Talk:Nick Shirley

Far-right or Alt-right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per later Talk:Nick Shirley/Archive 1#RfC: Political descriptor. "Far-right" was one of the options, and the consensus was to describe Shirley as "conservative" and "right-wing," not "far-right" or "alt-right." Also, much of the recent discussion and is not about improving the article. WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:ASPERSIONS ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

---

I have seen countless amounts of people online referring to this person as far-right and alt-right. Can we add that to the lead? AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Far-right implies that he is involved in extremist movements, e.g. skinheads, neo-Nazi, etc. It is a loaded term and strongly suggests bias. Shirley's views can reasonably be described as right-wing or conservative, but not far-right. WP:BLP standards require neutrality and cautious judgement to prevent treading into libelous territory. P. Musgrave (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

He openly supports the trump administration which is defined as a far-right ideology. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Defined by whom? Support for the conservative side of a two-party system is hardly grounds to label someone an extremist. P. Musgrave (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The trump regime is far from your standard "conservative" party. They are compiled of far-right, fascist extremists. This is well-documented in educated circles. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPOV WP:BIAS WP:V P. Musgrave (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a space for speculation or tabloid style gossip. Unless verifiable sources can be cited demonstrating that he is an extremist, the use of such loaded language violates WP:BLP standards. Merely supporting Trump does not make someone a far-right extremist…otherwise 77.3 million Americans would fit that definition. Examples of far-right politics include issues that are generally seen as reprehensible by society writ large, such as Holocaust denial, overt racism (e.g., David Duke, KKK, etc.), violence or terrorism (Timothy McVeigh). Shirley holds right-wing or conservative views, but not far-right. We cannot hyperbolize every stance with which we disagree…otherwise there would be no need to distinguish between right and far right. P. Musgrave (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

absolute nonsense. Far-right ideology would be Nazism, or white supremacy. Just because Trump is deporting illegals and cleaning up the corruption. Does not make him Far-right. The billionaire owned media platforms you are consuming are not reliable sources of information, and their lables are not grounded in reality but in agenda. Anyone that uses the terminology "Far-right" simply hasn't got an argument, they latched on to activism. ~2026-16721-74 (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Right. If you disagree that Trump supporters are far-right fascist extremists, your circle isn't educated. ~2026-39328-03 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If it is well documented in "educated circles" that the Trump administration is a far right regime, then you should have no trouble providing reliable sources for your assertion. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

are you functionally challenged or something? ~2026-19347-07 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Political labels like "right" and "left" are valuable descriptors only when they are presented neutrally, can be used as a basis for accurate comparisons, and are substantiated by fact. "Countless amounts of people online" is not a reliable source. Nick Shirley has been documented to hold political views which are consistent with standard American "right-wing" conservatism. An individual's political alignment is accurately gauged by comparing against an average of the general population, not by comparing against an average of a subset of leftist ideologues. ~2026-24796 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The lede has been revised to read "self-described conservative independent journalist." This wording is based on information provided by Snopes and NPR which are described as reliable sources in WP:RSPS. The existing citations used to describe Shirley as "right-wing" were from The Guardian and Semafor. WP:RSPS describes The Guardian as "generally reliable" but cautions it is biased or opinionated on politics. Semafor is not included in WP:RSPS and has financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party and therefore should be used with extreme caution and not in the article lede. P. Musgrave (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

No. This is not adequate. It's moving in the direction of downplaying this far-right shock content sloptuber and his contributions to the far-right ideology of MAGA. I've revised the article to a better description of "right-wing, self described journalist" wich much better matches reality. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not further edit the lede without providing appropriate, reliable sources that have been reviewed by other editors. The current sources provided, Snopes and NPR, are both highly reliable and politically unbiased sources which describe Shirley as a conservative self-described independent journalist.

Wikipedia is intended to provide accurate, well-sourced data and not opinions or tabloid gossip. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons as it could violate their privacy and venture into the territory of libel. To wit: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

May I also point out that five editors have contributed to this discussion so far; four have decided against labeling him a "far-right" or "alt-right" figure. No sources have been presented for discussion or review with other editors that label him as "far-right" or "alt-right" figure, beyond mere conjecture or "heard through the grapevine." Editor bias, especially when the editor labels the subject with a pejorative like "sloptuber," should be avoided in all Wikipedia articles. P. Musgrave (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

you should be banned ~2026-19347-07 (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you paid by the fraudsters? ~2026-39625-28 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

What a fag ~2026-40576-18 (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Dont add. This is biased language by motivated parties. ~2025-33090-45 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence of him being either far right or alt right. I’m still waiting on actual proof. ~2026-25798-31 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If you ignore all of the evidence people provide, then sure, you won't see the evidence. Rather than "far-right" or "alt-right," we could all agree that he's "special needs." That would solve the problem. SalvadorZombie (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If everyone who you don't agree with are far right, who is actually just the right or who center. This term of far- right is over used to condemn people as radical and not worth hearing out. This is a tool to censor ideas and people you don't agree with. Also this article is out dated due to the fraud in Minnesota, witch include some of the subjects in Nick Shirley video, being validated as trueful, may 21 2026 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/minnesota-health-care-fraud-takedown-results-charges-against-15-defendants-over-90m-fraud. ~2026-31558-67 (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

False, they are just “right”,

aka “correct” ~2026-34749-40 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Shirley is neither a far-right nor alt-right independent journalist. He clearly leans conservative, but Wikipedia is doing way too much to label every conservative as "far right". Just because a number of dominant media have certain leftward lean bias and may use the term "far right", doesn't mean Wikipedia should lead with that label in a article lede of a person. neutral encyclopedic explication is better. N2e (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

he does not "lean" conservative. He supports the alt-right/far-right ideology that is MAGA. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTSCANDAL "Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." So far in this discussion, we've "seen countless amounts of people online" and established zero reputable sources that Shirley himself is an extremist beyond a shaky definition of "guilt by association". This has all the characteristics of agenda pushing and bias, which is not what Wikipedia is meant to be. Neutrality is the goal. P. Musgrave (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I think he should be described this way. This much should be obvious to anyone based on the source coverage and also him doing stuff like amplifying racist fringe such as immigrants eating pets. High Professor (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on sourcing. Which sources describe him as far-right or alt-right?--CNMall41 (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I provided sources for right-wing below, and many of them also note ties to extreme political movements. I wouldn't oppose far-right or alt-right, but right-wing with his political views noted is also sufficient. High Professor (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

My question is which ones call him far-right or alt-right? The only one I see is The Intercept which is a biased source. You will not get consensus based on that source. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists it as reliable. There is no consensus for "independent journalist". High Professor (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

"Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source" - Please ensure you read everything in the summary section for The Intercept at RSP. Regardless of your feelings about it, one statement from a baised source is not going to satisfy inclusion requirements. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

That appears to be in the context of science and not news. According to the policy non-neutral does not mean unreliable so this isn't a proper argument. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says generally reliable which is apparently the highest standard on the list. And, please do link me to it if I've missed it, but I have not seen any consensus or inclusion requirements met for your preferred wording. There are certainly more sources calling him right-wing, and more calling more far-right or using qualifiers to associate him with extreme political movements, and any calling him an independent journalist. High Professor (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

If he's referred to as "right-wing" in secondary sources most of the time and infrequently referred to as "far-right" or "alt-right" then I think describing him as just as right-wing is appropriate. The wikipage should reflect the common usage, not the outlier usage.

I do agree that The Intercept is reliable source. Biased doesn't mean unreliable. Sibshops (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

And yet he is not commonly referred to as anything other than a YouTuber. At this point, I would suggest you open a RfC but I would not agree with putting any descriptor on him at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like in most reliable sources, he is described as right-wing as opposed to any other label.

Right-leaning:

• WP:RSPNPR https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/nx-s1-5662600/nick-shirley-minnesota-daycare-fraud

Right-wing:

• WP:CBS https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-day-care-quality-learning-center-closed-after-nick-shirley-video/
• WP:THEVERGE https://www.theverge.com/tech/856948/nick-shirley-minnesota-daycare-fraud-influencer-media-cycle - attributing to JD Vance
• Minnesota public radio https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/02/expert-explains-how-youtuber-nick-shirley-dominated-the-political-conversation
• The intercept (green in reliable sources but no link) https://theintercept.com/2026/01/03/minnesota-fraud-video-somalis-nick-shirley-source/
• WP:VOX https://www.vox.com/politics/474328/minnesota-fraud-tim-walz-daycare-child-care
• WP:NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/business/media/trump-conservatives-videos-viral-loop.html

Conservative:

• WP:REASON https://reason.com/2026/01/01/nick-shirley-tim-walz-and-the-minnesota-fraud-story-did-the-media-miss-it/

Pro-Trump:

• WP:REUTERS https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pro-trump-influencers-fire-up-fears-migrant-invasion-ahead-us-election-2024-06-13/

MAGA Journalist:

• WP:CNN https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/30/media/nick-shirley-minnesota-somali-video
• WP:AXIOS https://www.axios.com/2025/12/29/nick-shirley-minnesota-fraud-vance-fbi-somali

No right wing label:

• WP:THEHILL https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5667426-minnesota-daycare-fraud-exposed/ - but uses "self-described journalist" label
• New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/what-a-viral-youtube-video-says-about-the-future-of-journalism

Sibshops (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

"most reliable sources" - yet you only list 13. That looks more like a few you selected as opposed to "most." Most of the actual sources have a consensus that he is a YouTuber and independent journalist (although there may be debate about self-prescribed). Again, I don't see the need or a consensus to put any political label on him. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

For the claims of cherry-picking see WP:FOC.

But that is a fair point about consensus, I'll wait for other people to chime in. Sibshops (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:AGF as I have done so far. I did not claim you were cherrypicking. I am statign you cannot claim "most" sources when it appears you only looked at 13. And yes, it is a fair point. Some publications will label him politically based on their own POV, but there is nothing consistent across the board that shows he is one or the other. What is the reason you feel so strongly about putting a label on him? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, I was too terse there. WP:FOC means that the discussion is drifting toward editor intent instead of article content. I didn't mean to imply bad faith accusations.

As for whether or not a label should be included, I feel like a description which mirrors the usage in reliable sources would add encyclopedic value. It would help readers more quickly understand the content creator's goals and the types of material he produces. Sibshops (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand your contention. I agree that we should mirror the label in reliable sources about what he is (per WP:FIRSTBIO). And we already do by describing him as a YouTuber. The part I disagree with is that Wikipedia needs to label him to state his goals. Wikipedia is not here to tell readers about someone's "goals." As far as "material he produces," it is kind of saying that he produces all right-wing videos which is not the case and there no sources to support such. There is nothing else I can say as we are in WP:DTS territory. Again, maybe a RfC would work for consensus on what you are proposing. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair point about goals and material he produces. It's a personal opinion, and it's why I think adding it would help make the article higher quality for readers. This is the issue I was trying to avoid by steering away from editor intent. It's probably more productive if we stick to policy.

Per policy, first bio includes what he is noteworthy for in secondary sources, my opinion aside, in nearly every reliable secondary source I found, he is given a right-wing label of some type after being discussed.

One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.

As for RfC, I feel like it's way to early for that. WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL still apply, maybe in a few months. I don't think editors can predict his noteworthiness WP:10YT at this time. Sibshops (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Either way, I think maybe I should create a separate topic. Since far-right and alt-right doesn't have support is the sources.

And I realized I didn't really explain well why I think creating an RfC for an evolving news story is a good idea. Editors can't weigh in effectively if all the information isn't presented at the start. Sibshops (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We’re done listening to you bud. You’ve done nothing but show your bias in this whole post. You’re literally obsessed. Far left progressive ~2026-39625-28 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2026 (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.

Alternate stylization

In some instances, such as on his X account, he stylizes his name as 'Nick shirley'. Presumably, it's a deliberate choice of branding on his part, although not universal.

It seems a rather unique case, here's the relevant MoS article Republikeins1790 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Intro

Intro section seems really biased, I suggest rewriting it entirely, it currently sounds like an opinion piece of "why you should think this guy is bad" Also it seems that the latter part of the intro section is not correct, as the "Quality Learing Center" which Nick famously covered in his viral video has been closed by the government for fraud.

--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 23:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing what rewrite you have in mind.

A few things to possibly keep in mind:

• I don't think we should be directly editing to make the lead more positive or negative. Per WP:NPOV, the lead should reflect how the subject is covered in reliable sources, with due weight of how he's covered.
• Nick's direct involvement in exposing fraud at the Quality Learning Center, needs some sourcing in the body, first, before being added to the lead. The lead generally summarizes the article; it should not introduce a claim that is not supported later in the article.
• We also should be careful not to bury the lead with non-notable details. The lead should identify why the subject is notable early on, usually in the first couple of sentences.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Feeding Our Future claims

@Wrolen, I have some concerns about your edit.

• I do not believe WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS includes a local-news exception.
• The article discusses Feeding Our Future, which concerns fraud unrelated to the claims made in Nick Shirley’s video. Those claims should be discussed, if due, in the respective article rather than added here. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I replaced the Fox news article with one from CBS. It mentions

The Future Leaders Early Learning Center as well as Fahima Mahamud.

Sourced from CBS:

"Federal prosecutors said Future Leaders Early Learning, a site sponsored by Feeding Our Future, pretended to feed children during the pandemic, but pocketed much of the money instead."

This statement clearly implicates Fahima Mahamud AND Future Leaders Early Learning Center, and the article later on mentions Nick Shirley's involvement directly.

The article and its content are clearly relevant to Nick Shirley, and serve as an update to the original claim that no Fraud has been discovered as of Late December 2025 with any links to Shirley's reporting.

In reference to Fox news, My point is to not say local news is an exception, but rather it is not political reporting. It is crime reporting, which is clear based on how the original article was sourced.

Regardless, the source is now changed to CBS news. Wrolen (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the CBS source is better than the Fox source, so my concern is no longer mainly about source reliability. I'm still concerned about what the source can support.

The CBS article says Future Leaders Early Learning was one of the day-cares Shirley visited in December 2025. It also says that the Feeding Our Future-related conduct occurred in 2020 and 2021, and the broader Feeding Our Future charges were announced years before Shirley's video. The DOJ announced federal charges in the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme in September 2022.

So I do not think we can use this source to draw a connection between Shirley's reporting and the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme, or to show that a Feeding Our Future update validates the claims in Nick's Video. That seems like WP:SYNTH unless a reliable secondary source explicitly makes that connection. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems like you are more cherry picking parts and ignoring other factual statements made in the source material.

Part of the evidence discussed in the article states

"In 2020 and 2021, Mahamud submitted receipts claiming to have served two meals a day to 1,000 different children, seven days a week, the court documents state."

But further down goes on to say

"And from 2022 to 2025, Mahamud submitted roughly 13,000 claims for $4.6 million in reimbursements through CCAP "on behalf of recipients from whom co-payments were not collected as required," the indictment alleges."

This is not stating when the fraud occurred, but is showing a timeline of fraudulent activity up to the 2025 Nick Shirley incident.

The goal is not to find a source to a secondary sponsorship for the Fraud (i.e., Feeding Our Future) but rather that Mahamud's daycare was defrauding their sponsorship. There is also a direct connection stated

"Between January and July 2021, her daycare center received more than $850,000 in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds directly from Feeding Our Future — a nonprofit group that is at the center of what federal authorities have called a $250 million fraud scandal — but only a fraction was used to purchase food, according to an indictment obtained Wednesday."

This clearly and explicitly implicates Mahamud's daycare with the Feeding Our Future Scheme.

Whether you choose to ignore this as a direct link from Feeding Our Future (the sponsor) and Mahamud's daycare is entirely up to you, but the article makes the distinction and links the two together clearly and coherently. Wrolen (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the CBS source connects Mahamud/Future Leaders Early Learning to Feeding Our Future. My concern is that it's not directly related to Nick Shirley. The source does not appear to support the claims made in Shirley's video which was recorded after the fraud investigation.

Using a feeding our future update to update claims about Shirley's reporting requires a reliable secondary source that explicitly makes that connection. Otherwise, we would be combining separate facts from the article to reach a conclusion not stated by the source, which is the issue under WP:SYNTH.

So I think the question is not whether Mahamud's daycare is linked to Feeding Our Future in the CBS article. It is. The question is whether that belongs in this article as an update about Shirley's video.

You would need a source which directly shows that the Shirley's video uncovered fraud unrelated to Feeding Our Future investigation and prosecution to support your changes. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I am giving due weight to what is widely being reported as of the present time. I dont understand why you are hung up on needing to synthesize a connection to Feeding our Future?

The article is about Nick Shirley and his ties to reporting on Fraud. The edit states:

"In May 2026, a Minneapolis day care featured in a Nick Shirley investigation was federally charged in a $4.6 million childcare and meal reimbursement fraud scheme."

Which is accurate to what the news coming out in various outlets says. I have already given two sources, one you found invalid for entirely different reasons, and another you find valid but now shift to this synthesizing claim, which is nonsensical. It is nonsensical because no where in any of the news articles I provided do they state that Nick Shirley is directly involved in the Feeding our Future expose', but rather that they mention Nick Shirley and that he previously investigated this daycare, which is relevant source material to Nick Shirley's wikipedia page. Nowhere in the given statement is an attempt made to link Nick Shirley to anything other than the fact that a daycare he reported on was charged with Fraud in May of 2026, entirely relevant to the page and to Nick Shirley.

Your discussion is feeling more like hand waving while ignoring that this is a page to Nick Shirley and should give due weight to any mainstream news articles that mention him. Wrolen (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other slightly. WP:DUE still applies, but the question is if it applies to an article about Nick Shirley. A source showing that the daycare was involved in Feeding Our Future-related fraud may be due for a different article like one about the daycare, the fraud case, or a Feeding Our Future article. But it does not automatically make it due for this article.

This line quoted doesn't establish a direction connection between the two things:

In May 2026, a Minneapolis day care featured in a Nick Shirley investigation was federally charged in a $4.6 million childcare and meal reimbursement fraud scheme.

And the article also continues to indicate that they are separate cases.

That wording only shows that the daycare previously shown in Nick Shirley's video was involved with the Feeding the Future update. It doesn't show that Nick's video had any connection with previously uncovered fraud.

The source does not directly link the video released in December 2025 with fraud uncovered prior to it. It just says that a daycare involved with Feeding Our Future appeared in Nick's video. We can't use it to imply that Nick's video found or uncovered fraud not previously uncovered. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring large parts of the source material to suit your narrative.

1st, Feeding our Future scam was only one of the charges Mahamoud was indicted on, and $0 of the mention $4.6m. Most of their fraudulent activity was conducted through CCAP, an entirely different federal assistance program and the main point of discussion.

Again, I have no earthly clue why you are finding a point of contention with the Feeding our Future scam, it is not the main point of the article.

Mahamoud and her affiliates were charged with various instances of Fraud, the lions share of the stolen funds coming from CCAP, not from Feeding our Future.

Your grievances are entirely contrived. The news articles mention Nick Shirley directly and deserve due weight in his wikipedia page.

It's quite simple, really. If multiple news outlets directly mention Nick Shirley and his involvement in fraud reporting leading up to arrest warrants, then they deserve due weight on his wikipedia page.

I could see delineating into a discussion about wording, but not from removing his mentions in mainstream news articles that are up to date, current and relevant information about the life and significance Nick Shirley. Wrolen (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If the argument is that Shirley's reporting was involved in fraud reporting leading up to arrest warrants, then we need sources that directly say that. The CBS article mentioning Shirley is not enough if it only says the daycare had previously appeared in one of his videos.

That is the distinction I am trying to make. I am not disputing that Mahamoud and the daycare were charged, or that the charges included CCAP allegations. I am disputing whether the source supports including this in his biography. A passing mention of a daycare appearing in Shirley's video does not mean later charges due for Shirley's article.

If there are reliable sources that directly connect Shirley's videos to the investigation, charges, or arrest warrants, please provide those and we can use those instead. Without that, the article should not imply that his videos were involved with these charges or investigaion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

What you are using is one of the most commonly misunderstood logical fallacies: the hidden premise.

You are presupposing that news related to Nick Shirley has to follow a predefined set of rules or statutes, and not, alternatively, that we as editors must merely give due weight to the news and reporting that is being done in regards to the subject matter., provided they are widely accepted news media outlets (which CBS falls under).

You also mention nothing of how you continue to shift your claims every time your rebuttals are soundly addressed.

Furthermore, you involve yourself in a double standard fallacy. Saying a statement is "unsubstantiated" would mean that mainstream source material does not support the claims made. This is not the case anymore, and reverting the article to a previous state would be completely inaccurate, as there have been, in fact, fraudulent charges brought against daycares Nick Shirley investigated. The statements made in the edits are not unsubstantiated at all, in fact they are directly substantiated with relevant media reporting.

The mentions do not imply that his videos were involved with these charges or the investigation, they merely mention what widely accepted media outlets are reporting on Nick Shirley that are in the spirit of current events.

Giving due weight to what media is reporting on a specific person does not imply that he was directly involved or presuppose any of the claims you are making, they are due weight because they mention him explicitly. Removing such things from his wikipedia page is incredulous because it is a conscious choice to remove relevant source material that are a part of the "spirit of the times" or the news and buzz surrounding the relevant subjects.

Your discounting of CBS as "unreliable reporting" or substantiating their statements as merely a passing reference is completely inaccurate and straight up false information. Check the news, multiple news outlets are reporting the same material.

You are grasping at straws to find a way to rebuttal this, which shows your true intentions and bias. Wrolen (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not think this resolves the WP:SYNTH or WP:DUE concerns.

The source supports two separate facts:

• A daycare appeared in Shirley's video.
• The owner connected to that daycare was later charged with fraud.

But it does not appear to support the further conclusion:

• The later charges are a biographically significant to Shirley or substantiate the claims he made in his video.

The third point is a systhesis concern. The connection would need to be made by a reliable source, not inferred by editors. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The source does nevertheless mention Shirley several times, in which further articles are now mentioning him via major news outlets.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-agents-serve-search-warrants-in-minnesota-fraud-probe

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118871/documents/HHRG-119-JU08-20260121-SD032.pdf

The above two articles are furthermore proof that there is a relevant, consistent shift in traditional, mainstream media that Nick Shirley is a talking point regarding Minnesota fraud and fraud around the entire country.

While I do not intend to argue on whether there is synthesis between the discussions shared in these secondary sources and Nick Shirleys supposed involvement in uncovering fraud in Feeding Our Future claims (an idea you came up with, not me) it is nonetheless relevant to the profile of Nick Shirley, and should not be dismissed as a political argument for or against his favor, but is important, in the spirit of the times, to capture the moments of significant figures' lives in their head and in the relevant bodies of their profile. So I nonetheless move to include the links between current, up to date news reporting that involves Shirley into the head and body of Shirley's page. I dont think this is an extraordinary request or defies the logically grounded source material of wikipedia, but is relevant source material to the person and the times of the subject in question.

I appreciate your continued resolve in this matter. Wrolen (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Neither of these sources address the synth concern nor support inclusion of the Future Leaders Early Learning fraud charges in the Nick Shirley article.

• The Congress.gov link does not appear to be a congressional finding about Shirley. It is a copy of a news/fact-check and the article says Shirley's video was 'debunked by investigators'
• PBS source says the video is 'without proof'

The CBS source only mentions Shirley once and not multiple times

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/daycare-feeding-our-future-fraud-charges-flee-country/

The Future Leaders Early Learning Center was one of 10 Minneapolis daycares visited by conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley in December and featured in a viral video.

And it's a contextual mention. It does not connect Shirley's video to the later charges. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

They nonetheless all mention Shirley as distinct media outlets.

https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/05/21/feds-announce-15-indictments-in-unprecedented-medicaid-fraud-scheme-in-minnesota/

Here is another one for your records.

Again, you are making a synthesis argument against a preponderance of relevant source material. It is an entirely incredulous and ridiculous argument to make due to two specific facts:

1. You are completely discounting the surge in media material surrounding Nick Shirley and recent reporting.

2. You presuppose that there has to be a coherent link between the surge in popularity of Nick Shirley's mentions in current, up to date media material and the relevance of such material on your presuppositions of which investigations in fraud are relevant. For whatever reason, you chose the Feeding our Future Fund, which is little more than a footnote in list of government agencies defrauded and mentioned in the source material. The main victim of their fraud was CCAP, which is not related at all to Feeding our Future. And so, your requirement for creating a "synthesis" between Feeding our Future and Nick Shirley is entirely bogus.

With that out of the way, any consistent mentions in traditional media regarding a significant figure's life events, or merely that there exists a surge in material reporting on him that links him directly to the uncovering of fraud should be mentioned in the body and profile of their Wikipedia page. Your argument belittles itself to "well, no one in the dozens of articles that reference Shirley explicitly tie him to *insert perceived relevant government program that fits my current argument here* and therefore none of them are valid source material for Nick Shirley or his life and influence on current events and history because they merely mention him and do not explicitly ties him to the events in question", by that same logic, would disqualify a huge portion of anthropological conclusions that are firmly grounded as mainstream history and anthropology into "we can'tdirectly, explicitly link them to the source material, so it's not valid".

What a load of crap.

I appreciate your continued resolve in this matter. Wrolen (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

1. The number of sources mentioning Shirley does not, by itself, support inclusion of the disputed material.

2. You presuppose that there has to be a coherent link...

Yes, there has to be a source-supported link. Editors cannot create that link ourselves. Historians, anthropologists, journalists, or other reliable sources can make these connections, publish them, and then Wikipedia can cite them. That is the point of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.

If reliable sources are not making a coherent link between Shirley and the CCAP fraud or any other fraud, then we cannot make that link in the article either. Contextual mentions of Shirley in articles primarily about fraud charges do not make those charges due for his biography. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

1. On what grounds?

2. You’re only responding to half my sentence. So your response is irrelevant. Respond to the whole statement or do not respond to it at all. ~2026-31056-26 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

1. On the grounds of WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR.

2. I did respond to the relevant part of the statement.

The disputed issue is whether editors may connect Shirley to the later fraud charges based on contextual mentions of coverage of that fraud in sources. They cannot. If there is another way to address the concerns raised, please state the specific article text you want included and identify the source language that directly supports it. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

On the grounds of Wikipedia:DUE, we need to keep this in the article because multiple news sources in current events mention Shirley in regards to fraud, whether or not they prove a link between him and the discoveries.

Wikipedia:NOR has nothing to do with anything. This is not original research.

Wikipedia:BLP in fact is in favor of the edits, the previous statements were biased. It is important to keep the BLP’s page up to date with current events.

Wikipedia:SYNTH is an incorrect claim. Nothing in the edit states anything that isn’t said in the source material. It quotes and summarizes exactly what the article says. Wrolen (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:NOR has nothing to do with this. Reliable sources do not appear to make a direct connection between Shirley and the earlier/later fraud charges, so we should not make that connection ourselves.

WP:SYNTH applies because the proposed inclusion takes a contextual mention of Shirley in coverage about fraud charges and uses it to make those charges part of Shirley's biography. Unless reliable sources directly treat those charges as biographically significant to Shirley, or directly connect Shirley's reporting to them, that connection is being made by editors rather than by the sources. Without that source-supported connection, the material is not WP:DUE for inclusion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOR has nothing to do with this. It is not original research. The article in question mentions how Shirley investigate Mahamud prior to her charges. This is a direct reference to Shirley and is significant to his biography. The addition merely states this and goes no further making any claims that Shirley was directly involved in the fraud charges, merely that he investigated Mahamud's daycare.

The inclusion does not alone make a contextual mention, several current articles mention that he has investigated daycares now being charged with fraud. Many conclusions can be made from this, but they are not being made in any additions to the article, merely that it is significant because the news is reporting on it. Wikipedia:DUE applies because the CBS article is an example of a valid news source that covers a topic being widely covered in mainstream journalism, namely that daycares Shirley investigated are now being charged with fraud. Many journalists are making this connection, so it's important to give them due weight in his page.

It is probably best that I now include the multiple news sources in the quote to better give the inclusion due weight :). Thank you for that suggestion. Wrolen (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding multiple sources with the same contextual mention does not fix the WP:SYNTH issue. The issue is not source count; it is whether the sources directly support the disputed connection between Shirley's videos and the earlier/later fraud charges. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no intention to make a connection between Shirley's video and fraud charges at all.

No article or source material states that. The article merely states that a daycare center featured in Shirley's videos is now charged with fraud (and not only earlier Feeding Our Future fraud charges, but later, CCAP charges as well).

This is significant on the grounds of Wikipedia:DUE because multiple reliable sources report that this daycare was one of the daycares featured in Shirley's video. That alone is enough information to include it on his Wikipedia page, because the articles bring into question whether or not Nick SHirley's reporting had anything to do with the fraud charges and recent investigations.

Most notably, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/federal-agents-probe-fraud-allegations-targeting-somali-child-care-providers-in-minnesota actually critiques and explains why Nick Shirley's reporting may not have had anything to do with the recent fraud charges, and criticize his form of journalism. This makes such inclusions nonetheless important to the source material, as there is widespread debate about Nick Shirley's involvement in the Fraud charges, and could develop more as time goes on.

Adding a statement after saying "whether Shirley's investigations brought forth federal fraud charges is a matter of ongoing debate and the subject of widespread scrutiny" would be a perfectly acceptable inclusion into the source material with this in mind, if your intention is to keep it neutral. Wrolen (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Nick Shirley's reporting may not have had anything to do with the recent fraud charges

If reliable sources contest a connection between Shirley's reporting and the later fraud charges, then we should not include wording that makes those charges part of his biography. A source questioning or rejecting the connection does not make that connection due; it reinforces the concern that editors should not imply one. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you are implying that the point or drive of Nick Shirley's videos is to bring forth charges of fraud, which there is no explicit connection or statement of fact that is his intent or motive, and thus any mention of fraud charges related to subjects in Nick's videos must prove a connection between his reporting and any fraud charges that may occur, which is false. Wikipedia:SYNTH does not apply here because Nick Shirley is factually part of the reporting landscape of uncovering fraud, and this is apparent in widespread discussions about fraud charges and fraud at large in the United States, and is thus Wikipedia:DUE in his biography.

In May 2026, a daycare center featured in the video was federally charged in a $4.6 million childcare and meal reimbursement fraud scheme.

...

In May 2026, Fahima Egeh Mahamud, CEO of Future Leaders Early Learning in Minneapolis, was federally charged with wire fraud and conspiracy for allegedly stealing over $4.6 million through fraudulent childcare and meal reimbursement claims. Future Leaders Early Learning appeared in Shirley's video.

The original wording has been changed to not imply that his video or subsequent reporting brought forth charges, but rather reported on a business now charged with fraud and is a notable source of news, mentioning directly his video and journalism.

note: the most recent edits were done by another user. Wrolen (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have posted this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nick Shirley - WP:SYNTH connection dispute for uninvolved review.

Given the unresolved WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:ONUS concerns, I think the disputed material should not be in the article unless there is consensus for inclusion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SYNTH is not valid here. Nick Shirley is an independent journalist and mentions of him in other news are attributable to his proscribed profession, which is backed by multiple reliable sources, namely:

[]

I believe there is implication in your argument that because Nick Shirley's journalism is reported on and linked in other articles to fraud investigation, the onus is on his content to have proved or explicitly furthered the process of federal prosecution, which is not accurate. He is a journalist, so his contribution to journalism and its mention in other articles is noteworthy to his life and biography. Wrolen (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:SYNTH & WP:DUE, unless Nick Shirley's video directly led to the federal investigation and sources state it as such, we should not include it, let alone in the lead. AG202 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Multiple reliable secondary sources discuss a daycare featured in Shirley’s reporting later being charged with fraud. The proposed wording does not state or imply that Shirley uncovered the fraud, only that the daycare he reported on was later charged. That is a straightforward, attributed factual update relevant to coverage surrounding Shirley and supported directly by the sources. Wrolen (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Then it belongs in the body and not in the lead. AG202 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand the argument for moving the material out of the lead and into the body. That is a reasonable editorial discussion.

What I do not agree with is reverting the article back to wording which now omits later developments entirely and presents an outdated state of affairs.

As of May 2026, multiple mainstream outlets have reported that a daycare featured in Shirley’s reporting was later federally charged with fraud. Whether that ultimately belongs in the lead or only in the body is one question, but removing mention of the later charges entirely and reverting to pre-2026 framing is no longer accurately reflecting the current sourcing landscape.

My objection is therefore not about forcing a particular interpretation of Shirley’s involvement, but about keeping the article updated to reflect significant subsequent coverage directly mentioning him. Wrolen (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

My main issue at this point is honestly with the wording saying “the video's allegations were unsubstantiated.”

That is too broad of a statement now given later reporting. Multiple mainstream outlets have since reported fraud charges involving at least one of the daycares featured in the video. That obviously does not mean every claim made in the video was proven true, nor am I claiming Shirley uncovered the fraud himself, but it also means it is no longer accurate or neutral to categorically state that the allegations were “unsubstantiated.”

At best, that wording reflected the reporting landscape at the time. It does not fully reflect the current sourcing landscape anymore.

More neutral wording would probably be something more specific or more clearly attributed, rather than Wikipedia itself making a blanket factual assertion that the allegations were unsubstantiat Wrolen (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I came here from WP:BLP/N. Could someone please provide a list of reliable sources for those of us who don't have time to read that whole text wall up-thread? Just a bulleted list of links? Both Shirley and Mahamoud are BLP subjects and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PUBLICFIGURE are both relevant. We must be very careful what we say here. We need multiple, impeccable, references to reliable sources and must remember that WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly cannot be used for claims about other parties. IE: Shirley's video cannot be a source for any statement about Mahamoud. Period. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can provide multiple reliable sources. See below please.

[]

This link has seen some contention, as it is Fox, but I would argue it is local news reporting about non political events, so it should be valid.

[] CBSNews

[] PBS Newshour

[] Washington Examiner

[] The Hill

[] KTSA News

All of these links mention Nick Shirley and his continued involvement in reporting on Minnesota fraud investigations. I am not implying here that Nick Shirley had any involvement directly in having those fraud charges come to fruition, but that his work is significant enough for news outlets to mention him explicitly as relevant to the subject at hand.

Thank you Wrolen (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If Mahamoud being explicitly mentioned should be removed is another discussion, but I think the core of the material is that recent news article mentioning Nick Shirley in the arrest and convictions of several people are significant to his biography. Wrolen (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Fox News is not reliable for this so I won't bother with that one but will review the others. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

CBS doesn't appear to mention Lasker at all so it is not an appropriate source here. It might be relevant on other articles. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait will strike

Got my wires crossed. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait will strike?? Wrolen (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh strike the words, i misunderstood. Wrolen (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

PBS doesn't mention Mahamoud. Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, having reviewed the sources, it is clear no conviction has been made. WP:BLPCRIME says, Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by —editors must seriously consider including material in any article that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest in, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime which means, as Mahamud is not a public figure, she should not be mentioned as a suspect or as the subject of his video. I would say the sources support that Shirley's video got the attention of the Trump administration and that it subsequent opened a federal investigation into matters related to his video but her name must absolutely be left out. Obviously such mention should be brief since most of those articles devote ~1 paragraph to Shirley. It's barely more than passing mention. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this isn't a BLPCRIME issue. It's a SYNTH one.

To summarize, the concern is:

• Sourced material stating that claims in Shirley's video were unsubstantiated was removed.
• Material about fraud that sources do not directly connect to Shirley's video was added to the biography.
• Placing that unconnected fraud in Shirley's biography implies that Shirley's claims were substantiated, even though the sources do not establish they are related and some sources explicitly dispute the connection.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

So I can have another look at the sources to make sure I didn't miss those disputations. Can you please provide the missing sources for review? Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, the source which was used in the article:

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/trump-post-targets-ilhan-omar-somali-immigrants/3681585/

Additional sources were discussed here:

Talk:Nick Shirley/Archive 1#NPOV Violations

The recent PBS source linked above also repeats the point:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-agents-serve-search-warrants-in-minnesota-fraud-probe

The claims were disproven by inspectors.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The first source you site is quite old for what we are discussing.

Second, this isn't about any claims Nick Shirley made, rather how he has received attention from various sources. Wrolen (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the mention of the fraud charges.

The current wording still has issues:

• "Shirley's involvement" is not supported by the sources. The sources do not say Shirley was involved in fraud investigations or the later charges.
• WP:NPOV concerns remain. The wording supports Shirley's fraud claims without also including the reporting that those claims were unsubstantiated or disproven.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

ok, so what alternative wording would you choose? Wrolen (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest reverting back to this version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Shirley&diff=prev&oldid=1355766350

Unless there are newer reliable sources explicitly saying Shirley's claims were substantiated in some way, I do not think the existing sourced material should be replaced. Sources are not removed merely because they are older, they would still need to be contested by newer reliable sources to remove them. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That edit does not accurately represent relevant source material that are already valid as previously discussed, namely:

[]

[]

[]

Which are valid sources that are significant to the biography of Nick Shirley, as already concluded in this discussion.

The current edit gives credence to the national and local news outlets, as well as the Trump administrations attention directed at Shirley and are substantiated in reliable sources.

Secondly, the current revision addresses @Simonm223's concerns regarding Wikipedia:BLPCRIME Wrolen (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

and further mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020s_Minnesota_fraud_scandals Wrolen (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The Hill and CBS do not appear to substantiate Shirley's claims or directly connect his reporting to the later fraud charges, so they do not justify removing the previous sourced material describing the claims as unsubstantiated/disproven. WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER says material from that source should be treated as opinion. I do not think it should be used for contentious or disputed BLP material. Mention in 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals does not, by itself, make the material due for Shirley’s biography. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed any mention of Mahamoud and tied the attention Shirley is getting to [], which also mention's Shirley's involvement. I have also noted how he has received attention from the Trump administration and various local and national news outlets. Wrolen (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why that statement would be included in regards to Wikipedia:BLP, and I have failed to see any sources on your end that substantiate those claims. I think that is a dangerous implication.

The current head merely mentions attention he has received from The Trump administration and various news outlets reporting on how some of the daycares he investigated later received federal charges, as substantiated in

[]

and

[]

[]

[]

So I dont see them contradicting each other at all, but rather that the unsubstantiated claim does not have any significant sources you have been able to present. Wrolen (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The prominent opposing view has to be included per WP:NPOV. Shirley's fraud claims about Somali-run daycares was contested by multiple sources, including NPR, NBC, CNN, CBS, and PBS. The later sources cited do not appear to supersede that reporting or directly substantiate Shirley's claims. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, can you identify the sources?

Naming the news outlets do not qualify as actual sources. Wrolen (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned the sources and where to find them above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Shirley&diff=prev&oldid=1355950834 ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That is in no way a preponderance of evidence and should not be included in Nick Shirley's wikipedia page. At most it should be included in any discussion regarding his videos and fraud allegations in the body per Wikipedia:NPOV Wrolen (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Preponderance of evidence is not the standard stated in WP:NPOV.

Multiple reliable sources, including NPR, NBC, CNN, CBS, and PBS, have contested Shirley's claims. That demonstrates the view is not fringe. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You mentioned several news outlets that you did not substantiate in your sources.

Your source mentions one news outlet, which is a reliable source, but is not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Wrolen (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

All of the news outlets I mentioned were either cited in the edit I linked or discussed in the archived NPOV discussion I linked to. Talk:Nick Shirley/Archive 1#NPOV Violations. That discussion is also where the previous consensus for including the sourced dispute over Shirley's claims was established. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but this is now May 2026, and new reporting has challenged those claims.

Regardless, it is not significant enough to Shirley's life to be included in the lead. You are welcome to include it in the body, but not to revert to a previous revision that is outdated information and does not include more recent source material. Wrolen (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated how the newer reporting substantiates Shirley's claims or supersedes the earlier sourcing. Until that is shown, the previous consensus still applies. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

They do not contradict each other. You are entirely missing the point of the edit. Wrolen (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

read the new material, you are making nonsensical claims. Wrolen (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I did. It still has the issues mentioned here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Shirley&diff=prev&oldid=1355953443 ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

None of those concerns remain in the new material. That critique was done before the most recent edits. Wrolen (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The current text:

As of May 2026, Shirley's involvement in reporting on Minnesota fraud scandals has received attention from officials in the Trump administration as well as local and national news outlets.

• Missing NPOV prominent opposing view
• Making unsourced claim about his involvement

◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

His involvement in how he investigated Minnesota fraud from his now viral video and it's subsequent attention from the Trump administration, local and national news outlets, all properly sourced.

I still cant pull any cohesive rebuttal from your responses other than unfounded criticism. Wrolen (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not sourced and not due, for example "local and national news outlets" isn't found in the sources. It's unsourced editorializing. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the sources are from a combination of local and national news outlets mention Nick Shirley and his reporting on Minnesota fraud investigations.

As a journalist/reporter, it is significant in his biography that he is mentioned in various outlets regarding his investigations.

It is definitively sourced, as well as mentions in [] regarding his attention from officials in the Trump administration. Wrolen (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Editors cannot combine sources to make a claim that is not stated directly by a reliable source. Claims about Shirley's "involvement" or about how widespread the reporting was need to be supported directly by reliable sources.

It is original research to combine mentions from multiple sources to create a broader statement that no individual source makes. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not making any claim, I am stating that he has been mentioned in various outlets.

He was definitively involved in reporting about fraud in Minnesota, as evidenced by his viral video, without substantiating any claims made in said video. Wrolen (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Please identify one reliable source that says this, or something close to it:

As of May 2026, Shirley's involvement in reporting on Minnesota fraud scandals has received attention from officials in the Trump administration as well as local and national news outlets.

If no single reliable source directly supports that statement, then the wording is original research. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

All of the articles mention Shirley and therefore he is receiving mention from national and local news outlets.

Its really not that complicated and in no way violates Wikipedia:NPOV Wrolen (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Two separate issues, both still remain:

• WP:NPOV - Current wording does not include the prominent opposing view
• WP:OR - The wording makes an original claim about Shirley's involvement and an original characterization of attention received

◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, then how would you suggest the wording be changed?

Reverting the article to an obsolete version without up to date sources and reporting is unacceptable. Wrolen (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Reverting to the previous consensus version is the policy-compliant option until WP:ONUS is met for the disputed change. The burden is on the editor seeking to add or replace material to show that the new wording is supported by reliable sources, does not create WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and gives appropriate weight under WP:NPOV. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not accurate and with up to date source material.

You are the only person that is continuing to hold dispute, no other individuals are raising concerns, and I have addressed previous issues and have not yet heard a reply back.

The current article reflects up to date and accurately sourced information. If you want to change it you will need to justify valid reasons that an update is needed or describe how the wording would change. Wrolen (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The Trump Justice department, which is notorious for politicized grand-standing targeting Trump's ideological opponents, taking up a case is not in any way, shape or form a substantiation of anybody's claims. It's simply another claim. The sources support that the Trump regime takes Shirley's video seriously. But the Trump regime regularly takes all kinds of total nonsense seriously so... yeah.

None of these articles substantiate in any way that Shirley was right just that he was politically convenient for Trump.. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wrolen just so you understand, when there is a content dispute, reversion to WP:STATUSQUO is best practice. Even if that is "out of date". The idea is that we put the article to the last configuration that was agreed upon pending formation of consensus about the disputed changes. This is one of many practices designed to discourage edit warring and article instability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The article must reflect the most up to date information about the subject in question Wrolen (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Please point to the policy that says this trumps WP:STATUSQUO. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO has to do with reverting, which is what you did. I didnt revert anything, I kept the information on his page up to date.

You are the one that reverted the article.

You just keep coming up with different excuses because you dont like the content. Wrolen (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

No. That's not what's happening here. You are making an assertion that the content of this article must include information that is inappropriate for it for a variety of reasons. Other people, including myself, have explained quite patiently to you both why those things are inappropriate for this article and also why your assertion that the article must have the most up-to-date sources is actually wrong. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator and it is expected because we are WP:NOTNEWS that we will catch up to an emerging story after the fact. You seem to have forgotten that I was not a party to the original dispute and rather saw a notification of this dispute on a noticeboard. So you should consider that when an editor is in a dispute and a third party comes in and points out some issues with their adherence to policy and best practice it is wise not to assume WP:IDONTLIKEIT as their reason for interjecting. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources I mentioned are completely valid and are important to Nick Shirley's profession, be him an amateur or a professional. Having his work cited by multiple news sources is important to his biography. It has nothing to do whether it is news or not, but as he is a reporter, it is nonetheless significant.

Secondly, Trump's administration has mentioned him several times in relation to Minnesota fraud scandals and the wikipedia page for Minnesota fraud scandals also mentions Nick Shirley, so it is relevant to his biography.

I didnt immediately make the conclusion of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT but the issues with the edits seem to be shifting. from Wikipedia:SYNTH to WIKIPEDIA:NPOV and any other source that can be come up with in an effort to remove the material in question, and it lowers the overall quality of the rebuttals. Wrolen (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, I made the changes you requested to the article, so I dont understand exactly where you are coming from.

I have also repeatedly asked @Sibshops to be constructive and come to a conclusion about a proper wording to the article to improve it and make it of higher quality, but nonetheless insists on reverting to a previous article version with outdated and now irrelevant information, so we are at an impasse. Wrolen (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I will also admit that I have indeed incorrectly attributed your comments earlier today to @Sibshops as he has been the only one to reply, and both of your usernames start with an S, so that's on me. Wrolen (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

So to clarify my stance: That Shirley's video caught the interest of the Trump regime is verifiable via reliable sources.

This does not change that the claims are unsubstantiated which is also verifiable via reliable sources.

You incompletely removed mention of a BLP who, by Wikipedia policy, must be treated as an innocent low-profile person. I completed the removal of that information. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine. If the claims were unsubstantiated and there is verifiable evidence that it is, I concede i should not have removed that portion; however, in light of the first statement, I think the new additions to the article should also be considered valid. Wrolen (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This conversation is near-impossible to read for any outside parties, and I'm concerned about WP:BLUDGEON. As stated, per existing practice like WP:BRD, we should have reverted to the prior status quo, and that's the current consensus. This constant back and forth does not help the article, and reduces the opportunity for more consensus. Additionally, there have been certain comments that fall under WP:NPA, which is highly concerning. AG202 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not the current consensus. Please read above. Wrolen (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I am concerned about Wikipedia:NPOV Users are removing cited information without consensus. Wrolen (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Shirley's involvement in lead

@Wrolen, I removed the following text because it was not supported by the cited sources:

As of May 2026, Shirley's involvement in reporting on Minnesota fraud scandals has received attention from officials in the Trump administration as well as local and national news outlets.

The cited sources do not appear to verify that wording:

• CBS states only that Future Leaders Early Learning Center was one of several daycares Shirley visited and featured in a viral video:

The Future Leaders Early Learning Center was one of 10 Minneapolis daycares visited by conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley in December and featured in a viral video.

• The Hill citation relies on opinion-source framing, so I removed it per WP:RSOPINION.

• KTSA states only that the case gained wider attention after the daycare appeared in Shirley’s video:

The case gained wider attention after Mahamud’s daycare appeared in a viral video by influencer Nick Shirley. The footage showed visits to seemingly empty childcare centers in the Minneapolis area while raising allegations of widespread fraud. Future Leaders Early Learning was among the locations highlighted.

These sources may support narrower statements that Shirley visited or featured the daycare in a video, but they do not directly support the broader claim that he was involved in reporting on Minnesota fraud scandals or that his involvement received attention from officials and local or national outlets. Using them for that framing appears to go beyond the cited sources and risks WP:SYNTH.

Also, if the only connection between Shirley's video and the other fraud case is that one of the same locations appeared in both, that seems unrelated to his biography. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

those are reliable sources for up to date information about Shirley’s life. This is becoming a completely ridiculous back and forth with information you think is making an argument for or against something and it’s not. the article about the Minnesota scandals CLEARLY mention Trump and Nick Shirley and the attention he received. Your arguments are nonsensical, but apparently that is how Wikipedia works now. Quite sad. Wrolen (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Might I suggest, if the two of you cannot agree, an RfC might be a reasonable way forward? Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have not opined here in a while but have been watching a pattern of selectively citing policy. Would suggest a RfC as well as at this point the page is a sounding board and not in Wikipedia's voice. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will request RFC when I am back on my acct. Thank you for you input @CNMall41 and @Simonm223 ~2026-31570-77 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It's important that RFC questions be framed neutrally. I have no real remaining time today but tomorrow I'd be happy to lend a hand framing a neutral question. Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be helpful, thank you. ( I am ~2026-31570-77) Wrolen (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses.

This Talk page will be included in a documentary in production about Wikipedia bias. Wrolen (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh I completely forgot... please feel free to ping me if I don't do something I offered to. It was entirely unintentional. My bad. Tomorrow for sure. Simonm223 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Theres the bias Ive been looking for all along :) Wrolen (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok so looking at the dispute we have the following questions:

1. Should the article mention Shirley as having influenced the Trump administration?
2. Should the article mention that Shirley's activities got "local and national news" coverage?
3. Should the future Leaders Early Learning center be mentioned by name in the Shirley article?

Are there any other loci of dispute I'm missing? You'll note that in all these cases it's important to strip off any personal opinion that you, me or anyone else might have and focus entirely on the question of "should this statement be in this article?" Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose we should add, "Should the allegations in the Future Leaders video be described in wikivoice as unsubstantiated?" Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

MN fraud

Now that Nick’s fraud allegations have been quantified the lie that the fraud has been “unsubstantiated” can be removed.

Glad I could help! ~2026-34749-40 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Since this has been a recurring point of confusion, I expanded the lead to clarify which claims were unsubstantiated. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems these changes did not have consensus and were reverted. Either way, the details are covered in the relevant section of the article. But it is important to understand what Shirley claimed in the video in order to understand what was or was not substantiated. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2026

Change "The video's allegations were unsubstantiated" to "The video's allegations were initially reported as unsubstantiated by state officials, but subsequent federal investigations led to criminal indictments for childcare fraud at facilities featured in the video."

~2026-35169-94 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Any change to the lead is going to require a consensus at this point because it's been an extremely contentious issue in the past. The indictment against the owner of Future Leaders Early Learning is already mentioned in the "Allegations of daycare and healthcare fraud in Minnesota" subsection. Day Creature (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Having the sentence "The video's allegations were unsubstantiated" in the lead paragraph is not only a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it reeks of well poisoning motivated by political bias and nothing more. Its contentions only in terms of this being related to modern day politics, but the wikipedia guidlines are very clear that we are not allowed to inject our own research and must adhere to a neutral tone with out taking a side for or against the subject.

The majority of the cited articles are ones that are 6 months old and from December. Theres one from April by PBS that simply says, "The claims were disproven by inspectors." with no further insite, and a snopes article which is simply a summary of all the previous reporting. Also, all of this reporting claiming his video was completely without merit comes into obvious question since at least one subject of his video has been arrested and federally charged with fraud related crimes.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The later charges do not by themselves establish that the central claims in Shirley's video were substantiated.

According to Snopes, this was Shirley's central claim in the video:

Shirley's central claim was that daycare centers run by Somali Americans received money from the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program and other, unspecified public funding, despite not actually providing child care services, meaning looking after children on their premises.

We would need a reliable secondary source explicitly making a connection between the later charges and Shirley's claims that the daycares were not providing services. Otherwise, combining "Shirley made a video saying childcares were not providing services" + "a daycare owner was charged with fraud" risks synthesis by making an implicit connection between Shirley's claims and the later charges. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Shirleys video was him highlighting several specific facilities for fraud, at least that was his allegations. This isnt synthesis, its just objective fact as the sources provided explicitly state that the owner of one of the facilities that he investigated has been federally charged with fraud related crimes. As it stands, the article clearly states this because its based on what the cited sources, like CBS News, stated. None of this is in violation of any wikipedia guideline.

Having in the opening paragraph that his allegations "were unsubstantiated" violates the NPOV guidline by taking a clear side in the discussion around it. And again, this is now out of date reporting as those stories were all published before the charges came to light. This is also an ongoing much larger legal case into multiple facilities for fraud charges too. The article should not take a side in either direction and should be updated with updates to this case as they are reported. Simply relying on the initial reporting as the end all makes no sense.

Friedbyrd (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there are a few separate issues here.

First item: Shirley’s video was him highlighting several specific facilities for fraud is more general than how reliable sources have described his claims. Besides the Snopes quote above, according to AP, his claims were that they were "running fake child care centers". Shirley was not just making general fraud allegations in his video.

Second, I agree that reliable sources support that the owner of one facility featured in the video was later charged. That is not the synthesis concern. The synthesis concern is using that later charge to imply that Shirley's specific claim about daycares not providing child care services was validated in some way.

And Third, I do not think "unsubstantiated" violates NPOV if it accurately reflects the prominent coverage in reliable sources. If the widespread coverage says the claims could not be substantiated, could not be independently verified, or were not supported by inspectors, then the article should summarize that coverage accurately. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated does violate the NPOV when this was all initial reporting done in the immediate aftermath of his video coverage that has since been called into question since at least one of the facility owners has been federally charged with fraud related crimes. Once again, this is an ongoing legal case, but the fact that federal agencies were able to get a warrant for an arrest and charge someone at least calls into question the initial "unsubstantiated" claim. Also, this is all part of a much wider fraud case into hundreds of similar facilities that is currently being investigated by both state and federal agencies. I maintain that the current language and placement of that specific sentence violates the NPOV and is essentially well poisoning.

Saying that Shirleys specific claims about the facility were not exactly technically true is hair splitting. He alleged that a specific facility was committing fraud as part of the wider Feeding our Future fraud scandal and that facility is later charged with fraud. Saying that his claims were "unsubstantiated" is misleading, especially when all these reports came out before this charge was brought.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• If you want to change what the lead says, you need to at least start by providing the sources you feel support it. The current sources describe the video's allegations as unsubstantiated, and nothing in the article or its sources contradicts that; as a reminder, being charged with something is not a conviction and even if we ignored the WP:SYNTH concerns it would not, itself, substantiate anything. (Indeed, the government has brought clearly-unsubstantiated charges in the past.) Also, the idea that we must avoid "taking a side" in the abstract misunderstands WP:NPOV. We don't take a side between sources of equal weight. But when the best available sources unilaterally or near-universally say something, we reflect that; it's not taking a side to report that sources say that the earth is round, or that evolution or climate change is real, or that Shakespeare was the author of Hamlet, or who won the 2020 election, or that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War, or any number of other things that some people might personally disagree over but which the best available sources are clear on. If you don't think that this falls into that sort of category, you need to actually present the sources that you feel disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Article laden with false info

The owner of the fraudulent daycare center from the viral Nick Shirley video, has pled guilty. Delete everything that says that there's no evidence of fraud, or that the Somali community wasn't operating fraudulent daycare centers

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/fahima-mahamud-fraud-guilty-plea/ ~2026-38945-28 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH as your source makes no mention of Shirley. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I will expand upon why this matters. Imagine a proposal where a person makes assertion A, B, C accusing a person of crime X. A court takes up the matter and makes findings of fact on assertion D, E, F, finding that person is guilty of crime X. In such an hypothetical case the claims are unsubstantiated despite the guilty verdict. We don't know what of Shirley's claims this court finding may have substantiated. We need that laid out. Presently the sources describe his claims as unsubstantiated. If sources about him change then we will follow suit. But the woman, who should not be named per WP:LOWPROFILE, is not him and the article you shared does not discuss him. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223

the article literally links to another CBS article which does mention Nick Shirley

This mental gymnastics of your was for nothing

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/daycare-feeding-our-future-fraud-charges-flee-country/ ~2026-38945-28 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Should it be changed to something like "While his claims were unsubstantiated, the people accused in his video have been found guilty of fraud."? ~2026-40660-62 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This also isn't true, since he accused multiple people. AG202 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

So when do we get to remove the lies that say his investigation and claims are unsubstantiated?

The subject of his investigation has admitted to the fraud. Sounds like the only unsubstantiated claims now are the ones by the biased wikipedia editors. ~2026-39012-76 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

When there is a source which supports his claims and says the Somali community is running fake child care centers. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Does pleading guilty count?

~2026-39115-46 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This source directly contradicts Shirley's claims.

The government did not accuse her of inflating attendance numbers.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems a complete repeat of the discussion above. I would suggest the TA does not need to have the same conversation over and over again. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That source does not “directly contradict” Shirley’s claims - it confirms that one of the centers he highlighted was involved in multimillion-dollar fraud, even if the charged scheme was not inflated attendance. Treating that as irrelevant while keeping the blanket claim that his allegations were “unsubstantiated” reflects a clear bias in how this is being presented in the lead paragraph. ~2026-39150-66 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Without reliable sources drawing the connection between Shirely's claims and the charged scheme, we can't make make that inference as editors that they are connected. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You are retarded. She has been tried and found guilty. ~2026-39188-60 (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

What would count as substantiation for you? The are news articles reporting people in his videos were arrested for fraud, the key premise of his vide. They are also reporting the virality of his videos being a trigger to the executive branch amplifying fraud investigation.

I'm not even saying the intro section needs to say "substantiated", but leaving "unsubstantiated" in there is a very clear soft "slight" that a reader's view on the individual in a particularly biased way. ~2026-39276-62 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "reliable sources" means left-wing sources. That's how Wikipedia works. ~2026-29357-37 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2026

Change "The Allegations were unsubstantiated" to "On July 10th 2026, one of the owners of the a daycare he investigated admitted to fraud charges in court. Fahima Mahamud plead guilty to charges one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States."

 ~2026-39314-22 (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Newsweek is not considered a reliable source (see WP:NEWSWEEK). Day Creature (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2026 (2)

Replace the sentence “…unsubstantiated” with

“Nick Shirley’s Somali fraud investigation led to multiple arrests and one guilty plea as of July 2006.” ["Fahima Mahamud Pleads Guilty to $4.6M Daycare Fraud Scheme." CBS News Minnesota, CBS Interactive, 10 July 2026, cbsnews.com. Accessed 11 July 2026.] ~2026-39391-47 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The recent guilty plea of the owner of the Future Leaders Early Learning daycare center is already mentioned in the "Allegations of daycare and healthcare fraud in Minnesota" section of the article. There is no indication in the sources that Shirley's video resulted in the investigation and arrest of this individual, or that the specific allegations in his video were substantiated by the later legal proceedings against them. Day Creature (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

“Unsubstantiated”

People are being not only charged but found guilty of exactly what Nick Shirley was investigating. This page is extremely misleading and shows the underlying bias of the editing team. It makes it seem like Nick Shirley was crazy or targeting completely innocent people and that there is no fraud where he investigated. This drives down the credibility of Wikipedia. Now this page is even locked for editing because so many people have seen these recent events but the editing team is too stubborn to look at new evidence, acknowledge their bias, and acknowledge they were wrong. ~2026-39182-27 (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39182-27 Yup agree. I just changed it. Literally one person in the video was just arrested just arrested by the FBI for $4.6m in daycare fraud as well as $860,000 from the Feeding Our Futures scam fraud as well. Mainstream media defending criminals and not doing due diligence before calling the claims unsubstantiated.

https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/2075414571700113415?s=20 Alexysun (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2026 (3)

Change this "Shirley's central claims that members of the Somali community were operating fake childcare centers or inflating attendance numbers were unsubstantiated" to "Nick's claims are now substantiated." https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/2075370204297576489 ~2026-39188-60 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. X posts are not reliable sources. Day Creature (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/fahima-mahamud-fraud-guilty-plea/ Greenwoodjw (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Claims were substantial. Needs correction.

Minneapolis daycare owner featured in Nick Shirley’s video Fahima Egeh Mahamud, PLEADS GUILTY to over $4 million fraud scheme. He was correct and this needs to be updated.

https://www.startribune.com/edina-day-care-center-fraud/601866545 ~2026-39457-75 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Second this. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know the exact process, but how come this (the statement that claims were unsubstantiated) can't just be changed now it's proven incorrect? Fahima Mahamud, owner of the Future Leaders Early Learning Center (explicitly features in one of Shirley's videos) has plead guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy. Nestyles (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The article needs an update.

The claim that Nick Shirley's reporting was "unsubstantiated" has since been shown to be inaccurate. Fahima Egeh Mahamud, the Minneapolis daycare owner featured in Shirley's video, later pleaded guilty in connection with a fraud scheme involving more than $4 million. This means the investigation was not only substantiated but ultimately corroborated by subsequent legal proceedings. Icext (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Lol, good luck with that. Wikipedia is a far-left activist organization, not an encyclopedia. You might as well ask Pravda to update their reporting on the success of the latest five-year plan. ~2026-29357-37 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is incredible. One of the main authors spent the entire debate ranting about how "The Trump Regime" means that reliable sources can be ignored. I'll be forwarding this talk page to anyone on the fence about stopping their donations to wikipedia. Enough is enough. ~2026-35909-83 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s scandalous. Wikipedia is pure partisan lies from the left at this point. An insult to truth and objectivity. No more donations please. ~2026-39354-02 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated is incorrect

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

---

Correction Needed: Outdated "Unsubstantiated" Claim in Lead. ~2026-39337-41 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

All these people do is lie. Many of the claims were fully substantiated resulting in indictments. ~2026-40539-31 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2026 (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.

Lead change and then unchange

@Tioaeu8943 You undid your previous edit changing the lead in your most recent edit. Was this intentional?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Shirley&oldid=1363733912 Alexysun (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not realize it! Not sure how I managed to do that, so thank you for pointing it out. I have just undid my "undo" while keeping the small punctuation change that I had originally intended. Thanks again. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The photo of him is blurry

Why choose out of so many photos of him one which has a lousy photo quality? ~2026-35196-65 (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I noticed your discussion topic while here today. The pickin's are slim: Nick Shirley images on Wikimedia Commons but I did update with a clearer photo per your request. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Independent journalist and removal of right wing in lede

@Tioaeu8943: I do not believe the description “independent journalist” is supported by reliable sources, and some sources appear to contest that characterization. "Right-wing" is a common descriptor in reliable sources, as discussed in the RfC at Talk:Nick_Shirley/Archive_1#RfC:_Political_descriptor. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the description "independent journalist" by some news outlets, including NPR, are provided within the body of the article in the Political videos section, hence the adjustment to lead wording to reflect WP:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether a few reliable sources have used the phrase "independent journalist," but whether Wikipedia should use it. Some sources describe him as a self-described independent journalist, while others dispute either that he is independent or that he is a journalist. Where reliable sources disagree over a characterization, we can't as editors select one side and present it in Wikipedia's voice. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that where reliable sources genuinely disagree over a characterization, Wikipedia shouldn't present one side as an undisputed fact but I disagree that that is actually what's happening here. "Independent journalist" and "right-wing YouTuber" describe different things. One refers to his role or occupation, while the other describes the nature of his content. The question representation and weight in the lead. Per WP, the lead should summarize the article with emphasis that "roughly reflects its importance to the topic." The article is primarily about Shirley's YouTube work and the Minnesota daycare investigation, yet the body carries a single line about how some describe him or his work as "right-wing". Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The use of the descriptor "independent journalist" in wikivoice is how he is being represented in the lead. A non-wikivoice verison would be "According to NPR, Shirley is described as a independent journalist."

Also, I believe it is up to the reliable sources decide how to describe him. Per WP:ROLEBIO

The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern about presenting "independent journalist" in Wikipedia's voice when the sources include both self-description and discussion of criticism. I think adding more attribution to the wording could address that concern. What do you think about:

"Nick Shirley (born April 4, 2002) is an American YouTuber known for street interviews and political videos. Some news organizations have described him as an independent journalist, while Shirley has also described himself as an independent journalist."

This would preserve the sourced material about how he's characterized without presenting it as an uncontested fact, and keep the lead proportional to how it's treated in the body. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that addresses wikivoice but not balance. And it still doesn't reflect consensus of the RFC.

Furthermore, NPR described him as a "self-described independent YouTube journalist," not as an independent journalist in their own voice. I believe the sentence in the body is asynthesis of sources.

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/nx-s1-5662600/nick-shirley-minnesota-daycare-fraud

Additionally, in later coverage, NPR described him as a as a content creator.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/28/nx-s1-5764275/cpac-2026 ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I revised the wording in the body of the article to attribute the "independent journalist" description directly to Shirley, consistent with NPR's "self-described" wording:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Shirley&diff=prev&oldid=1363819321

I also updated the lead to read "self-described independent journalist":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Shirley&diff=next&oldid=1363819321 Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The issues still remain:

• "Self described-independent journalist" is not how he is commonly described in reliable sources
• Under WP:BALANCE, we should not foreground one description while omitting reliable source criticism of it.
• The text is still not inline with RfC consensus of the WP:ROLEBIO.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you point me to the RfC in question and consensus language you're referring to? I want to be sure I understand. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion leading up to the RFC and the RFC itself can be found in Talk:Nick Shirley/Archive 1. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I found this RfC from the link you sent me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Shirley/Archive_1#RfC:_Political_descriptor. Could you point me to the specific language or conclusion you are referring to? Could you also clarify what change you're proposing to the current wording so that I understand the issue you're raising? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The conclusion of the RfC is given in the header following the link.

I'm proposing to revert the lead back to the previous version before your changes. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The RfC consensus supports including a conservative or right-wing descriptor in the lead. My intent with the previous edit was to address the attribution issue with "independent journalist" and ensure the lead reflected sourced content from the body of the article. To address both points, I propose:

"Nick Shirley (born April 4, 2002) is an American conservative YouTuber and self-described independent journalist known for street interviews and videos on political and social issues." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That addresses RfC consensus. It still does not address WP:ROLEBIO or WP:BALANCE described above.

Additional reliable sources supporting "conservative" would also need to be added to the body if that descriptor is used in the lead. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tioaeu8943: I've reverted your changes per the RFC, WP:ROLEBIO, WP:BALANCE, and WP:BRD. Once you saw that it was a contested change, especially with an RFC, the first thing to do would have been to gain consensus here before leaving your change. AG202 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@AG202, your comment confuses me. If you look through this discussion, I asked twice which RfC was being referenced and what language of the consensus was the issue. As soon as I was pointed in it's direction, I did go find it. The last comment I had made here was to seek consensus on a proposed change according to the consensus of that very RfC. I had not had access to the internet or made any changes since. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tioaeu8943: Yes, I appreciate you working to gain consensus, but once it was contested, I would've self-reverted since there was an RFC. AG202 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not expect to lose internet access. In fact, it looks like my proposal had been approved pending sources to back that up, which there are. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That’s not what I see from this discussion. There are still qualms about your proposed changes. AG202 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that there's enough coverage of the term independent journalist to include it in the lead in any form; and certainly we wouldn't usually put someone's self-description there simply because it's a self-description. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sibshops:: The RFC was closed with the message "There is consensus for options A and B. Reliable sources either use the terms 'conservative' or 'right wing'. Since it seems to be 50:50 and right-wing was removed by numerous editors now, that means that either conservative should be added or no label at all. R. Bardghji (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither using no descriptor nor excluding "right-wing" follows from the RfC close. Nor do subsequent removals establish a new consensus overriding the RfC. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We have an RFC result saying "50% of users want to include right-wing, 50% want to include conservative". What does that mean? That there's no consensus and that it should not be be referrred to when making a decision on which label to use R. Bardghji (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That is not what the RfC close says, and consensus is not determined by counting !votes. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

What does it say in your opinion? R. Bardghji (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The close says:

There is consensus for options A and B. Reliable sources either use the terms "conservative" or "right wing", or they describe Shirley's output as advancing conservative or right-wing causes. The opposition amounts to an assertion that 15 reliable sources isn't enough, which has no grounding in MOS:ROLEBIO.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

So why are you treating this message as "The lead should include right-wing!" ? R. Bardghji (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is for either one, so either one is fine, but the consensus is against no political descriptor. AG202 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Whichever descriptor, or combination of descriptors, used in the lead should be supported by reliable sources per weight of the reliable sources. Normal consensus-based editing applies when picking either the option or both. The wording is not determined only by whichever editor makes the latest change. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@R. Bardghji: You changed the lead to "conservative" after I noted that the choice between the RfC-supported options still requires consideration of source weight and consensus. I do not see consensus in this discussion for that specific change. Please self-revert. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've started a follow-up RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Shirley#Follow-up_RFC:_Conservative_or_right-wing R. Bardghji (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• If there is substantial coverage that analyzes his politics in-depth and determines that it is right-wing, we should include that. We can include conservative as well if it likewise has significant coverage; the two don't contradict. Either way the conclusion of the previous RFC was There is consensus for options A and B, ie. to use both; removing either would violate it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Still inaccurate

the doj indicted people based of this reporting and secured conviction. Why are you still downplaying this we all know your leftist hacks. ~2026-39337-41 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

ICE Operations

Regarding the following sentence in the "Allegations of Daycare Fraud Section":

Immigration and Customs Enforcement increased enforcement activity in Minnesota under an initiative known as Operation Metro Surge.[36]

I do not understand why this is included in the article in the way that it is. Operation Metro Surge was an independent operation unrelated to daycare fraud. While I can see some arguable relevance between ICE operations in Minnesota and the anti-Somali sentiment under discussion, this is included without any context as to how it relates to the discussion of daycare or healthcare fraud.

I think this sentence either needs further explanation about how this relates to the matters under discussion, or it should be eliminated entirely pursuant to WP:IRRELEVANT. In either case, I think it warrants discussion. ~2026-39538-34 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. The connection needs to be made explicit. I can fix. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Revert of unsubstantiated from lede

@Oort1: I do not believe reliable sources support removing "unsubstantiated" from the lead.

I don't know of any sources which directly connect the charges with Shirley's claims.

Also, Fahima Mahamud was not accused of inflating attendance figures: https://www.wbir.com/article/news/nation-world/minnesota-daycare-fahima-mahamud/507-15de8cef-299c-4bf2-b16b-704be16050fd

The government did not accuse her of inflating attendance numbers. Instead, she admitted that she didn't collect the required copay amounts from the families she enrolled...

This appears to separate what she was charged with from the allegations made in Shirley's video. So we as editors can not conclude the charges or plea substantiate Shirley's claims without reliable sources making this connection, first. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

+1. The claims that Nick Shirley made himseflf are unsubstantiated. AG202 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Shorty Baller: I am not aware of any reliable sources supporting the removal of "unsubstantiated" from the lead. Even if reliable sources were found that supported some of Shirley’s claims, the article would still need to reflect the overall balance of reliable-source coverage. Editors should not remove reliably sourced material merely because they personally believe it is no longer accurate. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up RFC: Conservative or right-wing

A previous RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Shirley/Archive_1#RfC:_Political_descriptor determined that either "conservative" or "right-wing" should be used to describe Shirley, without clearly saying which one to use. To prevent a constant back and forth I am starting this follow-up RFC to hopefully get a clearer consensus. R. Bardghji (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This RfC seems premature because there has not yet been a discussion about which descriptor is more commonly used or better supported by the reliable sources. That discussion should occur before opening an RfC. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

why do we need an RfC to decide between synonyms? Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

To prevent edit warring? R. Bardghji (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

An informal discussion should be sufficient to prevent edit-warring between two terms with precisely the same meaning? Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

But just for the purpose of determining frequency of use, "Nick Shirley" +conservative returns 27 results in Wikipedia Library while "Nick Shirley" +"right wing" returns 20 results. There is substantial overlap between these results because it's not just me saying "it's the same term" it's also basically everyone who writes about this youtuber who doesn't distinguish between conservative and right-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Boldly pulling the plug on this RFC. Certainly this doesn't need another RFC and can be determined without another one. I'm fine with either option. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If they're synonyms we should use the term that is less "loaded", i.e. conservative R. Bardghji (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not our role to determine which aspects of the subject editors consider "loaded" and put our thumb on the scale to omit them; if significant amounts of reliable coverage describes him as right-wing, and nothing contradicts or casts doubt on it, then we should treat it as fact and include it per the RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how right-wing is in any way more loaded than conservative is. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• The summary of this RFC is wrong (which violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL.) The conclusion of the previous RFC was There is consensus for options A and B, ie. we use both. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Isn't this very unusual though R. Bardghji (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. Because they are equivalent terms. Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hm.. All the votes say A or B. I think we may need clarification.

  @Voorts: Did you mean to say "A and B" or "A and/or B" in the RFC close? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  The word "and" means "and". voorts (talk/contributions) 12:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks for the clarification. The page is updated to use both descriptors. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If given only the two options and if I had to pick, it appears that "right-wing" may have more support in my opinion. The Associated Press directly describes Shirley as a "right-wing influencer" in most of their articles. Vox and The Guardian group him as part of right-wing content creator media.

Semafor is helpful since it has a direct comparison between right-wing and conservative media. They place Shirley within the right-wing creator class rather than part of the conservative media. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2026

The Wikipedia article for Nick Shirley contains internal contradictions, where the lead section's claim that his fraud allegations were "unsubstantiated" is directly refuted by later content detailing July 2026 federal convictions. While early reports and the lead section relied on 2025/2026 dismissals to label the claims as unverified, the subsequent federal conviction of a facility operator for millions in fraud validates the core premise of the allegations. Having this false info at the top of the page is blatantly trying to discredit nick for anyone who views this article and don't read all the way to the bottom since typical users just read the overview at the beginning. the lead section's claim that his fraud allegations were "unsubstantiated" needs to be removed to maintain factual integrity and should be rewritten to show that he did an investigation that lead to federal prosecutors charging 15 people in Minnesota for daycare and healthcare-related fraud schemes. While Fahima Egeh Mahamud is the most prominent individual to explicitly plead guilty so far, the broader legal fallout directly tied to the scrutiny generated by Nick Shirley’s video includes: Massive FBI and Federal Raids: In April 2026, federal agents executed sweeping search warrants at approximately 20 different childcare centers across Minneapolis. The $90 Million Crackdown: According to recent July 2026 Congressional testimony and updates, the U.S. Department of Justice has aggressively scaled up its efforts, indicting 15 individuals linked to these combined daycare and Medicaid billing schemes totaling over $90 million. Expansion into Transit Fraud: Shirley released a subsequent investigative video exposing fraud within taxpayer-funded specialized transportation services for children and the elderly. This triggered a secondary round of state audits into "ghost vehicles" and fake addresses operating within the same network. Because federal grand jury investigations are ongoing, many specific names in the 20-site raid remain sealed under active indictments until they formally make their first court appearances.

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota Case Number: 0:26-mj-00168

Because the plea agreement was entered very recently on July 9, 2026, the complete multi-page PDF of the formal plea text is currently restricted behind the federal judiciary's paid PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) portal under the District of Minnesota. If you have a PACER account, you can log in directly using the case number above to download the unredacted plea document. Otherwise, you can review the authenticated details of the July 9th hearing and plea breakdown via public reporting from FOX 9 Minneapolis or the legal case overview published by the Deseret News.

https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-fraud-minneapolis-day-care-owner-feeding-our-future-defendant-pleads-guilty-jul-8-2026 https://www.deseret.com/politics/2026/07/10/minnesota-daycare-owner-pleads-guilty-to-fraud/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72279563/united-states-v-mahamud/ https://heartlandernews.com/minnesota-daycare-owner-pleads-guilty-to-state-and-federal-fraud-charges-over-multi-million-dollar-scheme/ ~2026-40023-46 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. This is being actively discussed above, in the "Revert of unsubstantiated from lede" section. Day Creature (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2026

The thread "Revert of unsubstantiated from lede" is about certain attempted changes of the lead sentence that ends with "unsubstantiated". This edit request mentions the lead and that word. But it's saying the claim "needs to be removed". If this request is about supporting those changes mentioned in the earlier thread, then I'd suggest: move this request to the end of that earlier thread. But if this request is about removing the whole sentence instead of those changes mentioned in the earlier thread, then I'd suggest: say so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2026

Shirley's central claims that members of the Somali community were operating fake childcare centers or inflating attendance numbers were absolutely substantiated!!! Not only in Minnesota but also California and New York. ~2026-40566-99 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Please cite a reliable source that backs your claims. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2026 (2)

~2026-40768-47 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Nick Shirley found a ridiculous amount of evidence an helped in the conviction of dozens of Somali daycare fraudsters those claims are substantiated

 Not done: As with the other requests above, provide a reliable source for this claim. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2026

~2026-40834-28 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This has lies in it. Abundant evidence was found that showed Somalians involved in daycare fraud.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2026

Give more objective summary of Nick.

1) "Early activities" Mention his allegations and research have led to real arrests and findings of fraud. This is not mentioned.

2) Update "Allegations of daycare and healthcare fraud in Minnesota" to: "Allegations of daycare and healthcare fraud in Minnesota and Findings" Share all results: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/minnesota-health-care-fraud-takedown-results-charges-against-15-defendants-over-90m-fraud Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown, which resulted in criminal charges against 15 defendants, including owners of child care centers and various Medicaid providers, for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving over $90 million in intended loss..

Autism Fraud... ~2026-40820-50 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 28 July 2026

• What I think should be changed (the article falsely states the following: “Shirley's central claims that members of the Somali community were operating fake childcare centers or inflating attendance numbers were unsubstantiated.“):
• this statement is false as there have been arrests and convictions as a result of Nick Shirley’s journalism of the daycare fraud:
• References supporting the possible change (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15837387/somali-minneapolis-daycare-fraud-learing-center-youtube.html):

(“https://nypost.com/2026/07/10/us-news/minnesota-daycare-owner-in-viral-video-admitted-to-filing-more-than-4-6m-in-false-claims/“)

(“https://wltreport.com/2026/07/09/just-in-minneapolis-daycare-owner-pleads-guilty-in-4m-fraud-scheme/“)

“https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2026/03/03/somali-autism-center-guilty-fraud/“

~2026-41949-21 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Only one of the above links actually works (almost as if they were hallucinated by an LLM), but it doesn't matter because not a single one of those sources is considered reliable for this sort of material. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello You're being disingenuous. They already caught one of the people that appeared in the video. Plead guilty btw. Alexysun (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Also one of the links is to the Daily Caller. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm being disingenuous? For declining an edit request full of (mostly broken) links to deprecated and generally unreliable sources? That's funny. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

References