Talk:Jordan Lasker

Other online accounts

Ive removed the section titled 'Other online accounts' as both poorly sourced (cites a single mother jones article) and irrelevant even if it were better sourced. WP:BLPGOSSIP at a minimum applies here: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The answers here are No, Yes and No, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I wholly disagree and this has been discussed at length above. The source is reliable per WP:MOTHERJONES, so you would need to provide a good argument as to why this source in particular is not reliable.

A disinterested article about the subject would definitely include this information, as it provides important context to the subject's online activities, particular his views on race and intelligence. Katzrockso (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Leaving aside the appropriateness of citing Mother Jones in this article, if it's such an important point, why do most sources leave it out of their own reporting? Riposte97 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The only question is the appropriateness of citing Mother Jones.

There is nothing else.

Once again, I will remind editors that ONUS and BURDEN are part of V, not E. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

There is also DUE, which may be relevant here. But to take up your point, I am reticent to cite the Mother Jones article. They are biased, and for them to be the only source in a section on a topic this hot in the culture war means we cannot give that section the careful NPOV treatment it demands. Riposte97 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

DUE is about proportionality, not relevance. It has nothing to do with rejecting sources we find biased, and everything to do with giving the proper treatment to these sources. As such, an earlier claim that the analysis was "presented as true" is so false as to raise questions.

At this point, it might be best just to say what one means instead of waving one's hands toward some rulebook. An outright "I don't like it" might earn more sympathy.

To "both side" that controversy may not provide any balance. It is quite possible to register Mr. Lasker's denial. There is no need to say that there was a Wiki account with the same name. There is no need to say that Mr. Lasker commits the same confusion in one of his pieces between Chess "grandmasters" and world champions.

But to return to proportionality: once the page will mature, that specific item will shrink in proportion. It won't grow, while everything else will. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

One source gossiping that an online account may belong to the subject is not DUE. Riposte97 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Investigative reporting is not "gossiping". Katzrockso (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Neither does DUE mean anything related to what is argued by assertion here. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably because the Faliceer account is not what Jordan Lasker is known or notable for. Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yet what they both talk about is what Lasker is known for. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a motte and bailey, because what you're really seeking to introduce with the Faliceer content is far more incendiary allegations than those made against his acknowledged writings. Riposte97 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative descriptions of the Faliceer account, but at some point it is necessary to describe why the fact that Lasker may have operated that account is relevant. Him operating some random Reddit account isn't meaningful if that account had one one-word post on it. Katzrockso (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem like a motte-and-bailey argument. Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What would be the motte, and what would be be bailey? Selbstporträt (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Still waiting. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Mother Jones is a biased and questionable source, but I support citing the Faliceer account allegations in the article for the following reasons:

• I believe its reporting about the Reddit account is probably true in this case.
• The wikitext specifically attributed the allegations to Mother Jones.
• Mother Jones stated that they tried to contact Jordan Lasker multiple times for comments, but he never responded to them. I see no reason to believe that they would not edit their webpage if Lasker emailed them today or whenever.
• The article included a sentence where Lasker denied owning the reddit account.
• The Faliceer account allegations were limited to one paragraph and nothing more, so I don't think the article would be unbalanced to include it.
• It's arguably DUE to mention the Faliceer account. If there are other reliable sources which comment about other accounts owned by Lasker, then it would be DUE to cite those too.

I read WP:BLPGOSSIP, and I believe that the Mother Jones paragraph conforms with that policy. I believe that the paragraph is relevant to Jordan Lasker. Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not the content itself might be WP:DUE and the amount of attention given to it being DUE is another. After reading the paragraph in question and the section its in it is understandable why people view it as a DUE issue. More words would be dedicated to describing and discussing an account that a single biased source has linked to him than would be dedicated to describing and discussing the accounts he is confirmed to have and best known for having. Regardless of whether or not the Faliceer thing is DUE, it's hard to see how it wouldn't be an issue to include it in the way it was being included. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote. There was/is no weasel language in the Faliceer paragraph, so I don't think it's problematic to cite the Mother Jones source, even if MJ tends to be biased. Once again, it's probably true that the Faliceer account belonged to Jordan Lasker, based on the evidence.

For improving the article's NPOV, I am far far FAR more concerned with the Race and intelligence, Researcher, and Writer sections of the article. There are some serious truth, sourcing, and phrasing issues in those sections. Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, but weasel language, citing or whether or not it's true isn't the issue here. You can write without weasel words while appropriately citing a source that is reporting on something that is true and still have it be UNDUE. It's a matter of how much of the article's content ends up dedicated to each topic. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to be more concerned about the section with far better sourcing, being honest. To start: I don't doubt the accuracy of Mother Jones reporting and my personal views of Mr. Lasker are certainly informed by what I see as reasonable investigative work. But Wikipedia is not a platform for investigative journalism and WP:PUBLICFIGURE is likely at play here. As such, and with some sadness, I'd say that, unless additional sources can be found to establish WP:DUE we probably should leave that out. I'm going to go and have a look for other sources though. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm just giving input on what people are asking for input on/starting discussions about. I'm more than happy to give input on how to fix the other issues too if other editors are inclined to talk about them. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 12:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You can care about more that one thing at a time. Yes, fix the other issues too, i picked this one because its easy: single, dubious source repeating allegations (not even facts) based on the claims of a supposed childhood friend. This falls way short of BLPs requirement to insist on high quality sourcing. Bonewah (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I edited the "Researcher" section to be better compliant with the sourcing. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 12:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I did a scan and the only other mention of the Lasker / Faliceer connection was an aggregation of the Mother Jones article so it doesn't meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's Decoherence article that refers to the Mother Jones reporting on the Lasker / Faliceer connection. I don't see how any other news organization would be able to test the Mother Jones reporting absent access to the long-ago deleted Faliceer reddit account. Not clear to me how someone had a copy to pass along to Mother Jones. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think "high-quality sourcing" applies to outlets, not specific pieces. I don't think we should look over the shoulder of whom we rely on, otherwise I will have issues with everything Ben Ryan has ever written.

How strong is the convention that we need three sources to ensure noteworthiness? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The specific language in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"Documenting" means covering, not replication. By that interpretation, we might only have one third-party source for the Mamdami incident. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Or check the first example:

John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources?

The intent is clearly to insure noteworthiness (a term I use to distinguish from notability, which is another beast altogether). The "messy" should be dropped from the example. It's not something we should say. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It's important to note that "replication" in this context means literal transclusion rather than publications citing each other. Basically if a whole bunch of papers say "reporting by outlet X say Y" the presence of those whole bunch of papers provides a strong case that those outlets consider that information significant about the subject. And significance is the thing we aren't supposed to be adjudicating for ourselves when covering specific topics of interest in the biography of a living person. So Yahoo News copying an article is not a separate source but NYT citing Washington Post in a different article on the same subject is a separate source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What I meant by "replication" is you take the data and the method from someone else, and you check if you get the same results. This is not what "documenting" means. It can't, or else the very idea of protecting sources makes no sense anymore. Reproduction is different, but let's not get into the weeds.

Judging if a source is reliable bypasses such questions. Once a source is considered reliable, then we don't look over its shoulders, as I said earlier. We follow where it goes. We exercise editorial caution, but never should presume we go beyond what our sources let us know. This judgment is there to make sure our entries meet our own standards. For we're building an encyclopedia, we're not trying to sell copies. To be fair, the concept of encyclopedia has been stretched along that way. So be it. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Perfect.

If there's a need for a second item in the controversies section (I hate when a subsection stands alone) some material on the Pesta paper should go there. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to things that the subject of the article hasn't publicly denied happening so that wouldn't be an issue. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Another relevant factor is also the length of coverage. There aren't very many full length articles on Lasker, the Mother Jones piece and the Atlantic article are among the few. Many of the other sources provide shorter coverage of maybe a paragraph to Lasker. To exclude the detailed investigative reporting by Mother Jones in favor of building the article more on isolated mentions of Lasker would not be fulfilling the spirit of WP:DUE. Katzrockso (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You have convinced me. According to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, it's not sufficient to cite only one source regarding allegations. So the Faliceer account paragraph has to be excluded in order to comply with the BLP policy, unless other sources mention it too. Zero Contradictions (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Selbstporträt already provided an additional source mentioning it; the Decoherence Media piece. Katzrockso (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a reliable or reputable source. It looks like a blog. Zero Contradictions (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It's received some coverage here and here Katzrockso (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Decoherence Media is not a reliable source. It's clearly a far-left activist website with an agenda. Mother Jones is clearly biased too, but they're more reliable than Decoherence Media. Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's an anti-extremism organization. Regardless, even if you were correct about its bias, bias does not determine reliability. The sources above suggest the opposite of your assertion: that it is seen by other organizations as a valuable source. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Decoherence Media is an activist website, akin to Reason magazine, but with an equally deluded focus. Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a very strange thing to say. And also incorrect in a variety of ways. Your reliability concerns seem entirely unfounded but I suppose you could seek RS/N for a broader sounding. Simonm223 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a blog: click on the About.

It looks fine, but I would wait until the story gets traction if we need three sources. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "multiple", it doesn't say three. I think given the relatively limited coverage on this BLP, an in-depth piece of investigative journalism plus an additional source confirming this report should be sufficient for inclusion. Katzrockso (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a good find and alleviates my Publicfigure concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that shortening the amount of text devoted to the Faliceer account might be difficult, as it requires careful wording and attribution to ensure compliance to NPOV and BLP. A better option might be to expand coverage of other parts of the article. Katzrockso (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I also concur. We should be careful with how we word anything to do with the Faliceer controversy. Decoherence + Mother Jones means WP:PUBLICFIGURE is met but this is not a Stonetoss situation and our language must be much more restrained especially being careful for thorough attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

<-The entry on WP:MOTHERJONES says explicitly "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." I do not believe this entry constitutes due weight. BLP says in no uncertain terms in its lede "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources." I dont believe a source that is both labeled 'biased' and one that we are advised to use caution before citing qualifies. Bonewah (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Once again:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

The code world should not be used to exclude views for which we have the most evidence. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Besides, the link on the BLP page is under "reliable source", which Mother Jones is.

So no, we won't decide here that "high-quality" means we don't cite Mother Jones. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Mother Jones makes highly controversial claims, which directionally align with their biases, and are not backed up by other high quality RS. This is exactly the scenario in which community consensus would seem to indicate we should be hesitant. Riposte97 (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Decoherence Media is also much worse than MJ. We should all wait indefinitely for more neutral sources to report on the Faliceer account. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

There's no need for a reliable source to be "backed up".

The constant misreading of the rulebook seems to "directionally align" with something.

Hard to tell what exactly. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of something, just have the courage to do it directly. In any case, the list of perennial sources is a resource; it does not substitute for good editorial judgement. Simply asserting it's a 'reliable source' without engaging with any objecting arguments gets you nowhere. Riposte97 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding WP:ASPERSIONS the issue here is that we have a non-profit journalistic org whose about page clearly lays out its board, editorial and funding structure and that is highly transparent about maintaining a wall between funding and content decisions. Per @Katzrockso's links this journalistic project received favorable coverage in Semaphor and Editor and Publisher . So this isn't just asserting it's a 'reliable source' without engaging with any objecting arguments. The objecting arguments were "they're biased" and "they're left wing" and "they have an agenda."

And, yes, they do have an agenda - to provide journalistic coverage of the American far-right. That certainly doesn't make them unreliable. The problem is actually that those people who have asserted unreliability are doing so based on their personal distaste for the publication's mission rather than engaging with the facts surrounding the source that have been presented in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Cut down on the thinly veiled WP:ASPERSIONS, would you? It's only serving to raise tensions between editors. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 12:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Aspersions are unjustified. So far I got to deal with misreadings on BLP, DUE, RS, and got dragged in an ANI. And now we're being told that his editorial judgment is better than some "resource", the same resources to which he's been wrongly appealing so far. Heck, I tell him to stay away from my talk page and he can't oblige.

CPP is usually more civil than that. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Issues like WP:CPP are best addressed at either AN/I or AE and not at article talk. It would also be wise to talk to the editor at their user talk page about the issue before taking any such steps if you have not already but, notwithstanding that advice I am going to suggest WP:FOC is good for all parties to follow. I'm unimpressed with the arguments against reliability which seem entirely void of any engagement with policy or with the source. That's where article talk discussion should focus. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I never had to drag anyone anywhere so far. From where I come, speaking plainly works. (Granted, that's me saying this.)

Things could be so simpler than they are: "I don't like Mother Jones as main support". That's it. It's not an argument, but it says what it means to say. And it would not compel me to go down rabbit holes of guidelines and policies and find out there's no there there.

The whole idea that we'll get another investigative journalist to go over the same material the MoJo did is preposterous. The only question that remains is if it has enough coverage. On that I have no strong opinion, in fact I don't care either way.

To repeat the same things over and over again can easily become vexatious. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, my objection is that BLP requires us to take extra caution. In my opinion, a single citation to an admittedly biased source is not doing that, particularly to back up claims of pro-Nazi sentiment or activity. wp:blp states outright "Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources." That is what im doing. Bonewah (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a single citation. If it was a single citation I would be in agreement with you. But a supporting citation was found. There is no requirement that this supporting citation do the same investigative background as the first. There is simply a requirement that it be a discrete article in a reliable source, which it is. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Selbstporträt: Apologies for commenting on your talk. However, please keep all article content discussions to this talk page in future. Riposte97 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are referring to the decoherence link above, all it does is note that Mother Jones reported what it reported. If that is enough for you then i think your definition of "the use of high-quality, reliable sources" differ substantially from mine.

I'm simply not inferring extra steps into WP:PUBLICFIGURE that aren't in the document itself. There are multiple sources discussing the incident. Nobody has presented reason to doubt the original investigative work. Decoherence's reportage as part of the topic of JD Vance following a bunch of nazis and white supremacists on Twitter establishes the locus of relevance. The two sources, together, are much more compelling than either one alone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Id say the decoherence article looks a bit like WP:NEWSAGG. You could maybe make the claim that decoherence's reference to the MJ article is something like WP:USEBYOTHERS, but even so its still only a single source with a second source merely stating that the first source exists. Bonewah (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Decoherence is not a news aggregator. Come on.

When we judge a source as reliable, that means they have an editorial process we can trust. Reliability has little to do with some "bias" in the editorial line from the source. One can act with journalistic integrity while being opinionated. I mean, look at us!

Perhaps those who want to exclude MoJo as a reliable source might need to go upstairs. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not. It's clearly not. The discussion of Decoherence is starting to look a bit like a gish gallop. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

(EC)Has Decoherence been judged as reliable? In any event the core point here is that they merely noted that MJ reported something, thats why i said its 'a bit like' newsagg, in that they merely reprinted what others reported. Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Evidence has been presented of its reliability per demonstration of editorial standards that separate income from editorial and favorable mention in other reliable sources. If you want to dispute the reliability of the source then I think the next step would be to provide some evidence that it's not. But so far no evidence has been provided. A lot of claims have been made about Decoherence that are patently false and non-policy-compliant. See my section on gish galloping below. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

"they merely reprinted"

See for yourself:

https://decoherence.media/jd-vance-follows-antisemites-on-x/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/07/cremieux-jordan-lasker-mamdani-nyt-nazi-faliceer-reddit/

Different authors.

Different titles.

Different leads.

Different texts.

Yahoo is an aggregator. This ain't it. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for what I mean here's a condensation of the source:

Source presented > It's a blog > No, it's not, here's proof > It's an extremist org > No, it's not, it's a 501(c)3 charity > It's too biased > Bias isn't a measure of reliability > Nobody is addressing critiques of reliability > Yes, pointing back to prior discussion > actually it's a news aggregator because it mentions the Mother Jones piece

This is a gish gallop. None of these objections are strong. But by constantly bringing up new objections, even though they are, in aggregate, weak, the appearance of a strong dispute is presented where, in reality, there is none. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Your summary is incorrect. Me:You are not adhering to BLP, use caution, insist on high quality sourcing. You: We have a source. Me: A single source that we are told to use with caution. This is not adhering to BLP. You: here is a second source. Me: that is not a second source, it merely states that the first said what we already know it said and there are doubts if the second source is even reliable at all. You: Gish Gallop Gish Gallop Gish Gallop.

I continue to adhere to my original stance: This material is not in compliance with BLP because it is both poorly sourced and undue even if it were sourced better. Bonewah (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

"No U" might have been shorter.

"This material is not in compliance with BLP because it is both poorly sourced and undue even if it were sourced better" is one way to argue by alternatives. Hard not to gallop while arguing by alternatives.

It started with GOSSIP, BTW. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That is because there is more than one reason to exclude this material. I started with GOSSIP because GOSSIP says "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." all of those questions still apply. None of my objections are new, and it wouldnt matter if they were. Gish Gallop is not a rule, policy, guideline or anything else no matter how many times you say it. Bonewah (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Every single of these objections have been met, if not outright refuted.

The source is reliable, the material was not presented as true, and it is relevant.

Should this count as three steps or just one? Selbstporträt (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, notice the difference: (O1) MoJo is not a reliable source (O2) Even if MoJo was reliable, it's not of "high quality" The two objections might be compatible with one another, depending on how we read the "even if". Yet you would not need to invoke some higher quality if MoJo wasn't reliable. So the "even if" contains some dynamic that could explain why a naked reading of the BLP lead came after invoking a specific section. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Now, you might say "but that's just two steps!" It doesn't end there:

(O3) MoJo is biased, biased, BIASED.

(O4) The MoJo story is not "backed up" by anything.

(O5) The MoJo story is not reported anywhere.

(O6) Anyone who would take MoJo seriously does not exercise good judgment.

(O7) Decoherence is just a news aggregator.

(O8) You mean, Decoherence is reliable?

I might forget some. Chronological order may differ. I still hope you get the point. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I do forget at least one: the motte-and-bailey!

If one of you can spell that one for me, I'd appreciate it. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Im not sure what difference to which you are referring. 1) MoJo is not a reliable (enough) source in this context. 2) Even if it were, we need more than a single source (and no, a second source that simply points at the first doesnt count, in my opinion) 3) Even if both one and 2 are satisfied, i dont believe this material is DUE (although additional, higher quality coverage does partially satisfy that objection). A 'naked reading' of the BLP lead, or as i like to call it, just reading BLP came after invoking a specific section because all of BLP applies at all times. You dont get to ignore parts of BLP just because i didnt say at the beginning "You cant ignore parts of BLP" Bonewah (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

"MoJo is not a reliable (enough) source in this context" is a different objection, one that doesn't answer the gossip test. Let's add it.

"A second source that simply points at the first doesnt count" is just that, your opinion. We'll add it.

"i dont believe this material is DUE" has already been met: DUE is about proportionality, not relevance. But I can add it too.

"You dont get to ignore parts of BLP just because" is more an editorial comment, and won't be added.

So that gives us:

(O9) Motte-and-Bailey (formulation pending)

(O10) MoJo is not a reliable (enough) source in this context.

(O11) A second source that simply points at the first doesn't count.

(O12) Even if all this, I don't believe this material is DUE.

We could reorganize all these objections to get how the goalposts are moving.

You say "doesn't count" - as what? Selbstporträt (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

We're under no obligation to credit circular reporting, which the DM piece clearly is.

Since you have repeatedly asked, the motte and bailey looks like this:

Bailey - that Lasker made the highly controversial statements attributed to Faliceer in the MoJo article. These statements, including support for virulent racism and Nazism, which Lasker denies making, would need multiple extremely high-quality RS to include in a BLP.

Motte - that we have sufficient sourcing to include that Lasker operated the Faliceer reddit account. Riposte97 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A motte-and-bailey is when someone makes two claims, one being indefensible and one being almost trivial. For instance, someone could make the claim that MoJo is not a reliable source, which is clearly false, and then backtrack to stating a personal opinion that, in this context, MoJo is not reliable enough. The last one is trivial in the sense to it's just a statement of opinion: it is not possible for us to ascertain if its utterer believes it or not.

More importantly, your interpretation would lead us to reject *any* claim we make that relies on attribution but can't make in wiki voice. (The bailey would be "P" and the motte would be "X says P".) We are not making a motte-and-bailey because we are never making any claim we can't support.

(Incidentally, the concept of motte-and-bailey could be useful to characterize many arguments surrounding HBD. Sell that you only want healthier babies; ask for mandated sterilization or worse.)

Circularity means A supports B, and B supports A. All we say is that DM reports on MoJo. You presume we use DM to support MoJo. We don't. In fact, we have no obligation to support reliable sources: they stand on their own. What we need is to establish that it's worth mentioning, a different task.

(As far as I can tell, no investigative team has been in contact with Lasker's source for Mamdami's documents. They just reported on it.)

That we are not obligated to use DM's report is trivially true. There is something stronger than "we are under no obligation" that has not been made explicit behind that claim. What is it: that we should not? Selbstporträt (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, Bloomberg News said that they'd been in direct contact with someone claiming to be the hacker, who passed along 1.6-gigabytes of data / 2.5 million Columbia applications to them. But I don't understand how that's relevant here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The suggestion seems that to have "multiple sources" supporting a claim, we'd need multiple teams corroborating it, and ideally each other's work. This seems to forget there's an team behind investigative journalists whose jobs is to do that. Stories are vetted by editors, ran by legal teams, etc.

While reliable sources may err, we expect them to oversee what their journalists do. We definitely should not restrict our support to what has been investigated by multiple teams. That's not how the ecosystem works, as the incentive to replicate is worse than in science. As soon as anonymous sources are involved, it becomes virtually impossible. We can't not know if the two teams spoke to the same source unless someone breaks the code. An investigative journalist who does that is not an investigative journalist for long. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not a motte-and-bailey, I'll grant you. However, it is a strawman. It would not require an independent review of the evidence. It would merely require another reliable source stating the claim in its own voice. Riposte97 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

And how would a reliable source state a claim in its own voice without an independent review of the evidence, may I ask? Selbstporträt (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Either because it has sufficient confidence in the originator of the claim, or because it has assessed the reporting of the claim as giving sufficient certainty. That is the usual practice. Riposte97 (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Reporters usually attribute research done by investigative journalists. Omitting attribution would have real repercussion on independent journalism, both ways. So I'm not sure about which usual practice you have in mind.

To verify a claim is one thing. To check if it's noteworthy another. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

In that article, Bloomberg didn't corroborate the NYT reporting on Mamdani, and as far as I can tell (based on a site search), did not report on Mamdani's Columbia application in any other article. They only reported on the hack and that they'd had direct contact with someone claiming to be the hacker, who had given them decades of Columbia data. Christopher Rufo wrote that he'd received a full copy of Mamdani's application, but didn't say whether it came from the hacker or from Lasker. AFAIK, no other source independently verified the NYT reporting; they only reported on it (sometimes to criticize Mamdani, sometimes to criticize the NYT). FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Selbstporträt, leaving aside the ephemera in your comment, I remain unconvinced that the MoJo article is reliable for the kind of claim we are making. I don't know much about Decoherence Media, save that they doxxed HowlingMutant. It seems on its face reliable. However, it attributes the relevant claim to MoJo, meaning that really we only have one source. In other words, they aren't making the claim themselves, just citing that the claim has been made. If we had more RS doing the same, then we could perhaps include the reporting on the claim in itself, but I don't think we have that yet. Riposte97 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You are free to choose to leave aside the refutation of your accusation of a motte-and-bailey, and keep repeating a distrust you have repeated multiple times instead. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe Decoherence Media is a reliable source. Looking around a bit, i see maybe 7 total articles and 3 reporters. There website makes no mention of any kind of fact checking team and they are, in my opinion, too new to have a repuation of fact checking and accuracy. In any event, even if they were reliable, they only note that MoJo made the claims and give no indication that they checked, confirmed or an any way investigated the MoJo claims. Therefore, i dont believe that the Decoherence Media article counts a source for this purpose (even if it is a reliable source, which i dont think it is.) Bonewah (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Take it to RS/N then. Because you're arguing against a set of criteria you made up. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

"give no indication that they checked, confirmed or an any way investigated the MoJo claims"

Looks like the strawman accusation was incorrect too. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like a bit too much energy is being spent on wikilawyering here. Perhaps more focus should be given to discussing if the claims should be included regardless of whether or not Decoherence is a reliable source or if it counts as its own source for the purposes of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That policy doesn't say "if there are two sources you must include it", it tells us that we should have multiple sources because something that is worth including will have plenty of independent coverage. In a situation where the allegations against a BLP are this serious, are these two sources in particular enough for us to include it? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody feels "obligated" to include anything. So that's a caricature.

Speaking of aspersions, wikilawyering is derogatory.

(Perhaps I should add: don't invoke an essay as policy.)Selbstporträt (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that the Decoherence source is actually key to establishing why this is due information. It presents that Lasker is one of a group of pseudo-intellectuals who are seen as having become influential upon the Trump regime via JD Vance. Decoherence demonstrates how Lasker belongs in a similar category to other influential far-right figures. It establishes that the Mother Jones investigative report isn't simply muck-raking about a pseudoscientist with a Twitter account but is instead situating the ideological background of an influential pseudoscientist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That's quite a persuasive rationale and precisely the thing I was hoping could be injected into this discussion. I will look into the sources you provided below when I have the opportunity to and get back to you on this. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If established, wouldn't that be more appropriate to include in the Vance article? Riposte97 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I will note that there is a vast repository of academic literature that treats network analysis as an appropriate tool for assessing integration into far-right communities and that's what Decoherence is doing. Below are examples of academic treatments of network analysis of far-right groups. These are provided on background and are not directly relevant to Lasker. Instead they demonstrate that the Decoherence methodology is in keeping with academic practice:

1. Decoding transnationalism within the Georgian far right: 'The good, the bad and the ugly'. By: Gozalishvili, Nino, Nations & Nationalism, 13545078, Apr2026, Vol. 32, Issue 2
2. The "chanification" of white supremacist extremism. By: Yoder, Michael Miller, Brown, David West, Carley, Kathleen M., Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 1381298X, Sep2025, Vol. 31, Issue 3
3. Gender and Far-Right Women Political Representatives: A Twitter Discourse Network Analysis. Authors: ZEBERIO, MIREN BERASATEGI1, PANDO-CANTELI, MARÍA J.1, RODRÍGUEZ, MARÍA PILAR1 Source: International Journal of Communication (19328036). 2024, Vol. 18, p3425-3446. 22p.
4. Political Hate Speech of the Far Right on Twitter in Latin America Authors: Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier (ORCID 0000-0003-3399-5318 ) Verdeja, María (ORCID 0000-0003-0499-9248 ) Sarrión-Andaluz, José (ORCID 0000-0001-9110-0549 ) Buendía, Luis (ORCID 0000-0002-8507-7538 ) Macías-Tovar, Julián (ORCID 0000-0003-1732-1380 ) Source: Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal. 2022 30(72):97-109.
5. Pillarized Networks in a Polarized Civil Society: A Structure of Far-Right Networks in Poland. Authors: Pospieszna, Paulina1, paulina.pospieszna@amu.edu.pl Płatek, Daniel2 Piotrowski, Grzegorz3 Monkos, Aleksandra1 Source: Nationalities Papers; Nov2024, Vol. 52 Issue 6, p1292-1307, 16p

Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe I said that anybody "felt obligated" to include it, and I was certainly not attempting to make a caricature. Also, I think wikilawyering is a fine term to use to describe a collective drift from focusing on content to focusing on interpreting policies in the way one wants them to work. It's not aimed at any one of you in particular. As for the part about an essay I genuinely don't know what you're referring to. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The essay is about controversies section. This essay cites WP:STRUCTURE, a policy with a note in which we read "There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate". Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. It's a judgment call. If we can make the page work without it, good. If that makes us create a single subsection and a specific section on Mamdami, not ideal. Sectioning can create emphasis, but it can also deemphasize. Someone published a paper and was not well received. If we put the two together, we can't say we de-emphasized criticism. On the contrary. Even more emphasis with "someone published a not-well-received paper".

Wikilawyering is trying to get one's way by going against the spirit of a rule. That's more than "critical" as the first sentence on the concept reads, if you ask me. It's better to assume that everyone here tries to interpret the guideline properly. That being said, I agree with your question, and already said so earlier. Now that we moved to "MoJo ain't gut" to "MoJo ain't enough", that's indeed where we are. Asking the question may not lift the standoff without interpreting "to document" as it should.

I said earlier that "I don't like it" can earn more sympathy, and I still mean it. Having had to counter so much misconceptions was no fun. So if you don't like that the MoJo story has been added, don't simply ask the question. Answer it. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I cited that essay as if it were policy. I cited it as an essay, a convenient way to put forward a solid argument for something. And that last part is very confusing. Why would I like or dislike something being added before I have even discussed it? I'm not going to answer it myself without hearing what other editors have to say. It would be quite difficult to treat these kinds of issues with the calm and neutrality that is required.

And you're going to have to clarify I said earlier that "I don't like it" can earn more sympathy, and I still mean it. as there doesn't really seem to be anything here to gain sympathy for. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed. You just have to read back. Either you know that already or you did not read what you called "wikilawyering" and simply brushed it aside.

If you want to discuss it, discuss it.

If you want to hear what others have to say, say something first.

Is that clearer? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's try to deescalate here folks. Like I'm for inclusion on the basis of Decoherence but remember when it was just MJ I was strongly against inclusion and I don't think anybody would suggest I like the far-right. I think the arguments against the use of the Decoherence source are very bad and, at best, reflect people who do not understand journalistic practice regarding diffuse networks of far-right figures in North America but being alert to WP:DUE is not a bad thing for people to keep in mind. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

(OD)Im fine with taking Decoherence Media to RS/N, but id like to wait until Monday as i wont be editing over the weekend and would like to weigh in on that discussion. I agree with User:Maltazarian above, even if Decoherence Media is reliable doesnt necessarily mean this information should be included, but a decision on Decoherence's reliability will move the need a bit one way or the other. Bonewah (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's generalize the argument: X does not imply Y when X does not imply Y.

Indirection leads to more stalling. I hate stalling. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Checking back the Mamdami incident, I note:

Reporting from Mother Jones suggests Lasker may have a neo-Nazi history of his own.

https://www.theverge.com/cyber-security/710480/columbia-hacker-nazi-nyt-affirmative-action Selbstporträt (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

So now we have 3 sources reporting on the Faliceer account. It's certainly DUE for inclusion by now. Katzrockso (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Reference page

Our first citations use the Template:Reference page, which I did not know about. It solves an important technical problem in other pages I work on, so kudos to whoever added it!

There's one issue, however: our sources have no page number. They're web pages. So there are a few "1"'s that have been added because the template requires we add something. How about we use the "at" parameter (go read the doc for more) and indicate the paragraph number? This would be a great extension of the template for entries that rely on websites instead of printed sources.

In code, it looks like this: {{rp|at=par. 4}}

(Both "par." and "para." are conventional. Can't find what the MOS suggests for now. Will keep looking.)

This might not be a big deal for anyone except me, so unless there's a big objection to the idea, I will implement it myself. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That was me. I'm a big fan of rp but I usually use academic citations or books, so it is much easier in those instances. I'm not sure how it's supposed to be used with online articles, but if the documentation suggests at I have no objections. Katzrockso (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Will work on this later. I also have a ticket to submit to our tech team. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Update: The ticket has been sent, and promptly rejected as coming from third party.

Somehow I think WP should care about how other sites interpret their links, but that may not be the tech team's job. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You can use Template:Harvnb to include a quote from a source without having to make a whole new citation and while also avoiding the having the little page symbol stuff next to the citations. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I despise sfns, as they clutter up the citations section, make the article longer than necessary and require too many clicks to access the actual source. Katzrockso (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Better to clutter the citation section than the article I say! Although I don't quite understand the thing about making the article longer than necessary. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind long pages, but I do mind more clicks. Footnotes are a bane for pages with a lot of editors and centered on web resources. They always end up to be more work for me.

For entries that rely on academic papers, however, they can be useful.

The RP template looks more interesting for content we want to access by hovering. This can be useful in tables where readers want a quick access to support material. It also helps editors who only scan. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The article ends up with an entire section of footnotes and then another section with the references. Katzrockso (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This could be cool for some entries about meta-literature or hermeneutics, exponentially so if we could embed notes within notes! Selbstporträt (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean in some articles that's preferrable, but I don't think you using harvnb in a few spots is going to do that much. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

FA requires a consistent citation style, so would should emulate that. Katzrockso (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

An author-date method of citation makes sense where the year is useful to the reader. A page like here could have used it, but editors who usually edit those pages seem to prefer simpler refs. I'm one of them: easier to manage others' work.

For pages with books it's great. Long form articles were also well served, at least when we had access to the print. Even then I prefer to read citations in text, like this: (Astley, 1987, ln. 1).

The pace of publication grew so much that most scientific fields dropped it and went for numbering, a bit like we usually do. But that loses textuality. One might argue that this practice may explain citation deference and handwaving in scientific publications. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that while I prefer parenthetical citations, they are deprecated on the Wiki. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Anime Nazi

@~2026-32762-76 You are repeatedly editing out references to the Verge article that refers to the Columbia hacker as the Anime Nazi. Twitter handles are easy to change and often are changed regularly. We should adhere to the nomenclature used by reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how that justifies wholesale revisions even if that were true, but had you read the story or are just read my edit descriptions, it's not "Anime Nazi" and “handle” is a username, remotely not what I mentioned. Please try to take a beat. ~2026-32762-76 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You will note that my second reversion was not whole-sale but left in some of your more gnomish edits. I have read the Verge article and understand why they referred to the Anime Nazi the way they did. However your edit was borderline editorializing and also occluded a key thing about this interaction and Lasker's role in it: that he responds favorably to other far-right commentariat. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what is “gnomish” exactly unless it's some subjective (passive aggressive?) description of adherence to MOS & consistency. And could you point which final edit of mine “occluded” that part? ~2026-32762-76 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No offense was intended with the statement "gnomish". The rest of what I said should be perfectly evident by looking at the edit history. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, then none taken. 👍🏾 But I still fail to see the “occlusion” not just in any of final diffs but even all diffs? So unless I'm missing something, could you please clearly point out how editing that passage about the hacker “occluded” the article subject's reported friendliness to them or other firebrand commentators? ~2026-32762-76 (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Assuming you don't wish to address your own unsolicited claim point blank for whatever reason, what I don't seem to understand is why you quintessentially insist to maintain a falsehood in the body of the article that the alleged hacker calls themselves “Anime Nazi” instead of “niggy”? For starters, it flies in the face of MOS on quotes given how blatantly it's misattributing the bowdlerized-placeholder to a wrong subject. ~2026-32762-76 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Edited 12:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

P.S. @Simonm223, in spite of this being clear to those who read the whole piece that there was nothing wrong with it given that the epithet is implied in ways more than one over there, I've FINALLY removed the quotation marks from the online pseudonym ~2026-32762-76 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

In The Verge article, Lopatto says "The alleged hacker uses an online handle that is a racial slur, so I will be referring to them as the Anime Nazi." Since Anime Nazi is just Lopatto's nickname for the hacker, not the hacker's actual pseudonym, we shouldn't say in wikivoice that Anime Nazi is the name the hacker goes by. However, we also cannot use the actual pseudonym and source it to The Verge, since Lopatto didn't give the actual pseudonym. The only potential RS that I've found identifying the Columbia hacker's actual pseudonym, "Computer Niggy Operations," is this DataBreach article, though that article doesn't mention Mamdani. I'm treating DataBreach as an RS, as its About page lists use by several news sites. Either way, the text "of a racist slur for black women in disparaging evocation of #SayHerName movement" that ~2026-32762-76 added is totally WP:OR. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

New to this convo, but im also not happy about the term anime nazi, may be a blpvio unless other sourcing uses it or the pseudonym truly was what they were using.

i dont enjoy a random racial epithet being thrown in either if reliable sourcing doesnt use it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Most reporting on the Columbia hack did not specify the hacker's pseudonym. As I see it, the options are (1) to say that the pseudonym is "a racial slur" and source that to The Verge, but not specify the pseudonym, (2) give the pseudonym and source it to DataBreach, or (3) omit reference to the pseudonym. There is no reason to mention the name Anime Nazi at all, as it's just Lopatto's nickname for the hacker.

I actually think some of the text devoted to the hacker is UNDUE, as the article isn't about the hacker. What really belongs here? I won't edit the text while this discussion is going on, but I propose that this paragraph be combined with the preceding paragraph and only say something like The Verge reported that the hacker, who describes themself as racist and whose pseudonym is "a racial slur", said the university hacks were intended to test whether universities continued to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Verge also reported that Lasker follows the hacker on social media, and the hacker reposted a post from Crémieux calling them "the nicest possible hacker". FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah i think it is a statement of fact that this is a racial slur, and that would be better to use to describe pseudonym instead of anime nazi. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, I don't entirely agree but it's not worth fighting over. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to any of the 3 possibilities I listed, and if you can think of another option, I'd consider that too. My only objections are to calling the hacker Anime Nazi (as that's not their name) and the current description, which has no sourcing and appears to be OR. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I like your recent edit. Simonm223 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Same User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL again

I note that someone cleverly bypassed the blacklisting of .xyz by using https://www.cremieux.xyz/archive instead. It obviously works. Is it a WP-good solution, though. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I know a now-blocked editor had sought white-listing for the cremieux website - is that related? Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Per Talk:Jordan_Lasker#WP:ELOFFICIAL, it could be. And I don't oppose an actual whitelisting, though I haven't actually read any posts there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually it appears they just said it was whitelisted in their edit-summary. I've removed the link for the time being. If it was, in fact, a circumvented blacklisted page it should not be posted. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Simonm223 It was officially whitelisted at WP:WHITELIST, nothing was being circumvented. Hence, there is no issue and per WP:ELOFFICIAL we do link official websites of article subjects.

The reason it is blacklisted is unrelated to the content of the page, but because we auto blacklist anything with a .xyz domain and whitelist them at issue (because there is a massive spam issue with .xyz domains). It doesn't bypass the blacklist (if it was trying to do that, that's not how it even works, it wouldn't circumvent it) for some reason the /archive page was the one requested. I have restored it, because WP:ELOFFICIAL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, Twitter is not an official website and we don't link Twitter in infoboxes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA If it's the WP:ELOFFICIAL, we can. We don't have to pick that one if there are better alts, but it's fine per top of WP:ELNO. "twitter is not an official website" makes no sense here, has the blue checkmark and everything, it's an acceptable WP:ELOFFICIAL alt, as would instagram or facebook be, if they were available.

But this is moot now, www.cremieux.xyz/archive is indeed whitelisted per MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#www.cremieux.xyz/archive (I wasn't aware of that, so "cleverly bypassed" was an error of mine). What I don't understand is why they didn't ask for whitelisting www.cremieux.xyz instead, since that's the start page.. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If it's not on the blacklist I don't have any particular objection. I will note that antifascists are disputed on the pedagogical value of making far-right writings available to the general public and I tend to lean on the side that such is of very low value as expert interpretation is often necessary to make it particularly legible however I am not going to pick a fight over whether or not to include a link to this guy's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In general, I think a WP:ELOFFICIAL is a good idea, it fits the spirit of NPOV. We have them at Stormfront (website) and Natural News. Caveat Emptor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am in favor of linking anything that is an ELOFFICIAL provided it is not illegal, but I am on the extreme end of that. But also, if we were objecting to it on ideological grounds, why keep a link to the guy's Twitter? It's not like the stuff he posts on his blog is worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't really like WP:ELOFFICIAL being used for Stormfront and all. But, again, these are editorial judgments and I'm just one editor. Even if I disagree I recognize a consensus when I see one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Twitter removed per WP:ELMIN, since the other one is in place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You linked it as the official website in the website= field of the infobox. If it was just the Els, sure.

No clue why they didn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)