivan inciting insurrection being stated as unreliable and unable to directly support the truth is preposterous.

We need future generations to grow up intelligently, not intentionally handicapped by bias force fed as “facts.” F darkbladeus (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we need them to grow up intelligently, which is why Wikipedia requires that all information in the encyclopedia be directly supported supported by citations from WP:reliable sources. We don't allow WP:original research or WP:synthesis of information from multiple sources. Those are all mandatory policies which you clearly don't understand, and which you should read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

================

• Thank you for the incorrect statement that I don't understand or haven't read the mandatory policies. I have read the page. From the first time it was linked.

directly supported

Reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - check, unless 'valid' means 'progressive'?

Definition of a source: The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) - check, unless that means their words must support opinion that has been debunked

Context matters: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. - how are a DOJ link, several articles with personally recorded video testimony, a direct video link, two articles from two sources regarding the ex-Capitol Police Chief's testimony to Congress inappropriate?

Biased or Opinionated Sources: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. - looking in depth, there are 100% 'progressive' news sources cited. Nothing neutral or from a conservative news source cited.

Questionable Sources - these news sources are presented as a balance to the sources cited which are not current, reflecting facts which have emerged in hearings.

The page is a hit piece if you look at it objectively and state, despite testimony before Congress, DOJ records, and direct video of an agitator you still refuse to remove the dialogue around present information as "conspiracy theory" when known, reported presence of Antifa, Black Lives Matters, Oath Keepers, QAnon, and other 'radical' factions showed up and engaged destructively at the Capitol. Nancy Pelosi was briefed about the planned attacks ahead of that date...for some ill-defined reason refused to increase security. That's another discussion. However, this one should be fixed to be truthful.

F darkbladeus (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to your personal opinions, but Wikipedia works by consensus, and relevant consensus discussions throughout the project do not align with your opinions. The Wikipedia community apparently is not in interested in its encyclopedia being a medium for the promotion of the ideologically-based "facts" of the far right, and prefers to base its content on reliable sources. In this Wikipedia is upholding a much higher (and older) standard of what is factual than is prevalent today, where the label of "false fact" is thrown around fairly indiscriminantly to trash anything which doesn't resonate within the right-wing echo chamber.

It's been interesting talking to you, and I thank you for your civility (something that many of your co-ideologists totally lack), but we've already gone too far into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. The bottom line here is that I will not be making your suggested changes, and apparently neither will Newslinger. You can wait around and see if anyone else shows up, but my feeling is that no one is going to allow such unsupported fantasies into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2021 (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.

Wikipedia section

There is a section in the article about Lindell's criticism of Wikipedia. I felt it was necessary to point out that Wikipedia editors discussed this criticism, and pointed out that Lindell was misunderstanding the non-prootional nature of this project. The best way to do this was to link to that on-wiki discussion.

Now, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, or course, but this is an exception to that rule, because it's not being cited for the truth of the arguments made, but for the existence of those arguments. True, it's a WP:PRIMARY source, and a secondary or tertiary one would be better, but -- as far a I can tell -- none of those exist, so the primary source is all there is. The exception is similar to the one in WP:SPS, in which a self-published source like a blog cannot be cited except for when they are being used as the source of information about themselves (see WP:ABOUTSELF) -- and this instance meets all the requirements of that usage.

A precedent is the article Essjay controversy, about a Wikipedia-based controversy, which contains several references from Wikipedia.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) :This was your 4th revert in the last 24 hours. Please self-revert it, and then we can discuss its appropriateness , and see if you have consensus for it. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Look again, none of my other edits were reverts. They added material to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me correct that. One of my edits -- the one 23 minutes and 53 seconds before my most recent edit, was a revert, restoring the section title for the Wikipedia section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, Kenosha Forever, and Caius G.: Pls DO NOT edit/change the article and pls discuss the issues on this talk page, to avoid edit warring for it you continues reverting each other edits, you will be blocked from editing, until a resolution is a achieved. Pls note that the discussion should be civil, comment on the edits and not the editors and the discussion should based on Wikipedia guidelines. Pls note Wikipedia can not be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR. Pls base you discussion on WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, NO PROMOTIOINAL sources should be present to support your claim in the article. If there is any discussion related to the subject, you can placed the link in the article talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that no other source mention this is a good indication that this entire paragraph is undue here. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia cannot be used as a source in a Wikipedia article, it's circular reasoning and navel gazing. The text at issue also in essence states Wikipedia guidelines. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

biased article....claiming he is a conspiracy theorist and not citing a legitimate source. 161.129.92.48 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. You need to actually follow the instructions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Did Mike Lindell edit this article?

I am curious did Mike Lindell or someone close to him attempted to edit this page? As he has said in an interview that Wikipedia blocked him from editing this article. https://www.newsweek.com/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-announces-probe-zuckerberg-dorsey-says-theyre-going-jail-1576661 Nice Stories

See this thread from WP:AN a little while ago. He seems to be referring to the article being semi-protected. As far as I am aware, no editor who self-identified as "Mike Lindell" ever edited the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

My reading, based on what the source says ("Wikipedia.... unfairly blocked him from promoting his documentary Absolute Proof"), is that he probably tried to create a promotional page for the "documentary" (either himself or through a third party), rather than actually editing this page. NonReproBlue (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed left wing slant

The header of this article had a very political slant. Discussion about conspiracy theories et etc should be in a controversies tab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tparaiso601 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the cited information. We don't do "controversies" tabs/sections. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

In this line: products. Lindell has implied he thinks that this is a result of false claims promoted by him in relation to the 2020 United States presidential election results,

It states false claims. These claims are still open and being investigated. They are not false as of yet. 184.167.156.230 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done If you have reliable sources showing that the claims are not false, please offer them. All claims have been rejected by courts, so that will be hard. You are free to believe what you wish, but Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits (part 2)

Wikipedia is no place for bias, and as written, this article is one of the most unbalanced articles on Wikipedia that one can find. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia or the open web.

I have some proposals below. You can change the wording from what I picked, but before you dismiss this as obnoxious, understand that not making the following changes or equivalent changes would obviously be a gross violation of Wikipedia's values.

Here are some ideas to balance this out this broken article.

1... Under the heading "My Pillow"

Current wording: Lindell said, "Naturally, I am terribly disappointed by the BBB's decision."

Proposed: Lindell said truthfully, "Naturally, I am terribly disappointed by the BBB's decision."

2... Under the heading "Social media platform"

Current wording: Lindell claimed that the name Vocl had nothing to do with their trademark, and was an acronym for "Victory of Christ's Love".

Proposed: Lindell correctly claimed that the name Vocl had nothing to do with their trademark, and was an acronym for "Victory of Christ's Love".

3... Under the heading "Political activities"

Current wording: Lindell said that his company's bedding factories had been refocused on face mask production

Proposed: Lindell said, truthfully, that his company's bedding factories had been refocused on face mask production

4... Under the heading "Political activities > Attempts to overturn 2020 election"

Current wording: Lindell said that "he did not help finance subsequent trips to promote the Jan. 6 rally,"

Proposed: Lindell correctly said that "he did not help finance subsequent trips to promote the Jan. 6 rally," Sandrazhoureal (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No sources cited in support of these proposed changes. Neutrality^talk 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If I added sources, would this be doable? Sandrazhoureal (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Not to spam, but Wikipedia has a way for users to report "sources needed" or citation needed. If someone tried, they could come up with many, many examples in this article that need sources, and that's why I think lack of sources is an obviously bad reason 'not do' this change. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll make another proposal differently if that's the only reason I get. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandrazhoureal, other parts of the article being supposedly unsourced - feel free to point out what by inserting {{fact}} after anything unsourced - does not allow for you to add unsourced information. 15 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

15, thanks, I'll do that. Since adding unsourced information is obviously allowed, however, I look forward to hearing a substantiated response. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not allowed. If you are unable to suggest "substantiated" changes, then you would be well-advised to look for sources. Best, 15 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not editorialize by claiming things to be "truthful" or whatever unless RS say so. Show RS that refer to his comments this way. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir If that counts as editorializing, then so does inserting words like "falsely" which is obviously something we do. So in fact we do that. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to add my corrections or remove all the editorialization, especially with the word 'false'. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to add my corrections or remove all the editorialization, especially with the word 'false'. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We call something false if reliable sources call it false. If there are examples of the use of the word false that are not sourced or not given by a source, please describe them. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Wikipedia is no place for bias", Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the reader so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. Wikipedia does have a neutral point of view, which is different. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

331dot So there is a lot of confusion in this thread because everyone is saying something different. Is calling something false (regardless of whether it's sources) 'editorializing'? And if not, then let's say even with sources, would inserting the word true be editorializing? Sandrazhoureal (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Editorializing is the addition of language by the editor that expresses the editor's view (surprisingly, horrific, beautiful, etc.). As 311dot said, if reliable sources widely describe something as false (e.g., QAnon theorists), Wikipedia does as well (WP:NPOV). The same would be done if sources widely pointed out something was correct or true. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is editorializing to use the word "true", unless reliable sources make a point of it. Reliable sources are presumed to be accurate, as if they tell lies and make things up, they are no longer reliable sources (as the Daily Mail is not a RS). 331dot (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir Alright, thank you because that explained everything for me. I also understand that what's written on Wikipedia is taken to be true, and false statements that are quoted on Wikipedia are labelled as false, so it's not mistaken as truth. With that said, none of my corrections had anything to do with any editor's view. Unsourced non-editorial information is allowed. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, "unsourced non-editorial information" is not allowed, although it sometimes creeps into articles. Unsourced information should either have a reference to a reliable source added, or it should be removed. Verifiability is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Under "Social media platform", the sentence I mentioned about the Vocl acronym does not have a source. While I can request a source be added, or someone or myself can add it, it's confusing for you to say that unsourced information isn't allowed when it's there. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If so, it is not supposed to be there without a source or at all, should no source exist. Is this some kind of attempt to argue that your edits should be exempt from the sourcing policy? 15 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So, some clarification would help because clearly unsourced information has been added, is still there, and is not being removed. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandrazhoureal, information has to be sourced. That's the rule. What part of it needs clarification? I have replaced the source with a better one. 15 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

15 Thank you, I'm satisfied. Well, not fully, as you probably can guess, but we can close this thread or whatever if need be. I don't think was a learning experience just for me alone. Cheers! Sandrazhoureal (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to add "truthfully" or "correctly" to any of these examples. The only reason to do so would be to ADD bias to the article. The person trying to add these things is clearly pro-Lindell, despite Lindell truthfully, correctly being a traitor who tried to help overthrow the government.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Remove "without evidence" from the entry. Mike Lindell has submitted evidence and millions have seen that evidence. 2602:306:C4BF:4FB0:5125:74AC:9D86:A598 (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The "evidence" is Lindell's own unverified and uncorroborated personal opinion. Not fact. ValarianB (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we create a separate page for "Absolute Proof"?

"Absolute Proof," a documentary released by Mike Lindell, has gotten two awards. Yes, I know what the awards were, but doesn't this more than deserve the movie to get its own Wikipedia page? Not being partisan; just letting an idea out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:cb00:146:f600:dcb0:f23e:dfe0:c2e1 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi 2604:CB00:146:F600:DCB0:F23E:DFE0:C2E1, thanks for your suggestion. It might qualify for an article per Wikipedia:Notability (media) § Films. If you want to create the article, head to WP:AFC. Best, 15 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Our sound in Mississippi seems to be getting blocked every couple of seconds

Is the system being blocked? Every few seconds the sound is being blocked. I live in Pascagoula Mississippi and AT%T is my carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BA70:E410:1577:2CA8:C8BB:AF62 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussing changes to the Wikipedia article. We don't provide technical support for Lindell's events. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone fix this typo?

Under "Political Activites" -> "Attempts to overturn 2020 election":

"Lindell promoted a a conspiracy theory"

Thank you, fixed. 15 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Why Mike Lindell Can’t Stop

• Why Mike Lindell Can’t Stop --Politico

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

On expanding the lead

The lead correctly describes Mr. Lindell as the founder and CEO of My Pillow in the first sentence. However, the rest—and most—of the lead is about his political activities, especially during tge 2020s. While Mr. Lindell might be receiving media attention for those activities, I am sure it would help to know what he was notable for beforehand, and this is especially helpful once his activities die down. I would propose changing and expanding the lead to look something like:

Michael James Lindell (born June 28, 1961),[4] also known as the My Pillow Guy,[5] is an American businessman and entrepreneur. Born and raised in Minnesota, he ran a number of small businesses before launching My Pillow, a pillow manufacturing company of which he remains the CEO.[6][3][7][8]
Lindell is a prominent supporter of, and advisor to, former U.S. President Donald Trump. He has, without evidence, promoted the toxic plant extract oleandrin as a COVID-19 cure and supported attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.[9] His other activities include philanthropy and support for faith-based recovery from drug addictions.

I think this would make the article less biased towards recentism, as this guy is more notable for his long history of entrepreneurship and only recently for his political activities. Before I make the edit, I would like to read any objections if there are any. FreeMediaKid$ 19:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Would you be expanding the article body or adding any new citations along with this edit? As it stands, the current lead seems a better representation of what he is notable for, which is MyPillow, his support of Trump, and his promotion of conspiracy theories. The article body currently has a single sentence mentioning his pre-MyPillow businesses, and three sentences about his philanthropy and support for faith-based recovery programs, so I think adding these to the lead without substantially more coverage would be undue. I don't think it's a recentism issue, he just wasn't notable pre-MyPillow. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at Mr. Lindell's activities based on Google search and news sources, it no longer seems to me that philanthropy is an important part of his career. I did find his consistent pattern of entrepreneurship, his rising only in prominence with his My Pillow company, and later undertaking ambitions like launching Frank, even if those ambitions never materialize, so I thought that maybe modifying the first sentence would work. I am thinking of Michael James Lindell (born June 28, 1961),[4] also known as the My Pillow Guy,[5] is an American businessman and entrepreneur who is the founder and CEO of My Pillow, Inc., a pillow manufacturing company based in Minnesota.[6][3][7][8]. Note the text following the company name explaining what it is, rather than leaving it to the reader's guess. It is not as magnificent a change as I would have liked, but fixing something that needs fixing is better than leaving it alone. FreeMediaKid$ 02:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no concerns with this suggested change, though I might omit "based in Minnesota" for brevity's sake on an already long sentence. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. I dropped the last bit since the article is about the person, not the company. FreeMediaKid$ 03:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My Pillow or MyPillow?

https://www.mypillow.com/ calls the company "MyPillow®". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I went with what the subject article is named. I don't care whether there's a space or not, but we need to pick one version and use it consistently. —ADavidB 14:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:My Pillow. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Creating a separate but connected Frank Speech page

I noticed that MyPillow has its own page but still is connected to Mike Lindell and has its own section. Shouldn't there be one for Frank Speech? Considering it is a company and it would cut out a lot of space that is being taken by having all the info on Mike Lindell's page. I wanted to hear if that is possible and what type of problems come with it. I am relatively new to editing at Wikipedia so I don't know the steps to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PricklyCactus2 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@PricklyCactus2: There was one, but it was merged to this as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank (website) (2nd nomination). Unless you can show that there has been a significant amount of coverage published since that deletion, it's not likely to be a good idea. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Oh! I see. I understand but I am still curious about the process that comes to requesting creating a connected page. The guides can overwhelm me a bit. If you know, do you mind explaining the process or direct me to where I can read about it? I appreciate your time. PricklyCactus2 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2021 (EST)

If the connected page is one that has been deleted in the past, such as in this case, you would probably want to go through WP:DRV. In the general case, you can just create the connected page yourself if you think it's fairly uncontroversial. If you're not sure and want to discuss whether a split should happen before going ahead and doing it, you can propose a split. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarefare: thank you! I just was wondering because I didn't know when the split occurred. I know there has been more information coming out lately. Though I want to see if there is enough to warrant making separate pages before pulling that trigger. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not God

I've noticed this problem on many Wikipedia pages related to the 2020 election, but have chosen to mention it here. You call claims of election fraud "false" and "misleading" without any attempt to debunk the alleged proof of it. You can believe or not believe that the election was frauded if you wish, but you need to tell your readers how you know, say, Lindell's claims are false with evidence debunking them. Also, keep in mind that a third of Americans believe these theories which you call "false" without providing any reasons. You can call me all sorts of names, but I just want to remind you of Wikipedia's NPOV guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:103:9900:797E:C950:6B25:780E (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes those theories "false" (and similar) because so do reliable sources. There is plenty of detail at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, but it's not appropriate to go into that kind of detail in every article about someone who works to further those theories, and so we just say "false", "unevidenced", etc. as appropriate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One-third of Americans also believe in aliens and ghosts. That metric really isn't a high bar, so we'll just stick with what's established in reliable sources. – bradv🍁 20:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your contributions to try and find the namecalling, but I am not sure who has called you something disrespectful? Regardless, on the bright side, if similar sources start to back his ... ideas ... then Wikipedia would reflect that. If these ideas ended up being correct, and history bares that out, so too will the pages you are talking about. It can look strange to some but there is no censorship here, just the rules discussed by the two individuals above me. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This section has kinda voiced the issues I have been having with the page. I thought it was just me. I have been having issues with the lack of neutrality inside the biography and omission of stuff. Also just placement. I get Lindell's affiliation with Trump is huge but it feels like it overwhelms so many areas. Personally, I feel like his opinions about the 2020 election or controversial political opinions should be relegated to the politics section. I don't know if I am making sense...it's just the way biography is written, it feels less like an objective look at a person.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

PricklyCactus2 Please identify specific passages you find problematic, it is difficult to respond to a general grievance. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; as such, Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias and does not claim to be the truth. Only you can decide what is true for you, and the sources are presented to you so you can evaluate and judge their bias yourself. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot Oh, I understnad. I know it's hard to monitor bias. After all, everyone has it. Including me. I guess the best example is the My Pillow section. With the all information that is on My Pillow, this page only links to specifically negative things. It mentions losing BBB accreditation and retailers dropping them but nothing else. My Pillow started before 2017. I know I can add (and probably will) that information. I added the philanthropy section cause the Lindell foundation was only mentioned in one sentence in personal life. Those are just my observations though. I hope my explanation is understandable. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

PricklyCactus2 No problem. Most MyPillow information is at MyPillow. News about it plus Lindell likely skews negative due to Lindell's political activities and views. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I am glad that everyone was civil in the way they spoke during this talk. I have watched a whole lot of people like me get roasted on other pages for pointing out this page's lack of neutrality. So...you all assure me that, if the theory that the election was frauded is proven true, you'll correct this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:cb00:103:9900:fcb6:6921:1f2d:e262 (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If you feel so strongly about this topic, familiarise yourself with WP:Verifiability and read through the 28 archive pages of Talk:2020 United States presidential election. There is no need to waste people's time by rehashing election fraud arguments on this page. 15 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2021‎ 2604:cb00:103:9900:60e8:9d6d:401f:4475 (talk) 23:58, 11 July (UTC)

@2604:CB00:103:9900:797E:C950:6B25:780E: Let's just pretend that I, and some other people, insisted Wikipedia is literally God. I could do what you just did and say something like,

You claim that "Wikipedia is not God" without any attempt to debunk the alleged proof of it. You can believe or not believe that Wikipedia is god, but you need to provide evidence that Wikipedia is not god. Also, keep in mind that a number of people believe Wikipedia is god, and you are simply dismissing it without providing any reasons.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Just sayin'.

And the fact that people "believe" something that is baseless does not make it anymore true. SecretName101 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Struck out the less important part of comment that might detract from my overall point. SecretName101 (talk)

Add "conspiracy theorist" to description in the lede

One of his most notable ventures and greatest claims to fame is his role as a conspiracy theorist. This should be included in the lede description, which should read that he is a "businessman, entrepreneur, and conspiracy theorist" SecretName101 (talk)

We will need several sources identifying Mr. Lindell as such. Some of them might be in the article already for other purposes, but they will need to be specifically called out on this claim. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

== And Crack Cocaine Addict == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.6.121 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

His addiction history is mentioned in the Mike Lindell#Personal life section, but would be inappropriate to include in the lead as it is not a significant contributor to his notability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur. It would be inappropriate. Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't contribute to his notability. And putting his addiction lead isn't appropriate either. Although his recovery from addiction did influence Mike Lindell with the Lindell Foundation and other facets, he didn't become notable cause he was a world-renowned crack cocaine addict.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So we know he supported attempts to overturn the 2020 election, on the grounds that packets were moving between the U.S. and other countries. (I saw the packets moving during his presentation, which could only be explained as part of an organized effort by Democratic supporters committing election fraud.) Then he was pushing this poisonous plant extract as a Covid-19 cure, with no apparent scientific basis. Well, he's just doing his job as a businessman to try to get somebody to buy his stuff, regardless of whether there's any reason to think it would be efficacious. Clearly, he's the greatest medical expert since Trump! Fabrickator (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

But that isn't a claim to fame. Mike Lindell was known well before the conspiracies, so putting in the lead is inappropriate. And like 331dot said, that title has to be several verifiable sources to even make that claim he is one. Even then, the "conspiracy theorist" still might not belong in the lead. Not to mention, you have to gauge why you are putting it there and if it is constructive edit. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

At this point, his claims of a stolen election may well be what he is most famous for. Absent his persona as the guy on the MyPillow commercials, his making of such claims might not have drawn so much attention, but the fact that wasn't what first got him a "claim to fame" doesn't mean that his making of such election fraud claims is not itself notability-worthy.

In light of his support for Trump and the level of his support for election fraud claims, the current wording sounds like it's an attempt to divert attention from these activities. So after being told he's the MyPillow guy, we get a summary of MyPillow's product line, and then we're told about the good work he did with the Lindell Foundation, and furthermore (it's starting to look like an afterthought), he supported Trump and made these claims that some people would consider dubious.

Of course that's my perception. My perception is that something which could reasonably be construed to be among his most noteworthy activities is being downplayed in the lede. Whether promoting conspiracies about one or two things makes him a "conspiracy theorist", I'm not sure, but the current lede diminishes this effort to represent the 2020 election as having been stolen in a way that I don't think can be justified. Fabrickator (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let’s take a deep breath. I understand your point, Fabrickator but the lead isn’t meant for that detail. The lede is the summary. There is a whole section about the 2020 election where that detail belongs. The lede needs to be a simple summary about things, with no bias. My Pillow and the Lindell Foundation are claims to fame but they are relegated to one sentence in the lead cause the details have their own section. The lede already mentions his association with Trump and the election claims. So it doesn’t need anything added. At that point, it would not be constructive. I think that PricklyCactus is getting at. Wildestdreams22 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You're pretty much missing the point. Lindell being a conspiracy theorist is not just a "detail", it IS a part of summary of what he's known for. --Calton | Talk 10:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

No I get that, but it doesn't have a purpose in the lead. The idea of that lead should give an accurate summary. Up until basically the past year, it wasn't a part of the discussion at all. The lead should only have information that pertains to their claim to fame and some unbias info. Putting in info like that in the lead does not contribute anything cause it already discusses those theories. Put the title conspiracy theorist has no practical or viable reason to be a part of the lead.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We get claim after claim after claim that "this isn't what the lede is for":

• He was known well before the conspiracies, so putting in the lead is inappropriate
• Several verifiable sources are needed to even make this claim he is [a conspiracy theorist, ... yet it] still might not belong in the lede.
• You have to gauge ... if it is a constructive edit.
• The lede is the summary; it isn’t meant for such detail.
• The lead should only have information that pertains to their claim to fame and [unbiased] info

So if we say that the claims of election fraud are "regarded by mainstream news sources" as "conspiracy theory" or that the claims of election fraud are "generally considered as groundless," will that satisfy the requirement of an "unbiased" prsentation?

Anyway, how about if we consider what WP:Manual of Style/Lead section and WP:How to create and manage a good lead section have to say?

As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

Are there reliable published sources claiming that the claims about his pillow are more important than his challenges to the validity of the 2020 election results?

Frankly, there's a lot more I could quote from these two articles about the lede, but the main point is that the lede should summarize the main points of the article and motivate the reader to read past the lede.

Since 2016, Lindell has been publicly demonstrating his support for Trump. Perhaps none of this could have happened but for the existence of MyPillow, but the relevance of MyPillow is now dwarfed by his political activities, including both the issues of unsupported election claims and the highly-politicized issue of what is the appropriate response to Covid-19. Chronologically, MyPillow came first, but the main relevance of MyPillow is the extent to which it provided a forum for these other highly-politicized views. Fabrickator (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC) correct typo: Fabrickator (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand but WP:How to create and manage a good lead section also states those points. It states "The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article." The lead already mentions those election claims and the COVID-19 controversy. I am not saying that conspiracy theorist doesn't belong, it just doesn't belong in the lead. It belongs where the conversation can be expanded upon. Another thing is that if it is added to the lead, the WP:How to create and manage a good lead section says it needs its own heading. However, that would make the content in the election claims/COVID-19 redundant and would need to be removed cause that content would likely be discussed in detail in the new section.

It also addresses that "a lead must adhere to the neutral point of view (NPOV), which does not mean "neutral", or that there should be a false balance between opposing POV" I get that according to this that all views are not equal. However, it is important to consider if what we add to the lead could potentially cause readers to abandon the page. The perception of unbias is important. This is why in the detail, it expresses that as editors, we have to be aware and prevent ourselves from putting in unverified sources or committing a false balance. Meaning if there isn't verified sources to support the claim of a conspiracy theorist then it would violate the first part. However, not adding conspiracy theorists doesn't violate committing a false balance, cause those issues are introduced in the lead and expanded upon. Fabrickator, I am sorry if I wasn't clear about why I said those things. My main issue is that as the document says, we have to be very careful with any edits made to the lead. As editors, we have to consider all sorts of factors before changing the lead. I am not exactly the best communicator at times. The point overall is that adding to lead according to WP:How to create and manage a good lead section needs a lot more consideration. I do respect your opinion, Fabrickator. I just want to clarify my thought process cause I think it got lost in translation somewhere. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Reuters: Lindell is a conspiracy theorist who founded a pillow and bedding company.

Associated Press: And Mike Lindell, the My Pillow founder-turned-conspiracy theorist who has spent millions trying to prove the election was stolen, was hailed as a hero by some in the crowd, who chanted his name and jockeyed for photos as he milled around.

CNBC: Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is advising lawyers for MyPillow CEO and election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell in the $1.3 billion defamation suit brought against him by Dominion Voting Systems.

• When Reuters and Associated Press agree, you've pretty much got a slam dunk. He's straight-up being described as a conspiracy theorist from the introductory description. starship.paint (exalt) 03:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • How is it that you can claim that Reuters and AP are somehow neutral fact finders? Just because they have been supported by politically leftist sources for years, does not make them arbiters of the truth. Their particular biases do not somehow go away because there are two of them. Would be better if more than one side of the story were being told here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.206.242 (talk)
    • There is consensus by a plethora of Wikipedians that the Associated Press and Reuters are generally reliable. And not because they are "supported by politically leftist sources" nor because they are "arbiters of the truth", but because they provide significant, independent, published, thorough theories, arguments, discussions, etc., which are verifiably based on strong evidence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)