Jump to content

Talk:Nathan Larson (criminal)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move 7 June 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement in this debate for a more concise qualifier, so the status of the nom notwithstanding, this request is granted. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (political candidate) → Nathan Larson (politician) – Preferred naming convention Tannehilltop (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
What on earth does the line above this one mean? I followed the link and am none the wiser. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: It means that Tannehilltop requested the move at WP:RM, claiming that it was an "uncontroversial technical move", but had the request denied by an admin there, since a move like that would most likely be contested... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a shame that Wikipedia's language is so cryptic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitions change over time, but these are the current definitions for "politician":
Oxford Dictionary: "A person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office"
Merriam-Webster: "a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government" and "a person engaged in party politics as a profession"
Which, since Larson has never held political office, is not engaged in party politics as a profession and isn't experienced in the art or science of government, means that he isn't a politician, just a political candidate... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You seem to have conveniently ignored the word "especially". Twice. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Neither of the "especially" matters since Larson apparently is an accountant by profession (and has been expelled from the only party he has been a candidate for in an election), and thus neither engaged in party politics as a profession or in other ways engaged professionally in politics. And since he has never held a political office he can't possibly have any experience in the art or science of government. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
My country has a lot of people who are definitely politicians but aren't in political parties. Doesn't your final sentence apply to Donald Trump? HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't apply to Trump since he (unfortunately) won the election... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, but it applied two years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per definition at politician and the cites by Thomas.W which both contain "especially" to denote that holding elected office is not considered a requirement to be called a politician. Also, precedent favors the move, considering current articles at Ted Brown (politician), Don Wright (politician), Jim Rogers (Oklahoma politician), Pro-Life (politician) and Richard Pope (politician), all people who are called politicians despite failing multiple times to hold office. On the other hand, I could not find any other article with the suffix "(political candidate)". Regards SoWhy 16:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Frankly I'd personally prefer (serial idiot) as the disambiguator, but there's no other article on a politician by that name, so (politician) is the best and least POV possibility. Andrewa (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This man is no politician. Unlike say Ted Brown or Don Wright, he is not a politically active failed candidate - he is simply a failed candidate, unattached to a party and holding extremely fringe political views. SportingFlyer talk 05:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Please elaborate. How is running for office not "active"? And since when is holding "extremely fringe political views" disqualifying to be a politician? David Duke holds such beliefs and we refer to him as a politician as well. Also, since when does one have to be attached to a party to be a politician? Bernie Sanders is a politician and yet an independent (no matter how much he influences the Democratic Party, he is not a member). Regards SoWhy 08:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • He's not a very successful politician. But he's still a politician. You could arguably say that someone who had never qualified in dentistry wasn't a real dentist, but someone who was qualified but unsuccessful (say, he got such a reputation for shoddy work that after several changes of address he was unlikely to ever get another patient but remained entitled to practice) would still be a dentist. Similarly, this guy is an unsuccessful politician, but he's still a politician, and entitled to lobby, campaign and even run for office... and all the other things all politicians do. Andrewa (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose He's a candidate for political office, not a politician. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The definition of "politician", which this very encyclopedia uses, reads a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government (emphasis added). Please elaborate why you believe he is not covered under this definition. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The definition currently given on the page here does, IMHO, not override the definition given by the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster. Merely seeking political office does not make anyone a politician (there are thousands of cranks out there who run for office, on all levels from municipal to national, both as independents and for extremely odd "political parties", all with no chance of ever getting elected on any level, do you really see them as politicians?). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You do realize that HiLo48 pointed out already that both those definitions contain the word "especially"? According to all definitions I read, anyone who actively and consistently seeks to be elected, no matter how slim their chances, is considered a politician. Most of the people I mentioned above are perennial candidates who never had a real shot of winning an election but who nevertheless are considered politicians. Larson is running a third time now and he (shockingly) gained more than 1% of votes in both elections he stood in, which is pretty huge for a country that is dominated by two big parties and where no small parties have a chance. Also, Larson was a member of a political party at one point. So in 2008 he qualified as a "politician", did he not? But if he qualified in 2008, why not today? Regards SoWhy 14:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems like you interpret the text in a way that differs from how I interpret it: IMHO "A person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office" means that being professionally involved in politics is a minimum requirement for being considered a politician, with the "especially as" then added to point out that if they hold political office there's no doubt about them being politicians. Or in other words, if they hold political office there's no doubt about them being politicians, while they, if they're "only" professionally involved in politics, may or may not be considered politicians, depending on how they are involved in it. Which means that Larson, who apparently isn't professionally involved in politics, isn't a politician, just a perennial candidate... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Thomas.W's interpretation. You do not need to hold elected office to be a politician. That being said, being a candidate for office does not make someone a politician. Being a member of a political party does not make one a politician, either, even if you run under that party's flag. Some of the people you mentioned were perennial candidates who nevertheless worked within the existing political system. The others I would support adding (political candidate) to (especially Mr. Pro-Life.) I'd also be inclined to move Richard Pope to (attorney) or (political candidate). This particular person has no political influence whatsoever and does not appear to work professionally in politics. How does that make him a politician? SportingFlyer talk 15:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Having read the opposition to this move, I admit to being puzzled. The purpose of the disambiguator is simply to identify the person. Anyone looking at the hatnote at Nathan Larson is going to get to the right article if we just use the more concise disambiguator politician. It's no big deal, either will do, but our normal practice is to use the more concise candidate. Andrewa (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about any trouble, but I felt I just had to respond to some of the invalid arguments from some who just think the guy is a fool. One can be a fool and a politician at the same time. In fact..... HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Mind you, when someone calls any Australian Prime Minister (or even US President) a fool... and people do... I can't help thinking, there are lots of people who'd like their office and aren't fools and still can't get it. This guy's a bit different, he can't get elected either. But I also suspect that the real reason at least some of us don't like the term politician is just because we don't like him. (Personally, I'd prefer to be called a political candidate than a politician.) Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Since the primary purpose is identification, how about Nathan Larson (accountant) instead? After all, that's his main profession apparently. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, good lateral thinking. But my reaction is no, many readers looking for this article would know he's something notable in politics but wouldn't have a clue what his day job is. So it's far less recognisable. I think I see the advantage, it's arguably more accurate, but maybe that's a problem, as whether or not it's more accurate is controversial and therefore POV. We seem to all share this general POV, but it's still not OK for us to promote it by our choice of article title. (And if it were OK, I think my non-suggestion above might even get up.) Andrewa (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I've based my opposition off of dictionary definitions, but Merriam-Webster also has the: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons, which would fit politician. I prefer political candidate, though. SportingFlyer talk 15:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I suspect national differences in usage may also be in play here. I really don't believe my choice of disambiguator was based on bias, but it was in part based on his being notable not so much for being determined to get elected as for the positions he has espoused in his candidate statements and on his websites (and his brushes with the law). And the chatrooms were not part of his pursuit of public office. Other disambiguators that came to mind were all disparaging, so I could not use them, and I agree, "accountant" is inappropriate; not what he's known for and puzzling to the reader. But "politician" to me implies a single-mindedness in the pursuit of politics as a career that Larson is not known for. That is the difference of opinion I see most in evidence between editors speaking here, and I don't believe the shorter descriptor is as accurate a reflection of the sources. That's why I didn't create the article at the existing redirect, and I strongly prefer that we make an exception to the usual rule for this particular serial candidate (I have no opinion on the others who've been mentioned, being unfamiliar with their careers and the sources). The repeatedly deleted A7 article(s) are at "politician", by the way, after being moved from "anarchist" in conformity with that usual rule; at that point he had only stood as a candidate once, as an anarcho-libertarian, and had not committed the felony, so the situation was in many ways not comparable, but I still note that the original creator did not think "politician". Yngvadottir (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • NB the account of the editor who proposed this move has been globally blocked by the WMF Office as a globally banned user. Presumably the move proposal was block evasion. Even with the support this request has received, it might make sense to shut this down and see if an editor in good standing is interested in proposing a move. Dekimasuよ! 00:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    I fail to see how that would be anything but a WP:NOTBURO violation. For deletion discussions, WP:SK#4 explicitly forbids speedy closing XFDs which have had good-faith contributions by other editors, so why should RMs be treated differently? Regards SoWhy 13:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In general, they probably shouldn't, and I did not actually close the discussion. Your point is well taken. The stakes are somewhat different from XfD discussions, however; the question is not whether editors in good standing concur that material should be excluded from the encyclopedia, but how to choose a WP:NEUTRAL title for information it is assumed will be retained. In this particular case, my comment was prompted by evidence of a possible undisclosed connection to the subject. Since the action was performed by the WMF Office, the connection is not clear enough that I felt comfortable striking and tagging the comments of the editor as simply a "blocked sock", so I noted the ban in a comment here. In either event it may be worth reviewing the edits made to this article before WMF shut down the account to be sure they do not violate any of the categories of WP:COICAMPAIGN or other nearby sections of that page. Dekimasuよ! 17:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dark Enlightenment

There is a reference to neocameralism in the manifesto. Tannehilltop (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless some secondary source points that out, it would be original research to mention it. That's my qualm about the Dark Enlightenment link; that may well be what he means, but I don't see anyone saying so. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, although the source the secondary sources are using is that document or similar documents, which link to the “quasi-neoreaction” article, which link to the “Dark Enlightenment” article over on Kings Wiki, according to Google caches. Tannehilltop (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Vote Smart and Ballotpedia

They use pretty much the same method, do they not — inviting candidates to answer questions that are then published? Tannehilltop (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I used Vote Smart for the date of birth, figuring it was reputable enough that if the date was wrong, Larson would have contacted them and had it corrected. I didn't even click on their summaries of his positions; we use secondary sources if at all possible, we aren't ourselves a voters' guide, and I'm sure there are also summaries of the answers to questions in the local papers. There's a due weight issue; I don't want the article to tip over into being mostly about his latest campaign. But if Ballotpedia has a sterling reputation, then I'm wrong. I considered asking at the Reliable Sources noticeboard or at the BLP noticeboard, where I mentioned this topic before I went ahead and wrote the article. You may want to post at either place about the desireability of adding the second external link. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The 4th circuit ruling

was saying that the district court made an error in the term of supervised release that it imposed, and then tried to correct its error after it was time-barred from doing so ("Within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.") After the 14 days had expired, only the appellate court had jurisdiction to order correction of the error, which it did.

While the court vacated the supervised release portion of the sentence, and remanded the case back to the district court for entry of a new judgment correcting the error that had been made, the 24-month sentence of incarceration was affirmed.

The "unpublished" at the top refers to non-publication of legal opinions in the United States. It just means that the ruling won't count as a binding precedent on other cases. But it still would have been placed in the Federal Appendix along with every other unpublished opinion. 2601:5CD:C000:21E3:847D:F0B9:1339:619E (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I'm still not sure I understand, but I am not a lawyer. However, this is very much a primary source. I asked at the BLP noticeboard and got a response supporting my impression that we can't use such things to include a point, only a third-party mention such as in a news article, per the ban on original research. And I haven't found any published mention of his serving an additional 24 months. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Some more primary sources:

  • "Letter" (PDF). August 10, 2010.
  • "Petition on Supervised Release" (PDF). August 11, 2010.
  • "Supervisory Release Violation" (PDF). August 20, 2010.
  • "Amended Judgment and Commitment Order on Revocation of Supervised Release" (PDF). September 8, 2010.
  • "Petition on Supervised Release" (PDF). November 30, 2012.
  • "Supervisory Release Violation" (PDF). December 7, 2012.
  • "United States' Unopposed Motion To Vacate Sentence and Remand for a De Novo Resentencing" (PDF). March 7, 2013.
  • "Order" (PDF). June 4, 2013.

PDsq9RwMRYxjY4Aj (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

2605 IP

Dear IP editor, while your edits may be appreciated, your edit warring and refusal to engage in conversation are not. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Title

I think the new title is misleading, not to mention an insult to people who want to make a career in politics. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's consensus for you. I suggest you let it be. After all, I'm pretty sure a lot of people think the same about the current US president. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It's obviously better than Nathan Larson (political candidate). I'm not sure that either (activist) or (white supremacist) would be a better disambiguator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is; it's misleading, in suggesting he is either someone who has been elected or seeks to make politics his career. "Red pill" candidacy and candidacy to make people aware of libertarianism are not pursuit of a political career. I also respectfully but seriously disagree with the suggestion that "candidate" reflects bias; I addressed that above. "libertarian" or "activist" would be better IMO; he's known for his views. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Pedophilia

I appear to have missed some action on the article and this talk page.

After reading through the edits, I have reinstated the previous summary of Larson's positions, which is based on the sources cited in the article. In particular, although I accepted a legal argument that "child sexual abuse" was more correct than "pedophilia" (the difference between a proclivity and a criminal action), the sources are unanimous in using the word "pedophilia". There is in particular no synthesis involved in using the term "pedophilia", and the argument appears to have been made that "child sexual abuse" implies synthesis. So I have returned it to a summary of the sources, inaccurate though they may be from a legal point of view. I want also to note that I based the article on third-party reports, only referring to published statements by Larson where sources cited them, and that I deliberately distinguished between what he was cited as saying or writing at different times. I stand by the accuracy of the article based on the sources, and it survived AfD in large part on teh basis of not violating guidelines on biographies of living people. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I again question your concern for this man. This sock. I was correct to change to "pedophilia" to "child sexual abuse." Like I've stated before, one cannot decriminalize pedophilia because it is not a crime. It is a psychiatric disorder. That is a fact, regardless of anyone using the term pedophilia colloquially/broadly. So there is nothing accurate about "decriminalizing pedophilia." It is also a fact that Larson has advocated for child rape, as noted by reliable sources. And where does "child rape" redirect to? The Child sexual abuse article. And even with regard to using the exact term child sexual abuse instead of child rape, we can see that this 2018 The Independent source states that he "advocates for child sexual abuse and the subjugation of women." The sources that speak of Larson and pedophilia keep stating "advocates pedophilia," but I'm not seeing "decriminalize pedophilia." And they keep talking about pedophilia in an act sense/legal sense. It's clear that the sources are using the term pedophilia in place of the term child sexual abuse when they speak of what Larson advocates, like many sources use the term broadly to mean child sexual abuse. We are under no obligation to use that term broadly instead of the accurate term, especially when a source like The Independent uses the accurate terminology. There is no WP:BLP violation in that regard. When the sock complained on this talk page, Berean Hunter was right to revert all of that mess. And Risker was right to semi-protect the article. When the sock went and complained on Jimbo's talk page with the same nonsense, SoWhy was right to revert Jimbo with valid sources. Perhaps Joe Roe should not have added "a self-identified pedophile" since Larson has apparently been reluctant at times to call himself a pedophile and seems to think of himself as more of a hebephile, but by your same logic of going by the sources, Joe Roe was going by the sources and so was Alison when she made this edit to the 2008 Virginia's 1st congressional district election article. I reverted your edit (followup note here). You called the recent editing matter a controversy matter because the sock was complaining. That is not a controversy. We should not be catering to a sock, especially this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm growing a little tired of being accused of advocacy/undue concern; my concern here is BLP. I have left your wording change this time since you find one of the sources uses the legally more correct term. But note Joe Roe's edit summary reinstating "pedophile" in the lede based on the sources. Not only socks regard that as the more obvious summary. I've also left in the row of references this time, although I really do not think they are needed in the lede for a straightforward summary of the article's contents. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of advocacy/undue concern. I stated "concern." And you have expressed concern for Larson on my talk page with regard to BLP (even though what I did wasn't a BLP violation) and again above (even though the changes the aforementioned editors made weren't BLP violations). But, yes, I view it as catering to Larson if an editor reverts to wording he likes better simply because he complained. First, Jimbo reacted to the sock's complaints. Jimbo seemingly didn't know who he was dealing with. He noted that he reverted on BLP concerns. Then SoWhy reverted Jimbo and explained on Jimbo's talk page why the sock was wrong. There wasn't any controversy. Just complaining from a sock. You came along and reverted, but it's not like you were reverting to a more BLP-compliant article, with perhaps the exception of Joe Roe's addition since we do take into consideration how BLP subjects have described themselves vs. how sources have described them. But if Larson never called himself a pedophile, why would these reliable sources be stating that he did? As for sources in in the lead, like I stated with this edit, SoWhy added cites to the lead because of what WP:CITELEAD states about BLPs. These aspects of the lead are controversial topics. Before my revert of you, you'd also removed Larson's image, which was perhaps unintentional. If it was on purpose, it can be construed as you trying to protect Larson although his face is all over the Internet. To reiterate, I don't care if we use an infobox or not, but I see no need to remove the picture of the man. His face is out there. He put it out there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I see you left the image of Larson in this time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here except that this is extremely confusing. @Yngvadottir: You reverted several editors at once but have only partially explained your reasons for doing so. What was wrong with my change? Why remove the infobox? What is the actual dispute between you two? – Joe (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I, too, am confused. Especially about the infobox. What is the reason for removing it? You just did it twice but never gave a reason. Regards SoWhy 14:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
An infobox is reductive, which is something this article does not need. I disagree with the need for references in the intro on anything except the date of birth; Jimbo had clearly not read the article, which supports everything with references. I still see the replacement of "pedophilia" with "child sexual abuse" as OR, and noted in response to Flyer that they appear to have missed Joe Roe's edit summary saying that the word should be in the lead, based on the sources; however, Flyer makes a legal point that I am not competent to disagree with, and cites one of the references using the term "child sexual abuse", so I have again deferred to them on that point despite my misgivings that it does not reflect the sources. I've also deferred to you by reinstating the references on that sentence in the lead, but more as a gesture of respect than anything else: with the exception of the use of "child sexual abuse" I do not consider any part of that sentence debatable based on the sources. I am not sure where the puzzlement comes in other than with regards to the infobox (and I don't recall anyone previously seeking to add one to this article); perhaps because Flyer has been alluding to a prior conversation we had on their talk page, and my response to them referred to that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I note that in the meantime someone else added a different infobox. The need to choose an infobox is part of the problem I see with having one in this case. Better just to lay out the facts. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the infobox thing. They serve a useful purpose giving people a quick overview of facts and I think there is consensus here that the article should have an infobox considering that multiple people have reverted your removal of the infobox (which was thrice in 24 hours putting you dangerously close to violating WP:3RR. I'm happy to discuss any changes to any article and I think most others here are too but your current approach of making whatever edits you deem correct without prior discussion is hardly constructive. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
My edit emphasised the fact that he is a paedophile because almost all the coverage of him emphasises the fact that he's a paedophile. For example, nearly a third of the cited sources describe him as a paedophile in their headlines. The fact that he publicly claimed that label is a major reason for his notoriety. It's bizarre that we don't mention it in the lead, and comes across as an attempt to "clean up" what reliable sources have to say about the subject. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Per what I've argued above, including with a reliable source, I can't view replacing "pedophilia" with "child sexual abuse" as WP:OR. Child rape is a synonym for child sexual abuse. Furthermore, as I've stated before, a number of sources state "advocates pedophilia," but I'm not seeing "advocates for decriminalizing pedophilia" in the sources. And yet the lead of this article used the word decriminalize with regard to pedophilia, and currently with regard to child sexual abuse. As for calling Larson a self-identified pedophile, if he did call himself a pedophile, we can see lower in the article that he has also called himself a hebephilic rapist. So since pedophiles and hebephiles are two different types, although there is some overlap there, perhaps it's best not to refer to him as a "self-identified pedophile" in the lead. Or maybe, in both the lead and lower in the article, he should be referred to as having described himself as a pedophile and as hebephilic. I'll leave those options up to others. As for references in the lead, regardless of how any of us feel about having references in the lead, per WP:CITELEAD, they should be in the lead in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I think distinguishing between "paedophile" and "hebephile" would be a) original research and b) giving too much weight to Larson's own ravings over what reliable sources say about him. Most people, and most of our sources, don't care to split hairs about people who abuse children. To be clear, I'd like the lead to state that he is both a self-identified paedophile and advocates decriminalising child sex abuse. These are two distinct statements and both are well supported by sources. – Joe (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd be okay with something like "A self-identified pedophile, "hebephilic rapist" and white supremacist, ..." – though I foresee objections since only one source repeats his "hebephilic rapist" label, versus many that describe him as a "pedophile" and "white supremacist" verbatim. – Joe (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In terms of self-identification, neither would be WP:OR. A number of sources are referring to him as a pedophile because it seems that he identified himself to them as one (or told a source that and other sources followed suit). Why else would they state "self-identified" or "self-admitted"? Well, unless it's the case that they are using "self-identified pedophile" or "self-admitted pedophile" in place of "self-identified child molester" or "self-admitted child molester" (or one of the synonyms for "child molester," such as "child sexual abuser" or "child rapist"). Has he admitted to sexually abusing children in any of the sources? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Calling himself a hebephilic rapist can be argued as admitting to child sexual abuse. But one might also argue that identifying as such doesn't mean he has yet carried out the act of child sexual abuse or statutory rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox or no infobox?

See above for more details. I'm starting a new section to not conflate this question with the one about the wording raised above. Yngvadottir believes there should be no infobox while Auric and Flyer22 Reborn have reverted such removals of the infobox. I think there should be one because that is the current accepted practice for politicians and political candidates and also it helps summarize key facts for people who want a quick overview (such on mobile devices). Regards SoWhy 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • No infobox. Thanks for starting a discussion. I believe the state of play remains that infoboxes are neither recommended nor not recommended, and should be discussed on a case by case basis. For people, I rarely see them as advisable: "helps summarize key facts" can equally well be seen as "decides what are the key facts and foregrounds them", and so we see infoboxes, for example, overwhelming someone's career with the list of their romantic relationships, or conversely, deciding which of the companies they worked for / films they acted in / books they wrote are what they are "best known for". They also invite people to fill in the inviting spaces for things like religion (and musical genre) and thus foment a lot of the disagreements on Wikipedia. And they are specifically anti-nuance. In this instance, there's a specific issue with which one to use. Infobox candidate is really only suited to a current candidate, and Larson has run unsuccessfully for several seats and is not currently a candidate. He's also changed party affiliation. Infobox person invites mention of his now deceased ex-spouse and child. Infobox criminal slants the article towards being a negative BLP, but is available. I'm afraid I don't find the argument that we should oversimplify because some readers like it to be persuasive, but in this instance, I'm more concerned that any further simplification will amount to a caricature. I also note that the article has existed for a good while now, and survived AfD, yet the notion that an infobox will improve it has only come up now. Perhaps because this isn't a standard candidate/politician. I don't think it's an improvement; I believe it risks unbalancing the article in one or another way (including drawing more attention to the former spouse and child); and anyone who must have a box gets one when they Google. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Infobox I think it should be noted here that I haven't actually reverted any removals of infoboxes. I added one with all the relevant facts I could reasonably add, my own creation and not related to any previous. I favour a balanced infobox, with full details of career and crimes, while excluding mention of non-notable persons which aren't explicitly named in the article. We should, of course, insure that the infobox isn't longer than the article itself.--Auric talk 18:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
If it must have an infobox, I prefer your choice, infobox person. But what benefit is there to having one, no matter how carefully worded, to offset the attendant risk of people stuffing it with details like the former spouse's name, or using it to express a point of view? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
That is, unfortunately, one of the risks we run of having an article at all. Sooner or later someone will add useless or unverifiable information. All we can do is keep an eye on the article and remove them needed.--Auric talk 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I keep coming back to check on it. (I was having internet problems during the recent flurry of edits.) I still don't understand what the advantages of an infobox are that offset its increasing the risk, though; I disagree with the reasons SoWhy gives, which I tried to address above. From my point of view, although I see their utility in and add them to articles of types that have a lot of fiddly information that it is useful to present in a summary table (films, Olympic athletes, ships, species ... ), in many types of articles they are intrinsically magnets for trivia and misemphasis as well as deliberately lacking in nuance. So why have one? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
As I noted before, I don't mind the infobox. I don't feel strongly about it being excluded either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia activity

Last year, Haaretz (and probably other outlets too) ran a story about Larson's Wikipedia and other wiki activity 2005–present. I feel like this is at least somewhat relevant to include. Possibly, "In the news" tags should be added to the talk pages of articles mentioned in the story. See: Haaretz.com on June 14, 2018. Thanks. 125.242.98.99 (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

President

The top section on the current article needs to say which President he threatened becasue it wasn't the current president. It was not Trump but currently reads like it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by House Tules (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

CHANGE "The charges were in relation to an alleged plot to kidnap a 12-year-old girl from California;" TO "The charges were in relation to an alleged plot to kidnap a 12-year-old girl from Fresno, California;" Kodr14ai (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not relevant to the article. Per WP:NONAME identifying details of minors should be kept at the bare necessary minimum. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

His new website

Jason Murdock (September 17, 2020). "Petition Calls for FBI to Investigate Active Pedophile Forum Where Members Openly Discuss Child Abuse". Newsweek. Ҥ (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhat on the fence about whether inclusion of that information would clear WP:BLP. On the one hand, it's covered by a reliable source (and it's not as though Mr. Larson has a lot of reputation worth protecting). On the other hand, the linkage between Mr. Larson and that website, as described in the Newsweek article, is fundamentally speculative—the username is one that's been used by him in the past, the username claims an age and location that match Mr. Larson's, and...it seems very much like the sort of thing that he would do. But I don't think that that's enough to include that kind of negative information about a BLP, so I think I fall on the side of not including it. Steve Smith (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, a review of WP:RSP informs me that, to my surprise, Newsweek apparently hasn't been a reliable source since 2013. That fact obviously fortifies my conclusion that this information ought not to be included. Steve Smith (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong President and inaccurate subtitle

He didn't threaten George W. Bush, it was Barack Obama. Also, I know there is another Nathan Larson who is a musician, but should we really consider this Nathan Larson a politician in the page's title since he is known to be a pedo and even admitted to being such? I'd say that convict would be the better word for it when it is decided that he is to remain in prison.HelloADoodleDown (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

On the first point, he didn't actually specify. He said that he was going to kill the president, without giving a name. Given that he said it in December 2008, which president he was going to kill depended entirely on when he was going to kill the president; if he intended to do so before January 20, 2009, then he was threatening to kill Bush, while if he intended to do so after January 20, then he was threatening to kill Obama. Given that it's pretty clear that he was just engaged in idle threats, it may well be that he didn't even address his mind to the question of which president he was threatening to kill. Anyway, I've corrected the lede to match the body.
On the second point, see here. Of course, WP:CCC, and new developments can also justify new names, but he's been a convict for as long as he's had an article, and, notwithstanding that, consensus was that "politician" is the best disambiguator. Steve Smith (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Politicians are not too seldom also convicts, so "convict" would actually be less helpful as an identifier. Reminds me of one of my favorite conversations from Terry Pratchett's The Last Continent:

“We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?”

“Why?”

“It saves time.”

Regards SoWhy 20:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was reading this Wikipedia article, and there was a link to a defunct website Larson made, suiped.org. Thinking that it was a link to a Wikipedia article about the website, I clicked on it, but it’s actually a link to the domain suiped.org. Whoever has editing permissions for the article, please remove this link so no one else makes the same mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B020:C42C:F914:5AC3:3689:8C53 (talk • contribs)

There is no link to suiped.org. The domain site is in non-hyperlinked text. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 Nathan Larson grew up in Culpeper, Va., not Charlottesville.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agathalaw (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Socking

@Crossroads: Care to explain how my edit removes this fact? It contains the details, eg different Wikipedia accounts, and his ban. It just trims the excess material. We don't need 3-4 sentences detailing how he was blocked, then banned, then glocked. This may matter to Wikipedia editors, but it does not matter to readers. Simply saying he socked and was banned suffices. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This removed that he kept socking for years after he was banned. It also made it look like his ban was mainly for socking. "Different accounts" is also a watered down term for socking; these weren't legitimate alternate accounts. Crossroads -talk- 01:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, he was banned for socking. I cannot seem to find any ban discussion thanks to 2008 record keeping, though, and it's not linked on his user page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Steve Smith it seems like you interacted with this editor a bunch, and dealt with various checkuser requests. Do you happen to remember what the ban was for, or know where the record for this would be? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
As nearly as I am able to ascertain, the first indefinite block handed to one of his accounts was to User:Absidy, in February 2008; discussion of that block is visible on this version of User talk:Absidy. You will note that, at the bottom of the page, there was talk of a (disclosed) clean start as User:Obuibo Mbstpo. Most discussion of his Wikipedia accounts is found in the noticeboard archives under that easily-searchable name—here's discussion of what I believe to be the first indefinite block of that account. Following that, he commenced (continued?) his relentless socking, such that that indefinite block became a de facto ban; I don't think there was ever a formal ban discussion. Note that all of this pre-dated any knowledge of his pro-pedo advocacy, racism, etc. Note also that I don't believe that any of this has been covered by reliable sources, such that it would be suitable for inclusion in this article. Steve Smith (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that could be. We should probably be sure just to stick to the source. But we should still mention that he used it to "endorse his worldview" and what he did after the 2008 ban. Crossroads -talk- 01:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, if the source is incorrect then the argument that there's a distinction is made moot. Just because a source says it doesn't mean it has to be included, especially if it's not correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Worth noting that I believe this may be User:Leucosticte who was ArbCom banned in 2012, and Foundation banned in 2015. His global locks were in 2015 after the WMF ban, so the way the article currently reads actually gives quite a poor picture of events and should be cut for that reason alone, if not as a matter of content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
FYI - he was socking on WMF wikis up until October of this year, and never really went away for long - Alison ❤ 02:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand, but how does the superfluous material I removed represent that fact, and why does it need to be represented in the subject's article? If we were talking about practically any other site - assuming it is not core to the person's notability (which it isn't here) - we would not see it appropriate, as a matter of content, to include so much elaborate material on their banning. In the grand scheme of the world, I never saw ban evasion as an especially notable thing to do on the internet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to revert edit

I propose to revert this edit. We should forthrightly call his "different accounts" what they were - sock puppet accounts - rather than a POV euphemism. We should say he used them to promote his worldview as a whole, not just the vague "positions such as...". And lastly, we should mention that he kept coming back after his 2008 ban. It is wrong to imply that ban was the end of the matter. That Wikipedia is subject to banned users such as this coming back and continuing to be a problem is highly noteworthy and should not be WP:CENSORed.

All this is reliably sourced: Larson was initially banned from Wikipedia in 2008, when Barack Obama was first running for president, and in the years that followed, he hid behind a string of fake usernames to push his worldview....In the following nine years he created a web of over 50 fake usernames – “sockpuppets” in Wikipedia terminology – which he deployed across a number of Wikimedia-sanctioned projects, among other online sites. Using names like “Sarsaparilla,” “Leucosticte,” “Tisane,” “Obuibo Mbstpo” and “Libertarian theories,” he created and edited numerous articles, some of which even exist today. [1] The entire source talks at length about his Wikipedia activity. Crossroads -talk- 19:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Crossroads -talk- 19:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Indifferent as to "sockpuppet accounts" vs. "different Wikipedia accounts", but the Haaretz source doesn't support i. that he has been banned from all Wikimedia platforms (though I acknowledge that, in fact, he has), ii. that his advocacy of his offensive views (whether online or offline) was the source of any ban. On the latter point, the only comments the article makes about the reasons for his bans from anything Wikimedia-related (as distinct from non-Wikimedia wikis, which are also discussed at some length) are "where someone whose positions are so abhorrent and rhetoric so violent they are banned from editing Wikipedia" (which obliquely suggests a link between advocacy and his ban, even though his ban from Wikipedia, as distinct from other Wikimedia wikis, had nothing to do with such positions or rhetoric), and "However, he was too radical for even the most inclusive of Wikipedia’s inclusionists, and by 2008 he was banned, initially for short periods, and then for life" (which suggests that it was his rabid inclusionism that led to his bans, which is also false). So, in summary, the source gives no account of his reasons for being banned from all Wikimedia wikis (because it doesn't even indicate that he was banned from all of them, and also of course because the WMF hasn't ever stated the reasons for the ban, or indeed tied the ban to Nathan Larson the person), and suggests without directly stating two reasons for his ban from Wikipedia, both of which are inaccurate. The current wording is fine. Steve Smith (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support using the term “sockpuppet” rather than “different Wikipedia accounts” since that’s where we’re linking and what the source uses. The latter phrasing is too innocuous to capture the sense of deceptive use that sockpuppetry entails. Neutral on the other stuff. I don’t think we critically require a high quality source for the fact that he’s banned, though for BLP compliance this would be a best practice. I’m not up to date on how we handle writing about on-project stuff, whether we can cite the project for uncontroversial statements of fact. That he’s been banned is uncontroversial, and for that matter, incontrovertible. The reasons for banning require clear sourcing for BLP compliance. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose in substance. Mostly per Steve Smith, my comments above, and Yngvadotti. Further, the content is not verifiable, and it is unnecessary detail. Ban envasion is not a notable thing to do on the internet, and the fact that only one source seems to cover this (a source, mind you, that also calls the subject a "troll", which seems dubious and doesn't seem to be used by any other source, hence I'm not sure how this is highly noteworthy). WP:RSP says "generally reliable" not "treat as gospel in all cases, even when they have it wrong". That said, I'm okay with using the "sockpuppet" term. Ban evasion on the internet is not a notable thing to do. If this were any other side, we wouldn't have included any of this in the article at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
And FWIW, I'm not sure that "sockpuppet" should be used. To a lot of Wikipedia editors it's part of a mileu which is water to a fish, but I'd guess it's an unfamiliar term to a fair subset of our readers. Yes you can wikilink, but using wikilinks is supposed to be for deeper information, not a requirement to understand the sentence. Better would be to define the term right there, but that interrupts the flow of reading a bit. That's not a big deal, but it's not ideal. Also, I don't know if it is slang, but it is a bit informal at least. Herostratus (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Lathan Larson

Why does the infobox have that as his name? Did he legally change his name? If he did, do we have a source for that? Otherwise, maybe we should revert it to Nathan? Or if this is some kind of nickname, Nathan "Lathan" Larson, if such a nickname is actually an encyclopedia-worthy fact about him. Mr248 (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mr248: I assume it was just a typo. I've fixed it. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename article

The AfD closed Keep with a suggestion to consider renaming. This is not a formal rename request but to query ideas before making a formal request. One idea is Nathan Larson (troll) as supported by sources and then refactoring the article into his exploits as a troll instead of the current simulacrum of a politician biography, which frankly is part of his troll and makes Wikipedia just as culpable as the press in raising his star. -- GreenC 22:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he's a troll, and I'm not sure that's the consensus of sources either. I object a little to how we're using the Haaretz source more broadly here.
(criminal) may work - he has a conviction already so it's supported, and is facing trial in another. (paedophile) also seems to be supported by existing sources, and is the current shortdesc. Depends which you think his lasting notability is. Though reading the article now, one would say he's most notable for his political views. So there's also the argument that we should retain this title for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes. A troll might threaten to burn down your house to get a reaction from you. If they actually burn down your house, they're not a troll, they're an arsonist. Mo Billings (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Nathan Larson (activist) is a more NPOV description of what Larson does, however vile his advocacy. "Troll" is name calling, and putting "criminal" in the article title puts undue weight, especially since Larson has not yet been convicted on the most serious charges. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I like (activist). --Enos733 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I was also going to suggest (activist). I originally created the article at (political candidate) and objected to its being moved to (politician) because he had never been elected. His runs for office had put him over the top in terms of notability (I believe there are deleted autobiographies, but am unsure what they were called), but the basis for his notability has broadened since his arrest. I did not and do not support (criminal) because of that earlier wave of news coverage and because he has yet to go to trial on the new charges. (Since the Haaretz source has been mentioned, I had originally objected to its being used at all, and do not believe his history on WMF sites should be mentioned in the article; even if that were not so, I would oppose (troll) on multiple grounds: BLP, clarity, sourcing). Yngvadottir (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - given there's a pending criminal case, I'm super reluctant to see (criminal) being applied, even though he has previously been convicted of a Federal crime. It may be seen as potentially prejudicing his upcoming case in the public eye, or that of the jurors; trial by media - Alison ❤ 01:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm good with activist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose (advocate) or (activist) as essentially meaningless terms in the modern political landscape. Basically everyone notable in Northern Virginia is also an activist of some kind. I think that if (politician) or (political candidate) are inappropriately descriptive, we might just buck against the WP:NCPDAB/WP:INITS convention and just go with Nathan Daniel Larson. It's not expressly prohibited and it provides a way out given this is someone notable for things we probably shouldn't disambiguate by. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with the IP (and, somewhat unrelatedly, with Alison). Support renaming to Nathan Daniel Larson. Steve Smith (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (public figure). The problem with "activist" is that a good half of his notability or more is as a person convicted of threatening the President and being accused of kidnapping someone, rather than as activist. He's not really notable as an actual activist anyway, he's more notable as a clickbait _______ (but we can't use that of course). "Nathan Daniel Larson" does let us avoid a decision, but he's not ever referred to that that way -- he's not Edward Everett Hale or whatever, so now we're just making stuff up (it is a reasonably common practice here tho, just one I don't personally go for). But he really is notable just for being in the news, famous for being famous, we can't really use (famous person) and so I guess "public figure" fills the bill best.
FWIW (and it's not worth much IMO, we decide these things), I looked at our 30 sources in the article and added 5-6 others, looking at how they introduce the person in the article, usually in the headline or the lede paragraph. Of course most used more than one term -- If the headline said "Rape and incest advocate arrested..." that counts as 1 for rape, 1 for incest, and thus 2 for "sex stuff" -- so the numbers might be a little funny. Anyway, the totals I got were
  • political stuff 13 (white supremacist 6, Hitler fan 2, marijuana legalization advocate 1, libertarian 4)
  • candidate stuff 18 (current candidate [at the time article was written] 14, former candidate 3, frequent candidate 1),
  • sex stuff 24 (pedophile or pedophilia advocate 18, plus 6 more for rape advocate or incest advocate).
  • crime stuff 14 (felon threatener of President 6, accused kidnapper 8)
  • accountant 6, and 1 each for "student leader" and "Wikipedia troll" Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the most reasonable disambiguation here is "political candidate". The media reports on Larson's controversial views and past conviction exist because he was running for office. If not for his candidacies he would not be notable. Mo Billings (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    The last RM (correctly imho) ended with the move to the current name because "politician" encompasses "political candidate" per our own definition of the word (since holding any office is not required to be called a politician). So that's 31 for political activity, 55 if you consider his advocacy a political platform. After all, Adolf Hitler was per our article a " politician" as well. Holding abhorrent views will make one a despicable human being but it does not disqualify one from being a politician. So from all the possible descriptors, the current one is imho the most NPOV. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    @SoWhy: Thanks for the link to that earlier discussion. If a failed political candidate is considered a politician, then I favor leaving the name as is and I'm a bit confused about why we are doing this at all in light of that discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

So, interest having dropped off in this thread, let's see..

  • Activist, 4
  • Nathan Danial Larson, 2
  • Troll, 1
  • Criminal, 1
  • Public figure, 1
  • Political candidate, 1

I suppose the WP:RM should go with "activist". (I'd snark that when you, I don't know, can't remotely figure out what a person is or does it's maybe natures way of telling you to rethink having an article, but that ship sailed. If we honestly and truly wanted to be accurate and best inform the reader, we'd probably go with Nathan Larson (train wreck) or Nathan Larson (target of pearl-clutching) or Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article). But nevermind that: "activist" seems the obvious way to go.) Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa whoa...when I !voted, "(person who has a Wikipedia article)" wasn't yet on the table. That's clearly the best option. Steve Smith (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Count me in. But in that case the article should be moved to Meta-Wiki I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathan_Larson_(criminal)/Archive_1&oldid=1144818442"