Talk:Robert J. O'Neill

Point of Clarification - Matt Bissonnette

Bissonnette has never claimed credit for firing the fatal shots. If you read page 170 of 'No Easy Day' he makes it clear that Bin Laden had been shot in the head by the 'point man'. The exact quote is

With the women out of the way, I entered the room with a third SEAL. We saw the man lying on the floor at the foot of his bed. He was wearing a white sleeveless T-shirt, loose tan pants, and a tan tunic. The point man’s shots had entered the right side of his head. Blood and brains spilled out of the side of his skull. In his death throes, he was still twitching and convulsing. Another assaulter and I trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless.

So while he says the he did take his chance put some rounds in Bin Laden, he has never taken credit for firing the fatal shots, which is some text that I had to remove from this article. This information has also been repeated in his latest interviews. -Myopia123 (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure with 9/11 families

This day, Rob O'Neill was on FoxNews with Greta Van Susteren, along with about a dozen family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. He said that every day he receives correspondence from families that thank him for his service. I'll see if I can find some transcript later today or tomorrow. -- AstroU (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So far, the Greta Van Susteren section of FoxNews.com has nothing on her 9/11 segment. Instead, much is covered on the Baltimore unrest. Maybe the FoxNews section, or her blog, will post the important transcript or video later. -- AstroU (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Robert O'Neill is a contributor on FoxNews and today discussed with Martha MacCallum the 2,300 Humvees captured by ISIS and used for suicide attacks. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Neptune Spear raid chronology

This edit caught my eye. The edit changed part of an assertion in the lead section which read "... during the raid on his Abbottabad compound on May 2, 2011." To give the date as May 1 instead. The supporting source cited says that bin Laden was killed "during a May 2011 raid" on the compound. This source, which gives a bit more detailed view of the chronology, says that the helicopters lifted off from Jalalabad Air Field "[s]hortly after eleven o’clock on the night of May 1st", that they entered Pakistani airspace 15 minutes later, describes the flight as "the ninety-minute helicopter flight", but is a bit murky about the exfiltration timeline. This source, which purports to give a detailed timeline, says that the helicopters left Jalalabad at 1430 EST on 1 May (2330 local time) and arrived back at Jalalabad at 1830 EST (0330 local time on 2 May).

I suggest that the lead section characterize the raid as having taken place on May 1-2, 2011, and that sources with timeline details (those mentioned above and/or others) be cited in support. I don't think this afrticle needs to go into details about the timeline of the raid. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Robert J. O'Neill (Navy SEAL) → Robert J. O'Neill – The Navy SEAL who shot Osama bin Ladin is the WP:Primary topic. The only other Robert J. O'Neill is a military historian, whose page was moved from Robert J. O'Neill to Robert O'Neill after a successful requested move closed this week. Prior to the move, people were viewing the Navy SEAL page 150 times more often. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The military historian page was moved from 'Robert J. O'Neill' to 'Robert O'Neill (historian)', then 'Robert J. O'Neill' was redirected to the disambiguation page 'Robert O'Neill'. The more compelling argument comes from looking at the Robert O'Neill disambiguation page, where Robert E. O'Neill is used in preference to Robert E. O'Neill (attorney). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Ceyockey. Sole main title header bearing this exact name. No need for the parenthetical qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:58, 3 November 2019 (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.

BLP concern

The sentence in the lead section of this article reading, "O'Neill claims to have fired the shot(s) that killed Osama bin Laden during the raid on his Abbottabad compound on May 1, 2011." bothered me re WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. I've probably read that sentence previously without commenting, but on reading it this morning I saw it as begging the inference that the claim might be bogus.

For now, I've just wikilinked the word claims there internally to the Death of bin Laden section of the article. That section links Death of Osama bin Laden as a {{main article}}. Even there, there seems to be waffling around a begged inference that the claim by O'Neil might be bogus in favor of what this source (cited with WP:linkrot in this and related articles) calls "apparent shaming". It takes some research in sources outside WP to begin to clarify that. The closes thing I've found to a clear assertion contrary to O'Neil's claims is in Osama bin Laden escape plot REVEALED by CIA: How al-Qaeda leader 'planned to FLEE', express.co.uk, May 1, 2019, starting around "... pushed past the lead SEAL". I don't see that source cited anywhere and, not being much of a wordsmith, I couldn't see how to smoothly weave that in as a clarification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Having just read the article and it appears to be a WP:BLP1E article that is fluffed up with nothing particularly noteworthy about him in the article. Tempted to propose deletion as even the BLP1E appears to be a unconfirmed claim from the subject. As far as I can see the sentence about him in Death of Osama bin Laden is sufficient. Any thoughts on this? MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Despite the ~1000 daily page views I think you're right. The unconfirmed claim that he killed Bin Laden seems to be the sole basis for notability, so possibly a case of WP:ONEEVENT. PC78 (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a proposed deletion tag to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Logo Naval Special Warfare Development Group.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Robert J. O'Neill → Robert O'Neill (Navy SEAL) – I know this article has been moved many times, but all of the reliable sources in the article (except the subject's own) refer to him as "Robert O'Neill" or occasionally "Rob O'Neill". The policy on article titles says that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." I've suggested a new target, but I'm not committed to that particulat parenthetical (though it's succinct and according to the article, "commonly known as Navy SEALs"); the template just required something be input. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURAL. Robert J. O'Neill is one common name. Common natural names are preferable to artificial parenthetical qualifiers whenever possible. Rob O'Neill, which already redirects here, is also acceptable, as is Robert O'Neill as he is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see pageviews). Station1 (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that this page could replace the disambiguation page at Robert O'Neill IAW WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If that's amenable, it makes sense.

  At WP:NATURAL it says, "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." However, only 1/16 sources uses the middle initial (and it's a self-published source); I wouldn't call that common. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I am suggesting that this article could be moved to Robert O'Neill since literally 99% of readers looking for a Robert O'Neill are looking for this one. That would necessitate moving the current dab page to Robert O'Neill (disambiguation). Alternatively, the dab page could stay where it is and this article moved to Rob O'Neill. That requires only reversing the current redirect. Robert J. O'Neill is probably third best, but he does use it on his own website, as well as Twitter, so even though it's least-used of the three alternatives, it still meets the requirements of WP:NATURAL as being preferable to a completely artificial disambiguator. Station1 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  I hadn't considered that this article could be the primary topic for Robert O'Neill, and then disambiguate at Robert O'Neill (disambiguation), but I trust your research into the matter. That proposal has my firm support. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It seems to me that this article meets both the short and long term tests there for the name with the middle initial. For the shortened form, Rob, my guess is that is also likely. For Robert O'Neill, my guess is that meeting the long term test has a short half-life. Those last two opinions go to those redirects,though, not to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

  I don't understand your objection. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't seem to say anything about parenthetical disambiguation? As for Rob O'Neill and Robert O'Neill, I wasn't suggesting those (though Station1, above, might be) as targets. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry I was not clear, and now I'm not sure I understand your two bulleted responses/questions above. To clarify my response, I opined opposition to the name change because I think this page with the present title meets WP:PRIMARY in the short term and that will likely remain true in the long term. I remarked in passing about the others, not intending that as part of my direct response, saying that the current redirect here from Rob O'Neill looks OK for now and will likely remain so in the long term. On a second look, I see that Robert O'Neill is a disambiguation page with this article being the first-mentioned alternative; I think that is OK as is. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing comment: The now six redirects from the various former unambiguous names should make this article fairly easy to find, anyway! Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References error

I just restored a section that a vandal who is now blocked blanked earlier, and the section definitely has references but there is some problem that keeps them from showing. I don't know what the problem is, so does anyone know how to fix it? Green Dragon Pride (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources and and the prose were removed in two separate edits (respectively: [1] & [2]). I copied over the sources from an old version to fix the issue. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wolf949 & BLP

The new account Wolf949 (talk · contribs), like the blocked vandal 24.187.154.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is unilaterally removing prose from the article, opposing all other editors. Wolf949 has invoked the the biographies of living persons policy saying the referenced Esquire article it clearly states ex-wife is afraid for her life. Wikipedia is clear about possibility of harm. The policy page reads to say that we must be extremely conscious of WP:V and WP:RS, which the removed material is in full compliance. As for Wolf949's specific notes, Amber O'Neill expressed those noted concerns to a journalist who was publishing an article (cited herein) about the article subject. Before reinstating the removed prose, I am also asking for input from other contributers. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose reinsertion - I'm not a policy wonk, but I would say that O'Neill's wife and children are low profile individuals notable only because of their association with him who (as far as I know, anyhow) have been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, and that they deserve presumption in favor of privacy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• I see no reason for a name or location. Something like "O'Neill was married in 2004 and has two children but is now separated" should be sufficient and acceptable. Station1 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose reinsertion I agree with the above two comments. I'm leaning towards opposing reinsertion, mostly because the Esquire article mentions that the wife says she's thinking of changing her and her kids' names and "Essentially deleting him from our lives, but for safety reasons."[3] However, if others think it should be added back, I think Station1's suggestion sounds best, since they're low-profile individuals. - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

How about "O'Neill married in March 2004^[4] and has at least two children, though he and his wife were legally separated by February 2013.^[6]" Also, we'd remove the spouse's name from the infobox since we're not including it in the prose. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to opposed all editors as mentioned above. Thank you for putting the process in place. I agree that the infobox should cross-reference an update to remove the "Spouse(s)" from the infobox. Rather than starting a new talk section, I thought I'd mention that I noticed that the infobox "Awards" are not the same as listed in the article - two Silver Stars, four Bronze Star Medals,[9] a Joint Service Commendation Medal (with "V" device), three Presidential Unit Citations, and two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals (with "V" device).[11] An additional note is that the newspaper source that mentioned the marriage was dated 2004. I'm guessing this would still make those children under age. If this is the case, I don't think the children should be mentioned again citing Wikipedia possibility of harm.Wolf949 (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the specific wording I suggested (O'Neill married in March 2004^[4] and has at least two children, though he and his wife were legally separated by February 2013.^[6])?

As for the awards in the infobox, {{infobox military person}} says to include "any notable awards or decorations the person received; exhaustive lists should be worked into the prose." Since consensus has determined that the awards of lesser precedence than the Silver Star aren't considerable enough for categorization (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal), then that's a suitible bright line for infobox inclusion as well. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit to remove the spouse item in the infobox has been completed. I will look more at the awards as noted. Fox News doesn't seem to really be his "employer", but I don't know how to more accurately state that in the infobox. Wolf949 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the infobox, I've replaced the personal information as above. Let me know if you have any questions about the awards. I'm unbothered by removing Fox News as employer, and have expanded the occupation field duly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Navy SEAL Robert O'Neill.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"SEAL Team Six"

With regards to the recent edits of Seiko888 (talk · contribs) and 50.239.222.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): the predominance of sources in this article refer to the organization as SEAL Team Six, and the English Wikipedia's own article sits at SEAL Team Six, and so it is therefore our SOP to refer to the group as SEAL Team Six. The relevant policy is at WP:COMMONNAME. IAW the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I have again reverted the undiscussed edits and have pointed interested parties here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Given they have continued to edit without discussing, I have warned Seiko888 and will take further measures if they continue to edit war in contravention of the above. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Challenge Coin

On 7 September 2022 at 15:36 UTC, Boucher4 (talk · contribs) added prose about O'Neill's founding of a cryptocurrency, citing it to Fox Business. After thanking that editor for the addition, at 16:31 the same day, I formatted and consolidated the source, cut back on the promotion of O'Neill's product (without further sourcing), and expanded the article further.

About 2.5 hours later, and across five separate edits, an editor at the new account TrueCryptonian (talk · contribs) removed both the claims and the source, saying corrected a false statement. Rob O‘Neill did not found any Cryptocurrency. He was simply onboarded after it was founded by Russ Davis. Because Russ Davis lacks credibility he decided to hire a commonly known military person to help mechandise his crypto token. […] Another false statement. The mentioned cryptocurrency is not the first military crypto/token. Neither was it founded by Rob O‘Neill. The prose said nothing about "the first military crypto/token", but cited Maria Bartiromo and Fox Business accurately in saying that O'Neill founded the product in question. Lacking any reliable sourcing to the contrary that supports TrueCryptonian's otherwise unsupported claims, I have replaced what they removed (and pointed any interested editors here). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

On August 7, 2022 Russ Davis posted a screenshot in the official Telegram channel about a donation made on August 4, 2022 to a company called GreenspoonMarder, claiming it has been made in the name of Challenge Coin.

The address depicted showed

10504 ANGLER CT

ORLANDO, FL 32825

Which leads to the ChallengeCoin LLC that can be found here:

https: //search.sunbiz. org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=CHALLENGECOIN%20L070001135710&aggregateId=flal-l07000113571-2f431089-f12a-43d8-aad9-ec9bdc17c69c&searchTerm=Challenge%20coin&listNameOrder=CHALLENGECOIN%20L070001135710

Neither of their names are registered under this LLC. Status Inactive and founded in 2007.

Also, the screenshots were deleted shortly after this matter was brought to attention, raising some questions as to who actually founded ChallengeCoin and why those information were deleted.

Also, to be precise, even if the two men in question did found this token, it is not a cryptocurrency, as it is not the native currency of an autonomous blockchain. It is only a token.

The research done by Fox Business or whoever mentioned it as the „first military“ crypto(not currency) is also wrong.

Considering the first „military“ crypto(token) to be a token that supports the military/veterans and/or has a military person/veteran on their team, there have been numerous that launched a cryptotoken in 2021 already. Some of which are still active projects.

As proof and just to name the first two, the BSC blockchain shows the creation of the first military supporting/lead token called Military Finance Token (MIL) on May 11, 2021.

Transaction Hash of token creation:

0xcc129bd803c326d2930f44c93ded0ccf6381790e842ad5c34bd30f005a5ba628

Website: military.finance (Active)

Project Status: Active

The second military supporting/lead token was created on May 21, 2021 called Marines United Teufel Token (MUTT).

Transaction Hash on BSC Scan:

0xb7e65b966a5c9e9f754cc370bd23a7913106ff48ab5b3dcfc54321dfc3489db1

Website: muttvet(dot)com/ (Inactive)

Project Status: Inactive

Hence, the CC claim to be the first military token is a wrong statement as well.

Please know the difference between tokens and currencies to not spread false information. TrueCryptonian (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This is original research, and not a reason to remove a reliable source and the prose it supports. I've again replaced the source and prose, though if you find a different reliable source to either support your claims, or contest Fox Business', you can share it on this talk page or try to incorporate it yourself. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you are lacking the knowledge to verify blockchain related information.

The transaction hashes I provided are the one and only proof

>>>directly on the blockchain.<<<

Also, the coin does not represent a cryptocurrency, but a token.

Again, I request you to stop spreading false information. TrueCryptonian (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The claims that O'Neill founded a cryptocurrency are duly cited to Fox Business and Maria Bartiromo, as required by the verifiability policy. Your claims above are original research, and do not override cited sources. If you feel that Fox Business & Maria Bartiromo shouldn't be accepted as sources, we have a noticeboard where those objections can be raised. If you have reliable secondary sources that either contradict, elaborate upon, correct, or color the cited source, please provide them here (or in the article if you can). Until such time, I have again replaced the cited information IAW the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I really encourage you to read the policies and guidelines that I've linked here (as well as—perhaps—the essay at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

TrueCryptonian's work here is definitely original research and so inappropriate as a source, but OR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, and I do not see them forcing debunking-type information into the article. So their concerns shouldn't be dismissed on that account. The interview is definitely a weak source: Unlike something published on, say, the Fox Business website, it has little editorial oversight. Several sources claim that Bartiromo is sometimes overly deferential in her interviews ([4], [5]). More importantly than whatever WaPo says, the interview portrays her as heavily sympathetic to the duo's cause, and any remotely incisive questions are only about the crypto market in general, rather than their specific coin/token. All this considered, the interview is nearly equivalent to a self-published source, like a press release. For basic claims, the interview may suffice as a primary source (see WP:ABOUTSELF). In particular, it might be okay to include that O'Neill "has interviewed in support of Challenge Coin, a cryptocurrency (token)". (The source doesn't use the language "token", so you'd need something to clarify that over simply "cryptocurrency". I'm not a crypto buff and can't make that distinction, but Cryptonian's argument is compelling for "token".) But the claim that O'Neill is a "cryptocurrency founder" falls under the objection to WP:ABOUTSELF that the material is [not] unduly self-serving. As this material has been legitimately challenged I think it should stay out. I would absolutely not use it for the claim that Challenge Coin is the "first military coin", etc. Also, that O'Neill is a "cryptocurrency founder" is certainly undue weight for the lead, regardless of its veracity. As a last point: WP:BLP sets high sourcing standards. Suppose the interview weren't with O'Neill, but some random guy: Would it be acceptable as a BLP source? No. BLP makes an exemption for self-published sources (WP:BLPSELFPUB), but if that exemption is relied upon, the source should be treated as self-published. If you think this opinion is complete bollocks (fair enough), I'd suggest going to WP:RSN or even WP:NPOVN. Ovinus (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC) I verily appreciate the policy-based and nuanced input. I'm personally unfamiliar with Fox Business and Maria Bartiromo, but just assumed them to be reliable sources per WP:RSP#Fox News; I will leave a note at WP:RSN re: Bartiromo for other editors. The parts of the TV show that I cited were only from the host (hence the limited prose), not O'Neill himself, thereby avoiding WP:SPS concerns; however, if Bartiromo herself isn't a reliable source as you say, then that's another issue. I'll cull the article. Thank you for the input! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC) I'm glad you found it helpful. To be clear, I think it's more of a "context matters" case: I'm sure Bartiromo has done plenty of excellent interviews, some of which would be useful on Wikipedia. But we're editors, not only guideline followers, and this citation is dubious imv. Ovinus (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal Life

Regarding Robert J. O'Neil, the personal life section begins: "Born in Butte, Montana, on 10 April 1976, Robert J. O'Neill is the son of Tom O'Neill, Jim and Diane Johnson, and the brother of Tom O'Neill." The sentence is worded in such a way as to indicate Robert J. O'Neil has four parents: Tom O'Neil, Jim and Diane Johnson and the brother of Tom O'Neil. Could someone please revise that sentence? As written, it makes no sense, at least not to me. He is both the son and brother of Tom O'Neil? Please clarify. Vulcanisaplanet (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the brother as too ancillary, and rephrased the sentence to clarify the three parents as listed by the cited source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_J._O%27Neill&diff=1196921152&oldid=1190534040 — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The headings of this article are confusing. We have "Personal Life," (which corresponds to a typical "Early life" and "Marriage and children" subheadings of the Biography template), "United States Navy", which includes a subheading "Post-separation" (i.e., civilian life after leaving the service), and a separate heading "Civilian Life" which details other post-separation content. Suggest moving the "Post-separation" content to the "Civilian Life" section. 70.82.45.23 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

"Personal life" being his... personal life, without regard for his military or civilian careers; I've moved some material around to better fit. The "post-separation" sub-section is for military-related material, but only concerning the subject's life after separating. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So he literally says this on Twitter

https://x.com/mchooyah/status/1853247567456325956?s=46&t=Wfx0CvYRB2Iebcsf8rCtxA

Claiming he wants to groom and have sex slaves made from young men/boys. Might be worth digging into a bit. 81.199.26.72 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless reported upon by reliable sources, independent of the subject, it doesn't really have any bearing here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

see this section of the page you just linked. Self published/questionable sources are fine when the source is self referential. So a tweet where someone else says O'Neill is homosexual would be valid for you to object against, but O'Neill himself stating that he is homosexual, is an appropriate source for O'Neill being a homosexual. TheTopOfCode (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The subject of the article made the claim himself. It seems pretty relevant. 205.178.113.141 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE&redirect=no

It seems pretty cut and dry. It’s from his own Twitter account. Referring to his desire to have concubine’s made of those young juveniles if their wasn’t social media. 173.72.135.238 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, there* 173.72.135.238 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

He said it himself, and said it again. He literally came out as gay HIMSELF. Ryantboyd (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You can question how relevant it is to include on the page, it is not the most important detail about the guy, but tweets by the subject about the subject are perfectly valid according to wikipedia's standards. AstraIgnea (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

Robert J O Neill has come out as queer in recent twitter post 95.45.150.95 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be original research. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not original research since since the subject published the information in a way that can be easily verified by anyone.

For something to not be considered original research it simply has to be easily verifiable. Idealy this would be via a reliable source but this is not required for informations that can be so trivially verified by any reader.

For example though sources doubtless exist, the claim "grass is typically green" does not rely on sources to avoid being original research due to the ease at which it can be verified. AstraIgnea (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not original research. Please stop denying what O'Neill has said, in his own words, on his own verified Twitter account. 68.162.217.23 (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

show us the exact words of him claiming he is gay, we'll wait. AndrewM81 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Protect the page from this twitter nonsense

Can this be done? its been added numerous times, deleted numerous times. its just going to be a endless fight between Wiki and these individuals on twitter. AndrewM81 (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The page is protected. The information is in place in a neutral tone with (at this moment) three sources. Joyous! Noise! 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

the problem is, he is poking at the feminine trends that Harry displays. yes, i see the neutral tone, but, i was literally chastised and berating for adding the same kind of context to another page, damn near banned from the page by an admin, for posting a factually truthful statement one made also on X.

so, i fail to see why this should be allowed, when on other pages it results in threats of banning. AndrewM81 (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It should be mentioned. It's a notable part of his life. NesserWiki (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

At what point should the article actually include his statements? he's gone on to make further sexual comments in line with his previous stated his desire to enslave and rape these people. the source is his own given public statement. i'm kind of new to this so im honestly wondering what the move is in a hot situation like this, when these comments are public. Jardizzone (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

never mind, missed the addition. apologies Jardizzone (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

where exactly does he say that though? the word he uses refers to a female, harry is clearly not a female, but acts like one in many instances. the sarcastic nature of the comments say otherwise that he actually intends or wishes to do what his statements indicate. AndrewM81 (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to figure out what you're even arguing here. He made a very notable public statement, hence its triple-cited inclusion. Your experience with editing other articles is irrelevant; every situation is unique. Gary Dell'Abate (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

my argument is that saying he is gay is unfounded just because he stated a sexually charged statement, underlying the rules that making such edits is prohibited as they are not factually soured or based. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

especially on a Living Biography page. Until he literally confirms it, this is abuse of the rules, IMHO. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

and now they are vowing over on X to continue to plague the page with edits on trying to show that this comment, factually is Robert coming out as gay. that is speculative and unfounded. I think its time to fully protect the page from any further edits concerning this ordeal. Until he actually says he is, this topic is contentious and divisive.

Oh by the way, the triple-cited inclusion is now removed, instead two news articles replaced it. the actual tweets are no longer referenced in the section. AndrewM81 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Trolling by twitter users

"On Nov 3, 2024, he revealed on X.com that he was sexually attracted to other males." is objectively a false statement, and is added not to be informative, but to be insulting.

The tweet cited as the source: "You’re not men. You’re boys. If there was no social media, you would be my concubines." Is clearly an attempt to ridicule Harry Sisson & co, and should not be interpreted as an official statement, while the trolls who changed this article try to make it seem like it is.

Its a bloody shame what this site has come to, and especially the fact that this page is now locked, included with this sentence, which is in no way a genuine attempt to write a proper Wikipedia article.

It's a disgrace that these people are using Wikipedia to spread their petty insults, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves, using this website to spread your petty insults motivated by God knows what. Roseph Hiden (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sadly very lefty biased, has no credibility anymore on political issues 2A00:A041:3907:6100:B0CF:2923:FA73:D537 (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

the page needs to be locked down under the vandalism clause from any further edits concerning this topic, they ( X Users ) are already vowing to continue editing the page like a plague until they get their way. AndrewM81 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't protect pages preemptively. The current lock is set to expire in a little more than 24 hours, but it's no trouble at all to protect it again if necessary. (I'm sure it will be necessary.) It's on my watchlist, as well as that of many other editors. It'll be fine. Joyous! Noise! 17:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you - it will most likely need this, they are still vowing to continue, despite they acknowledged the page is in protected mode, they said after it expires they will continue. AndrewM81 (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want to deny O'Neill's claim that he wants to make these barely legal teenagers his sex slaves and then possibly cannibalize them?

He has said it repeatedly and confirmed that he means it.

If you want it kept out because you think he might not be smart enough to know what 'concubine' means, that would be Original Research. Regardless, he has to know what cannibalism is. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

he literally posted a video of what he meant by it, sorry, that has already been debunked. and last i checked - Harry is 22 years old, "Barely legal teenagers" is hardly a factual statement. AndrewM81 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

additionally, all of the boys in that photo are voting age males - barely teenagers is also hardly a factual statement. the second boy that popped up talking about it who was the boy on the right, his profile also says he is 21, he is no longer a teenager.

please speak with facts, if you want to continue. AndrewM81 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are facts, you just don't like them. He said several times that he thinks they are boys and says that he doesn't consider them adult men and that's part of why he wants to have sex with them. Now, since he hasn't commented on it, I wouldn't mention this in the article, but he does not appear to be sexually interested in men older than their early twenties.

And of course, even in his video, he didn't address the fact that he wants to kill and eat the boys after he rapes them.

Why are you so upset by people quoting him? He said this and repeated it several times. He's proud of it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

show me where he explicitly said this, he has also made 2 statements after the fact clarifying his stance, which you refuse to ackowledge. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

show me where the boys are "barely teens" They are all aged 20+, legal age of Majority and above "teenaged" years. so again, come at me with FACTS, if you want to continue. You simply cannot handle the fact, you want it to be to shame and slander him. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Expansion on section of social media posts

I think that maybe the article should also mention his further comment about cannibalism. His post is reported on in an article by The Daily Dot (which is considered "considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact" by WP:RSP.) Like for example:

"O'Neill later reconfirmed his statement and added that "Betas" would be used for "sex and food. Mostly food."" UnkreativeFrog (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

so first you claimed he confirmed being gay by his concubine statement, discarding any and all doubt that he was referring to Harry's repeated fem-boy like attitude and beta-male appearances, now you want to try to slander the second comment pertaining as he supports cannibalism. Did it ever occur to y'all he is using these contexts in a sarcastic manner just for the reactions? AndrewM81 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "slander" anything or trying to make statements on his intentions or sincerity. The suggested addition would only list his direct statements as also supported by reliable deemed secondary sources.

UnkreativeFrog (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to include social media posts, I think wikilinking, particularly piping, should not be done. Linking to cannibalism is editorialising, the reader can interpret the post as they wish without wikilinks. Commander Keane (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

^ ^ ^ This AndrewM81 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

true, that's probably the better approach to it.

UnkreativeFrog (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

are you commenting just for reactions? Jardizzone (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

seems like you are as well AndrewM81 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove improperly cited information

Under "Civilian life", the first sentence of the last paragraph pertains to US politics and cites only The Huffington Post. The sentence should be removed right away, as per WP:HUFFPOLITICS and WP:BLP. @Commander Keane: @Joyous!: Wikiuser815 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wikiuser815, while I have no great objection to removing the material Wikipedia:HUFFPOLITICS says there is no consensus about not using that source as WP:HUFFPOCON explains it maybe ok if it has a byline - which this one does. If I am reading the BLP situation wrong then I encourage others to remove the offending material. Commander Keane (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, I should have read the policy discussions more carefully before appealing to them. WP:PROPORTION may be more relevant: His six years with Fox News gets half a sentence, for comparison. Wikiuser815 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It is hard to argue with WP:Proportion in this case. As I said I have no great objection to the removal (and that link explains why). Alternatively the article could be built up to give the concubines tweet less proportion. I have added a paragraph on the brewing controversy. The drag queen tweet could be added (example news article). I couldn't find any coverage for his time at Fox, other than his commencement and reports from Fox itself. Admittedly this is strange for a six year stretch from a character like this. I may have not looked hard enough. Commander Keane (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)