Talk:Mike Lindell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Could You Please Help Me?

I have created a Wikipedia page for one of Lindell's movies. You can see it right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Absolute_Proof_(film). Sadly, I'm an amateur, so the page is not that good. Could some of you help me, please? 2604:CB00:103:9900:2107:C6D1:6620:ACA7 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The improvements that have been made since the draft was declined do a good job of indicating the film's notability, I think. A number of citations to significant coverage in reliable sources have been added. I'm not involved in AfC, but I would expect this would have a good chance of being accepted if/when it's resubmitted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Adavidb for all the improvements you've made to my article. You obviously must have much experience with Wikipedia, and I'm glad that you helped me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:cb00:103:9900:c08d:eea6:3482:b5 (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Y —ADavidB 11:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

A lot of misinformation in this Bio. It's not right to lie like this. Fix it. 69.55.142.29 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2021 (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. Cannolis (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to respond to a general complaint. Please describe the specific errors in how independent reliable sources are summarized. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021 (2)

I’m offended that you’re calling this man a conspiracy theorist when he is raising awareness to serious issues in our nation. I don’t care who said he was. That is your opinion and until everything is proven it’s not a fact and has no place here. The censorship and propaganda that spreading on these sites is enough to make me believe every word he is saying. This is not the America I grew up in. I’m not going to support this site monthly anymore. I was already upset from other posts where I saw the spreading of pure gossip, accusations and the defaming of people such as Wade Taylor. 207.255.171.170 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't claim anything here is the truth, see WP:TRUTH. Yes, if you want to stay in your political bubble and be told only what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. If you are interested in collaborating with others regardless of their ideological or political views, please detail the specific errors in how independent reliable sources are summarized. If you don't like what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t the America you grew up in. This is Wikipedia. starship.paint (exalt) 14:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Reinstatement

How come this article makes no mention of Lindell repeatedly predicting that Trump would be reinstated on August 13, which we now know didn't happen? pbp 04:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I just added something I hope will suffice. soibangla (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Cyber Symposium

On August 10, 11, and 12, Mike Lindell will host a cyber symposium. He claims the testimonies given there will prove that the election was stolen. Should we put this update into the article, or not? 2604:CB00:103:9900:FDC5:D314:E3C7:E864 (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If this event is covered by independent reliable sources, this article can summarize what those sources say about it. It may be hard for such sources to report on it as it is closed to the general media, probably unless Mr. Lindell approves. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this source count? https://www.salon.com/2021/07/23/mike-lindell-promises-his-cyber-symposium-will-be-bigger-than-elvis-1973-hawaii-concert/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:103:9900:FDC5:D314:E3C7:E864 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The event has not occurred yet. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood. At the same time, however, he has talked about it and advertised it for weeks. I remember this page talking about Frank, Lindell's intended social network, before it turned out to have no social networking features. Why can't we do the same thing with this? 174.130.215.150 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Salon and Newsweek are questionable sources. Get a green source from WP:RSP (and not opinion pieces). starship.paint (exalt) 03:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Change "conspiracy theorist" to "conspiracy fantasist"

Note the term 'theory' is overused in this context as a theory is "A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. ... A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable."

None of Mr.Lindell's conspiracy accusations meet this definition. Rfoxmich (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. "Conspiracy theorist" in colloquial terms simply means one who theorizes about conspiracies. Nobody thinks they're scientific theories. The definition of "Conspiracy theory" is "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event." ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 10:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I would add that as Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, we would need to see that a good number of sources use such terminology. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

"[Lindell] held a three-day "Cyber Symposium" ending August 12, promising to present "irrefutable evidence" of election fraud, but none was produced." Seriously? How can you say that as an encyclopedia? You claim that no evidence was "produced," but that opinion is just that: an opinion. Many conservatives think that he presented much evidence, many liberals think that he produced none. Lindell's Cyber Symposium is a partisan issue, not something you can just make opinions about and present them as fact! Correct this and other unnecessarily biased edits on this page. 2604:CB00:136:B300:35FD:3933:6B62:3ECA (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Concur. There were - there still are - considerable concerns about the legitimacy, as there have been for every election since 2004 when evoting went mainstream. Computer scientists everywhere are dropping jaw over it, and the US congress tried twice to introduce legislation to put an end to this chaos, whilst countries like Canada of all places have reverted back to paper ballots and paper trails. The very thought that you conduct an election tally on machines running Microsoft Windows is ludicrous. Brett Alexander Hunter (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please offer independent reliable sources to support your claims of evidence being presented. It certainly was not presented in a court of law, as every court in the land rejected claims about the election. Please note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. We present the sources so readers can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Two things: one, almost all the "reliable sources" allowed to be sourced on this page are left-leaning website. Second, you do not just "present the sources so readers can judge them for themselves"; you present one side of a partisan issue and accuse every person on the other side of making "false" or "unsubstantiated" claims. If I'm just seeing it wrong, just explain to me how I am. 2604:CB00:136:B300:69CA:CE0D:1C31:1CCF (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You can discuss the reliability of sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, but please read through the archives before starting yet another thread on how CNN etc. is fake news. Also, an issue being partisan does not make facts contested. We do not have to create some sort of false balance. Best, 15 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So, if Wikipedia treats a unpopular view with fairness, it's creating a "false balance"? What if the unpopular opinion is true? What does Wikipedia say, "oops"? You are literally saying, "We believe that everything the mainstream media says is true and everyone who disagrees with them is a moron." I find that a very dangerous precedent for a site to get into. But maybe it's just me. 2604:CB00:136:B300:69CA:CE0D:1C31:1CCF (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Everything the mainstream media says is not necessarily be true, sometime corrections are made, sometimes there are discrepancies in truth. If the media disagree on something, that is when both sides are represented on Wikipedia, so long as there are two sides both making reliable contradictory claims. What we don't do is take Mike Lindells's words over a dozen established historically-credible sources all saying the same thing. That would be false balance. ––FormalDude talk 00:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim that anything presented is the truth, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. See WP:TRUTH. If you choose to believe Mr. Lindell, former President Trump and other like minded people as opposed to the judgement of every court in the land(including judges chosen by Trump) that's your decision and nothing we say here will change that. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, truth is in the eye of the beholder, but what a website (especially one that claims to be an encyclopedia) tells him/her can really affect his/her opinion. Also, "every court in the land" did not rule Trump and Lindell's claims as false; they merely dismissed them, which essentially means, "We don't want to talk about it." And as for this "false balance", I feel that this is just an excuse for giving biased information to the public. Evolution vs. intelligent design, the debate over climate change, all these discussions have interesting evidence on both sides. Shutting one side down because CNN is for the other makes this website a partisan website. It's inconvenient, but it's true. 2604:CB00:136:B300:A482:1A55:B234:949C (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of people in the country believe Mr. Lindell and former President Trump irrespective of what is said here, and will continue to do so irrespective of what is said here. If you wish to challenge particular reliable sources as unreliable, please do so at WP:RSN, but you are hardly the first to attempt to discredit CNN or any source deemed insufficiently right wing- and as such you should review the archives there before attempting to do so. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Every court in the land dismissed them is not the same as "We don't want to talk about it" it's "We don't have evidence to take this case forward" . And "false balance" is not about giving biased information but about presenting information in way that does not suggest equivalence between positions in an argument or debate or in Wikipedia articles when positions are clearly not equivalent. Your ignorance or partisanship of the discussions about intelligent design/evolution and climate change support/denial shows you do not understand false balance. Read the links provided by other editors and try to understand that Wikipedia follows protocols (which can be challenged) which reliable sources support that express mainstream conclusions about issues (re evolution and climate change among many others). Anyway talk pages are for suggesting improvements to articles WP:TALK. So what's your reasoned suggestion in light of all the responses you have received here? Robynthehode (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you remove every election-related "false claims" or "falsely claimed" or "said without evidence" phrase in this article. You can call them "highly debunked claims" or "alleged without proof," but once you claim that a political opinion is "false," you are stating an opinion, albeit a popular one, not a fact. Also, I find it interesting that 331dot accuses me of discrediting "any source deemed insufficiently right wing" when he is in fact doing just that himself; discrediting any source deemed insufficiently left-wing. Just saying. 2604:CB00:136:B300:E832:B4D1:1848:10D9 (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. I am not advocating for or against any particular outlet. I simply said that you would not be the first person to attempt to challenge CNN as a source. Right wing sources are acceptable, such as Fox News which appears on the perennial sources list as reliable (for topics other than politics, for which there is no general consensus yet). 331dot (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it's a little odd that Wikipedia hits Newsmax, OANN, and the Gateway Pundit for "misformation and conspiracy theories," but then totally allow MSNBC, Salon, and Newsweek (who are constantly making conspiracy theories about Republicans) be cited as sources. The only conservative news sites I have found that are allowed to be cited here are Fox News and the Washington Examiner (for topics other than politics). Isn't that a little hypocritical that, like, a dozen left-leaning news outlets are allowed to be sourced here, but conservative news outlets are shunned? Then, when I challenge that precedent, I am told, "You are hardly the first to attempt to discredit any source deemed insufficiently right-wing." Seriously? 2604:CB00:136:B300:D5F9:C714:B8AF:FBB3 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

who are constantly making conspiracy theories about Republicans is a false and ridiculous assertion, for starters. Sources aren't rejected for being right-wing, they are rejected if they have a history of unreliability, inaccuracy and/or making deliberately false assertions. It isn't the fault of the Wikipedia that the core of right-wing "media" is QAnon-fueled conspiracies. ValarianB (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ValerianB's comment just confirms what I've been saying: the editors on this site see all conservatives as morons. Right up front he accused all conservative news outlets of being "Q news." That is just not true, ValerianB! Most conservative news outlets actually shun Q basically all the time. OANN, Newsmax, the Gateway Pundit, they have never said, "Late Breaking News! Q says XXX." They shun him. I ask you to right now apologize for this insult. 2604:CB00:136:B300:2134:369:40AC:302F (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt at reading ValerianB's comment was pretty sloppy. Maybe you should try again, this time more carefully, looking at all the words, not just every second one. And refrain from inserting words that are not actually there, such as "all". (Oh, and have a look at WP:INDENT. I corrected that for you.)

Do you have any actual suggestings for improving the article? That is what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I think that election-related claims that Lindell makes should be called just that: claims. If you want adjectives, you can put in "heavily debunked" or something like that. Saying that a political claim is "false" is just plain partisan. Remember the way this site talked about the 2016 presidential election? Did the "Russia collusion" theory get slammed as "false" here, or did it get treated like every other political theory? It's not "false balance"; it's just fairness. 2604:CB00:136:B300:24DF:C077:93C2:F82C (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide equal time and equal treatment to all points of view, it depends on how sources cover them. See WP:UNDUE. If you don't like what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. I don't think there's much more to do here. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussions about the reliability of any given publication should be held at WP:RSN, not individual articles. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"once you claim that a political opinion is "false," you are stating an opinion, albeit a popular one, not a fact": This is utter B.S. Many opinions happen to be facts as well. For example, anyone's opinion that the 2021 presidential election was won by Biden is also a fact. 2601:200:C000:1A0:790E:F131:58E3:5420 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mental state questionable

A story that ran in Australia seems to suggest that Lindell has gone nuts. https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/07/has-mike-lindell-lost-it/ Would this not be used in the page to give scope to the claims Lindell is making in his public appearance's? --2600:8802:270A:6000:C945:D902:41B7:3B8B (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That is pretty much a textbook example of a "contentious claim about a living person" that requires very high-quality sourcing, which The Spectator is not. Even if it were, that particular article is making broad and hyperbolic statements like he's "lost it" and "What is it about Donald Trump that his closest associates seem to all go irredeemably insane?" to comment on his bizarre behavior, not seriously suggesting that he has some specific medical issue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Lindell and the National Prayer Breakfast (known as The Family)

https://tyt.com/stories/franchise/2E4lb3zIDV37rdUAwsh1zn --91.54.4.173 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

In the Background tab of Mike Lindell’s page, next to last sentence, “The build up of his addictions between 1980s and 1990s, led to the foreclosure of his house, and his wife filing for divorce.” Neither comma is necessary, and the word “the” should be added before “1980s”. 2603:6080:FC01:D847:4087:5A09:1E93:69A3 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

I feel that this article contains biased information concerning Mr. Lindell. I would like to edit this to remove the original writers political view and replace it with unbiased, factual information.

Thank you! Sincerely, Gabriel J. Yost 2604:CA00:14B:1285:0:0:463:8CF5 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2021 (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. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please also see the FAQ at the top of the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel, Wikipedia does not claim to be fair and unbiased, as everyone has biases. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. Wikipedia only claims to be verifiable and to have a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality is more a goal than a claim. —ADavidB 17:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Potentially relevant Cyber Symposium material

This Jan 2022 article in 'IEEE Computer' may be relevant; the final section of the article reports on Lindell's August 2021 Cyber Symposium:

• The State of the Art in Voting Machine Technology

This is an "interview" of me by Hal Berghel, but I put interview in quotes because Hal invited me to edit the questions, and then he edited my responses. It would be inappropriate of me to edit my own reporting into Wikipedia, so I am noting this here should someone else be tempted to do so. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing really that stands out to me as a necessary addition to this article. If we had an article on the "Cyber Symposium" then first-hand accounts would be useful, and Ayyadurai's comments are interesting, but in the context of Lindell's biography I'd say the existing coverage of the event is sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?

I feel like some information may have been dropped between 2019 and want to make sure it wasn't done solely because of recent politics. Example from revision #920882779: Was the information about "The Mike Lindell Story: An American Dream" dropped for a reason like notability or verifiability, or did someone just not like that it was mentioned?

Come to think of it, what's wiki policy for anyone (WP:BLP subject or otherwise) labeled a conspiracy theorist (I believe I saw one edit summary that said there was a consensus on that, and personally I am inclined, ever so slightly, to back that consensus.)?--Macks2008 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Macks2008: It looks like that content was removed by CaffeinAddict with this edit on 19 January 2021.

There's not really an explicit policy on the use of the label "conspiracy theorist". Typically WP:CONSENSUS is required. What I've found is that consensus forms if the person is both notable for being a conspiracy theorist and reliable sources label them as one. ––FormalDude talk 21:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I restructured some of the article about a year ago yes. I think I gave a pretty clear edit summary. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the consensus for saying he's a conspiracy theorist: Talk:Mike Lindell/Archive 1#Add "conspiracy theorist" to description in the lede. You ask for the policy on calling someone a conspiracy theorist. We can use that term when RS commonly refers to him as that, it usually must be relatively abundant to have him described as that in the lead in Wikipedia's voice. I have not participated in any discussions about Lindell being a conspiracy theorist, I just know that consensus exists. I don't know why his book and drug abuse recovery has been removed from the lead, I think it could be mentioned, especially since it's relevant to his life. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason the addiction is left out of the lede paragraph is because of WP:BLP protections. I am unsure if the label "conspiracy theorist" should stick. WP:LABEL urges editors to not use contentious labels as it falls under Loaded language and can morph a persons perception of an individual. From my experience, I have seen some particular biographical articles appear as more of a smear campaign than actual informative material, basing their "reliable sources" on WP:RSOPINION and WP:HEADLINES. I'll have to take a closer look into the cited material to make a determination if this is the case with Mr. Lindells article. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

he spread false conspiracy theories about widespread electoral fraud in that election

To

he allegedly spread false conspiracy theories about widespread electoral fraud in that election

(Whomever wrote this put their own opinion in without searching for the truth) 174.52.217.102 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

The article begins with some overviews of some main activities of Mike Lindell’s life and states “he spread false conspiracy theories about widespread electoral fraud in that election” which is an inaccurate statement because the there was most defiantly electoral fraud. Results absolutely prove there was fraud. For instance, there were more votes cast in Arizona then there were registered voters. In fact, according to Arizona’s population, everyone down to the estimated age of 10 2600:387:C:551A:0:0:0:5 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Then you should go to the courts first, not Wikipedia, with your evidence. Good luck with that. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The actual data is readily available online for anyone to see who bothers to look: https://azsos.gov/elections/voter-registration-historical-election-data

2020 Registered voters = 4,281,301

2020 Ballots (vote) cast = 3,420,565

Voter turnout = 79.9%

The statement above that "there were more votes cast in Arizona then there were registered voters. In fact, according to Arizona’s population, everyone down to the estimated age of 10" is therefore false and does not provide support for editing the indicated article content. Sccgeography (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is the political party needed

My god he’s the ceo of a fricken PILLOW COMPANY is it R E A L Y needed. Now your gunna come after me and OPRAHS Wikipedia page doesn’t say that she’s liberal or according to Wikipedia CNN’S NOT AT ALL BIAS but they are CLEARY (as you would put it) Left leaning but for Fox News and INFO WARS they are “very republican” I mean duh no one is perfectly not bias but this guy shouldn’t be called a republican even if he is one 174.247.192.204 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We call Lindell Republican because this is covered by WP:RS and is significant to his notability; he has done a lot of conservative activism. Any concerns over the Oprah page can be addressed Talk:Oprah Winfrey and please see WP:RSP for Wikipedia's stance on CNN, Fox, and Infowars as reliable sources. Bias rather conservative or liberal does not mean it's not reliable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that describe Winfrey as a liberal or Democratic activist, please offer them on Talk:Oprah Winfrey. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the parameter that he's Republican because there's no reference that he's a party member. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Add citation to "At the time, the population of the United States was approximately 332 million." at bottom of Political Activities. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/happy-new-year-2022.html

Source is U.S. Census estimate for 1 January 2022. Sorry for bad template. Leopardg (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Right as I hunt enough sources to do it myself... Thank you! Leopardg (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

There is now proof of election fraud. Most of his assertions have now been proven. 2603:8001:8404:C500:BD63:F3B1:9EE9:A67A (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done You offer no specific change in a "change X to Y" format, supported by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Completely negative article about Mike Lindell

As a general comment, the Wikipedia foundation has evolved from being centrist leaning to a left leaning foundation. I have become very disillusioned with your foundation.

Regarding the Mike Lindell article, it was completely negative and says nothing about his positive qualities.

A more positive approach would have portrayed how he went from having gambling, alcohol, cocaine and crack addictions to inventing pillow and other bed products, and starting the My Pillow Corporation, and becoming a good Christian.

Reading his autobiography might have put a a more positive spin on his character. 2600:1700:22B0:EDB0:8533:298D:678F:87F3 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

All of the things you mention are already in the article. The gambling and addictions are in the "background" section, as is the religious conversion. His business activities are mentioned, with a separate section about My Pillow. There is also a section about his philanthropy. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is not written by the Foundation, but by regular people. It summarizes what independent reliable sources say about Mr. Lindell. Wikipedia is not free of bias, as everyone has biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. You are free to disagree with everything written here. If the sources are not being accurately summarized, please describe the specific errors. If you don't like what the sources say about Mr. Lindell, but they are accurately summarized, you will need to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, you mentioned there is a section stating that Mike Lindell did contribute to various charities. I agree with that. You also corrected me regarding that the Wikipedia Foundation does not write these articles, but rather individuals write the articles, which is also true. I stand by the rest of these article. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:22B0:EDB0:F46C:231:9934:1C57 (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Mike Lindell

There are many bias opinions about Mike on his page. Here is one; "he spread false conspiracy theories about widespread electoral fraud in that election." This is a bias opinion. There has since been shown a plethora of cheating and fraud in the election. And, another; "Lindell promoted a conspiracy theory, popular with Trump supporters, that falsely claimed that voting machine companies Smartmatic and Dominion conspired with foreign powers to rig voting machines to steal the election from Trump. " This also has been proven forensically. I realize the "contributors" to wikipedia are all liberal left but articles or pages, if you will, should be fair. 24.192.189.140 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. Those sources as well as every court in the land say they was no cheating or fraud that changed the result of the election. There was a guy in Pennsylvania who voted for Trump twice, but I digress. When you or Mr. Lindell get a court to say there was fraud, I'll change this article myself.

If we are all "liberal left", what are you doing here? If you only want to drink the Kool aid and only be told what you want to hear or even need to hear to justify Trump losing, this isn't the place for you. If you want to collaborate, please do and engage in discussion based on reliable sources, logical arguments, and Wikipedia guidelines. We can't and won't determine fraud here, but we can summarize sources. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

false intro

false introduction of this article. 71.50.50.34 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Please describe the specific errors. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. If you don't like what sources say about Mr. Lindell, you will need to talk to them, not us. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Additions to MyPillow section

19:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)19:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)~~In 2016, a group of California district attorneys sued MyPillow for making unsubstantiated health claims about its pillows.^[1] The lawsuit resulted in a settlement agreement that required MyPillow to pay $995,000 in civil penalties, give $100,000 to homeless and domestic violence shelters in California, refrain from making unsubstantiated health claims and false representations about the pillows’ benefits, and stop promoting its product as the “official pillow” of the National Sleep Foundation.^{[2]HBinns (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)}

In 2019, California district attorneys filed another complaint against MyPillow for continuing to disseminate false and misleading advertisements for its bed pillows by, among other things, inaccurately portraying a “clinical sleep study” in televised ads, which resulted in a Stipulated Final Judgment that required the company to pay $100,000 in civil penalties.^[3][4]

1. People of the State of California v. My Pillow, Inc., et al., Complaint for Equitable Relief, including an Injunction, Restitution and Civil Penalties (CA Super Ct. Oct. 26, 2016). 2. People of the State of California v. My Pillow, Inc., et al., Final Judgement Pursuant to Stipulation (CA Super Ct. Oct. 31, 2016). 3. People of the State of California v. My Pillow, Complaint for Equitable Relief, including an Injunction, Restitution and Civil Penalties (CA Super Ct. Oct. 2, 2019). 4. People of the State of California v. My Pillow, Stipulated Final Judgment (CA Super Ct. Oct. 23, 2019).

Mike Lindell makes questionable claims over the Idaho Primary election 2022

https://www.krem.com/article/news/politics/elections/mypillow-mike-lindell-claims-of-idaho-2022-primary-fraud-baseless-state-official-says-mcgeachin-little/277-e1fda9ed-faab-4cf1-8bb7-67e980f91386

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/mypillow-guy-again-suggests-idaho-election-fraud-despite-evidence-to-the-contrary/article_dd693c10-d1c3-5f4a-9ff7-63a72442c741.html

Update there are claims that Mike Lindell has made a new conspiracy theory this time on the 2022 governor's primary in Idaho. Here we go again it's the repeat of the 2020 election conspiracy but this time connected to governor's elections.2601:640:C681:C260:8CB7:16A6:64AC:7B88 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please someone reverse a edit on the page here

The edit I am talking about it is evangp's 12:14 edit on august 26. How the page looked before the edit was perfectly fine and it added more notes of what Lindell was trying to push. But now evangp's edit gives people the possibility that lindell was "correct" in his claims. 216.173.149.93 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

Replace partisan language like 'conspiracy theorist', 'disproven theories' (because it is nearly impossible to disprove a theory with as many variables as election fraud) with more neutral, objective language. Spread conspiracy theories becomes spread allegations. If we don't make these changes, we threaten our credibility. I don't think we should even take a side on ancient history- we should present the facts as they are, and if people want to believe the world is flat that's their problem. 163.11.57.204 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2022 (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. Please also establish consensus in this talk page for potentially-controversial changes. Ductwork (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia uses that terminology because independent reliable sources do, and the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize those sources. They are provided to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. You and others are free to believe what they wish. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

While I have not gone through all of the claims, I do see what they are saying here and have an example. The article stays "an active promoter of pseudoscience, namely the toxic plant extract oleandrin, as an alternative medicine cure for COVID-19" and then cites left-wing news outlets. However, this medical study right here from the NIH National Library of Medicine: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111457 states that its results "support the further development of oleandrin and/or defined extracts containing this molecule for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and associated COVID-19 disease." This comes up on the first page of my search when I look up the drug. I have no idea if it is actually effective, but it's not pseudoscience. Its a debate among medical doctors that he happened to take sides with. The harsh and shamelessly biased language ignores that actual medical studies recognized by the NIH support his claim. He could be wrong, but I am not even close to qualified to say it, and given that Wikipedia does not allow original work, you will need more than news articles to declare such a thing.

We need to take a sober look at this article and think back to what Larry Sanger has said about the state of our website. This article is about the "pillow guy." Almost the entire first paragraph reads like a list of political accusations and ignores what most people know him for, his tv commercials and product. Q9d87777d (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q9d87777d It does that because Mr. Lindell decided to jump on the election conspiracy train and covid misinformation train and independent sources reported on it. He could have decided to stick to making pillows, but he didn't. Wikipedia isn't responsible for that. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Update Mike Lindell Sues the FBI and is under investigation for Identity theft related to election fraud in Colorado

https://www.startribune.com/mypillows-mike-lindell-sues-feds-over-seized-cellphone/600208992/

https://coloradosun.com/2022/09/21/mike-lindell-cell-phone-tina-peters-probe/

https://www.fox9.com/news/mypillow-founder-mike-lindell-sues-fbi-doj-over-phone-seizure-and-questioning

Update Mike Lindell has filed a lawsuit against the FBI over the Cell Phone investigation in relation to election tampering allegations in Colorado as of September 2022. 2601:640:C682:79C0:C358:A6A4:677:FB9F (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

https://kfor.com/hill-politics/doj-investigating-mike-lindell-over-potential-identity-theft-damage-to-protected-computer/ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3654707-doj-investigating-mike-lindell-over-potential-identity-theft-damage-to-protected-computer/ Mike Lindell is also named in an Identity theft allegation related to election fraud in Colorado.2601:640:C682:79C0:C358:A6A4:677:FB9F (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Mike Lindell is accused of Harassing a Kent County, Michigan official Over an election audit

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2022/10/05/kent-county-clerk-asks-court-to-quash-subpoena-from-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell/69542439007/

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2022/10/kent-county-clerk-objects-to-mypillow-founders-demand-for-2020-election-records.html

Some of the allegations are tied to the 2020 election audits. Also this is a factor in the Dominion and Smartmatic Lawsuits. 2601:640:C682:79C0:C93B:FC72:3C26:D0B2 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Also in the Updates Mike Lindells request on the Supreme Court has been denied.2601:640:C682:79C0:C93B:FC72:3C26:D0B2 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Lindell is not accused of a crime of harassment; that word was used in the lawsuit to describe his alleged actions. I don't think this article needs to provide a blow by blow account of the progress of the lawsuit; perhaps at the Dominion or Smartmatic articles. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point here it's that the updates get crazier here surrounding Lindell. 2601:640:C682:79C0:D159:62D0:4858:9985 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy theorist

Even if he is one, don't list him as such. Kanye West is not listed as such. Elon Musk as I was saying wasn't listed as such. Mike Lindell promotes just as much, if not less conspiracy theories than either of those two who blatantly support Illuminati conspiracy theories and free speech absolutism. One guy told me no to calling Musk a conspiracy theorist 47.229.152.107 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Lindell talks about the Trump election and criticizes the FBI. That doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. That label should be taken away from Lindell's article and go straight into West's. 47.229.152.107 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If West should be described as a conspiracy theorist, take that up at Talk:Kanye West and offer the reliable sources you have that use that terminology there. The conspiracy theorist term is well sourced in this article. If you disagree with sources using that term to describe Mr. Lindell, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Update Mike Lindell is named in allegation for making the 2022 election conspiracies in Brazil and the USA

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-lindell-hints-brazil-election-rigged-cyber-guys-watched-race-1756803

These allegations are listed as under investigation or disproven as of November 2022 https://uproxx.com/viral/mike-lindell-midterms-cyber-tracking-bad-guys/

Mike Lindell is named for spewing conspiracy theories in the 2022 US elections.2601:640:C682:8870:7101:88F8:7E9B:FF3E (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Mike Lindell Claims that the 2022 United States Elections were stolen

Update Mike Lindell makes conspiracy theories of the 2022 US Elections

https://news.yahoo.com/mike-lindell-revives-baseless-vote-183110522.html

These allegations have been disproven or Under Investigation so far.2601:640:C682:8870:793C:A962:7B24:6699 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2022/11/they-were-all-stolen-says-mypillow-ceo-lindell-on-failed-election-denier-candidates/50499/

This is after Trump endorsed allies in the 2022 elections lost their races and here is a list according to Colorado Times Recorder.2601:640:C682:8870:2E11:887F:35BE:AF1C (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/mike-lindell-twitter-account-reinstated-resumes-election-fraud-accusations/

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-lindell-says-twitter-return-historical-day-u-s-1767906

Update Mike Lindell returns to Twitter as of December 2022 and continues with the 2022 election rants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C682:8870:3902:D429:1A84:8B6D (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that Newsweek articles are "not generally reliable" per WP:RSP. —ADavidB 13:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

https://news.yahoo.com/pro-trump-conspiracy-theorist-mike-221509605.html

I got another one does The Independent work out? they are reporting Mike Lindell's election conspiracy rants on his return to Twitter2601:640:C682:8870:F16F:2CA:B36D:E82F (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-lindell-baselessly-questioned-desantis-election-wins-legitimacy-2022-12?op=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/21/lindell-desantis-miami-dade-win/

Mike Lindell makes a new conspiracy theory this time accusing Ron Desantis for election fraud in a December 2022 rants while he is running for RNC Chairman.2601:640:C682:8870:3CD2:F3D5:1727:EF9F (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Lindell Customs

He modifies GM cars for a living 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:B573:77F5:4AEA:C6AF (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the information. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Mike Lindell has to pay $5 Million for Defamation

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-ally-lindell-ordered-pay-5-mln-man-who-disproved-voter-fraud-claims-2023-04-20/

https://apnews.com/article/mypillow-ceo-lindell-elections-voting-machines-e183a7df16837f79841efc91b51d25f6

There are reports that Mike Lindell has to pay 5 Million US Dollars for defamation over the 2020 elections. This is while Mike Lindell is named as a co-defendant in both the Dominion and Smartmatic Lawsuits.2601:640:C682:8870:F858:ECE4:F2C1:AFD2 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Defamation is not involved at all in this $5 million case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Its crazy that Mike Lindell did this as a personal bet while he is being sued for the Dominion and Smartmatic portion of the 2020 elections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rOzOculqzc

Theres a segment from a CNN Interview showing this where one of the whistleblowers come forward on Mike Lindell over the 2020 election rants he made in a political rally.

2601:640:C682:8870:3428:973D:36DC:973D (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the "Attempts to overturn 2020 presidential election" section.

The section includes the text "Lindell's own cybersecurity expert said that his purported evidence was a "pile of nothing" and found no proof of election fraud." I hadn't heard of this person or his involvement in the Trump debacle, but on becoming interested and reading further (just following the references attached to the above quoted sentence) its clear from the video that it is incorrect to present this as "lindell's own cybersecurity expert" the video clearly shows that the expert who the quote is attributed to was bought along by the CNN reporter Donnie.

He does indeed say that the (lack of) evidence produced is a big pile of nothing, but Lindell definitely had no part in inviting this expert to the event.

Wikipedia should be a source of factual information, not information that is twisted to represent the popular view. Lindell may be a conspiracy theorist and everything that he says about the election is probably false, or atleast he has no evidence to support it, but the facts shouldnt be distorted to support this view.

Regards Vimknight (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I read this and you're right, it's incorrect in the article. Mr O’Sullivan brought to the conference with him a cybersecurity expert, Harri Hursti, who said the data made available did not come close to proving the election was stolen – and that in fact, what little Mr Lindell provided in the way of “evidence” bore no relation to electoral machinery, the supposed medium of electoral interference. Donie O'Sullivan (journalist) brought Harri Hursti. Great news, they both have articles. I will rewrite this now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

How's this? Lindell held a three-day "Cyber Symposium" ending August 12, promising to present "irrefutable evidence" of election fraud, but none was produced. Reporter Donie O'Sullivan brought cybersecurity expert Harri Hursti to the conference, and Hursti said that Lindell's purported evidence was a "pile of nothing" and found no proof of election fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks much better to me, it is a stroke of luck that both the reporter and expert had pages that already existed. Completely understandable that pages like this are protected against sock puppetry and other attempts to whitewash history but darn frustrating when you identify a mistake and can't do anything to fix it.

Thank you so much for jumping in when I was unable to correct the webpage! Most appreciated Vimknight (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate

Could it be appropriate to add "one cannot help but wonder if Lindell's prior crack addiction is an explanation for his erratic behavior." HelperHelper1 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, unless you have a citation of someone saying that, preferably a medical professional(which you won't get because no legitimate medical professional would say that without examining him). 331dot (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I see your point. The fact that many wonder if his prior crack addiction helps to explain his bizarre and erratic behavior is irrelevant unless it is true that his prior crack addiction helps to explain his bizarre and erratic behavior. One might find it relevant that "many" do wonder about that, but you make a good point that he should get medical treatment to make that determination. HelperHelper1 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of Topics and Balance of Coverage

It appears there is very little information about Mr. Liddel's business dealings, of which he originally gained his notoriety. Word count per topic in biographical information should be in proportion to the subject's most important or significant acheivements (or failures) with balance and objectivity. Those criticizing Mr. Liddel do themselves a diservice by bringing the credibility of the page into question, offering overwhelmingly one-sided political coverage of the individual. Please consider including more information about Mr. Liddel's business dealings. How many employees does he have? How quicklyl did he grow the company? How many My Pillows (or other products) have been sold? Is he known as an effective leader or has he been embroiled in workplace misconduct? How big is his following and for what may he be admired or hated? While I don't question the truthfulness of the page, it seems lacks balance and appears to possess an overabundance of political bias, which is unfortunate since most who overcome addiction to find business success and faith or direction often benefit from at the very least a balance of coverage, if not some level of admiration, neither of which Mr. Liddel is not afforded on this page. A proper historical account ought to have much less bias. This is crowdsourced encylcopedia, not a town square or a whipping post, not a social media platform... 67.163.154.224 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As you say - this encyclopaedia is created by its contributors so why not contribute WP:DIY rather than merely criticise Robynthehode (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Details about Lindell's business, including the answers to several of your questions, can be found in the article on that business (My Pillow). While it's sometimes appropriate for multiple Wikipedia articles to contain the same information, I can't really see the need in this case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I can say for sure, a large body of the American population will read a bit, see how bias it is and not read further. I know people have strong feelings about this person but this article is frankly not an encyclopedia article, it has to many elements of an opinion piece. It may be better to say: "Mike has been accused of being a conspiracy theory because of X Y and Z", however simple declaring him one is taking a side on something that doesn't have consensus. Q9d87777d (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Q9d87777d – are you referring to the lede? Lede is a brief summary of article, and is specifically kept concise and terse as possible. Explanatory "X Y Z" and elucidation can be found in article body; but doesn't belong in lede.

Not our problem if individuals reading article don't like what they find – that's their problem, and a disservice to themselves.

Wikipedia has selection bias – one shared by our sources. We can't control the biases of upstream sources we rely upon, nor have control over what they say. Structurally, we are required to parrot them. Our job as an encyclopaedia is to make note of what WP:RS say or find notable. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. If upstream overwhelmingly take sides, that is societies' "problem" to fix, not Wikipedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

Citation 127 on Mike Lindell page is incorrect and not up to date 2600:1700:7E90:1B50:2130:CE4F:74F0:473 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

False news networks as verified sources.

you must stop using 2600:100B:B020:AC44:DCBD:F69E:55F9:C75D (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2024

Too REMOVE THE CONSPIRACY TITLE. THIS IS DEFERMATION OF HIS NAME. PATRIOT IS CORRECT WORD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.250.179.39 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The term is well-sourced in the article. Tollens (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)