Talk:Stephen Richer
Add topic| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Violations of "Biographies of living persons" policy
[edit]It seems hard to believe that this article is in compliance with the policy for biographies of living persons.
It clearly is not written from a neutral point of view. Rather, it is unremittingly critical. It appears to give undue weight to (poorly sourced) claims that Richer, the subject of the article, is an attention seeker. This claim is given weight equal to or greater than praise from Time magazine and the Ash Center at the Harvard Kennedy school. It portrays Richer as supporting conspiracy theories, then reversing course. This appears to be based on the fact that Richer participated in one partisan audit and criticized another partisan audit - however, this fact is not explicitly stated, and the article does not sufficiently demonstrate that the two audits had similar issues. It portrays Richer as guilty by association, going on at length about the alleged sins of his associates It omits important context. Richer repeated unsubstantiated claims but noted that they were unsubstantiated. Richer paid money to an election-denying former associate, but this was part of a settlement with the Arizona Senate. Richer expressed interest in appearing on "new right" media, but he wanted to challenge claims that the election was stolen.
Many claims in this article are not verifiable. The sources are often very low quality, and even the high-quality sources frequently fail to support the claims made in the article. One citation consists of a list of podcasts in which Richer appears or is mentioned - it is not clear which of these podcasts, if any, contains the quotations in the text. The article claims that Richer aired certain allegations on a podcast; the citation provided announces an online event but does not provide a recording or transcript. Many other citations are only loosely related to the claims in the article.
The article contains a significant amount of original research. An article is said to "indirectly" support the claim Richer is an attention seeker. Richer is said to be an ally of Turning Point USA, but no citation is provided. There are many other instances where the article goes beyond its source material.
I'll also note that the article is not well-organized, and some of the information provided does not seem especially noteworthy. For example, It's not clear why Richer's bad tweets are noteworthy (except perhaps as a way to make Richer look bad).
I hope to follow up on these issues, but I wanted to bring some attention to them sooner rather than later. ESP85 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Probable AI text
[edit]Concerns were raised previously about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Read WP:AISIGNS for more information for why this is tagged; however, note that fixing the issue requires more than just removing the superficial signs.
Rationale: On closer inspection, much of this article appears to be written by an LLM. Unusual headings, overabundance of em-dashes, several sources bearing a ChatGPT tag in previous revisions Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)