Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Sanger article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
The following Wikipedia contributormay be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Aaron Mak (2 October 2025). "The speech wars come for Wikipedia". Politico. Retrieved 3 October 2025. So far, the site's editors have largely derided the "Nine Theses," including in the discussion forum for Sanger's Wikipedia bio.
Antara Baruah (28 October 2025). "Is Grokipedia really a neutral Wikipedia? Elon Musk wants you to believe it". ThePrint. Retrieved 28 October 2025. However, Sanger himself, in a detailed thread he posted on X, has pointed out errors and misreadings on his Grokipedia page. But he added that the article has sourced publicly available information on him, which does not feature on his Wikipedia profile. He called these details "correct, relevant, and interesting."
Zach Weissmueller (23 February 2026). "Can You Trust Wikipedia?". Reason. Retrieved 23 February 2026. For example, Sanger's Wikipedia page says his "status as co-founder has been questioned by [Wikipedia's other co-founder Jimmy] Wales, but is generally accepted." This notes the majority opinion but adds a notable dissenting view.
The source seems to support that you support the doxxing of editors. It isn't confusing or difficult, as it says "admins and those with significant authority in the system should be as easily named and shamed as any ordinary journalist." In case you weren't sure, that would be doxxing .
I'd also be curious to know how you would propose to identify those with "significant authority"?? biggest Mop? - WalterStill not in the Epstein Files Ego15:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've removed the offending content. Given that the subject contests the source's interpretation of his words, and it's only a single source supporting this interpretation, I believe there's sufficient doubt regarding whether it meets the strict requirements of WP:BLP. Note that I found this through Sanger's comment at Special:Diff/1360654041 and I consider this to effectively be an edit request. If there are a handful of sources supporting this interpretation, my understanding is that the burden would shift to Sanger to have a correction published and/or his rebuttal could be added alongside the journalists' interpretation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to step in to clarify a matter of editorial responsibility in BLP cases. It would NEVER be ok to say "well, several sources say it" in a case like there where the subject of an article quite clearly denies it. It is incumbent on us always to use good editorial judgment, not to blindly parrot sources that get things wrong. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Per Sanger's "accusing Wikipedia administrators of not providing formal charges, due process, or neutral adjudication", has there been an answer to this covered by a reliable source that explains this is not how the Wikipedia works in any instance, and that effectively he was requesting special treatment here? If there's a sourced rebuttal we can fit in there, that would be more informative for the reader. the Stefen 𝕋ower03:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Of course I agree. I'm concerned here that readers of this article are only getting his take. If there has been any secondary coverage that counters his position, we could use that as a low-weight rebuttal. the Stefen 𝕋ower05:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
for what this isn't worth, i haven't found anything explaining the specifics yet. most sources are still just reporting what happened, retelling larry's story, or being breitbart. if rs explaining how the systems behind the ban work pops up, i'll dump it somewhere as soon as i can consarn(talk beige)(count ribs)21:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intellectual diversity § Linking to this article in Larry Sanger page. George Ho (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)