Talk:James A. Lindsay

BLP template tags and bio information

Jweiss11 has already concisely explained why the removal of the criticism of postmodernism tags was inappropriate. [1] Around the same time, HEB also removed all references to cultural critic from the BLP template.[2][3] Lindsay is a critic of religion (with three books on atheism) and postmodernism (with a bestseller book on the subject). He is best known for exposing and criticizing low peer-review standards in academia. "Cultural critic" serves as an accurate and apt summary of these aspects of his oeuvre.

To address the more recent and more controversial aspects of Lindsay’s notability (or notoriety, if you prefer), we can now refer to the November 2023 LA Times article, which describes Lindsay as a conservative influencer. (Credit to Aquillion for bringing this RS to our attention.)

"Author, cultural critic, and conservative influencer" encapsulates all aspects of Lindsay’s notability, spanning both non-controversial and controversial, scholastic and political. If others prefer terms like "conservative commentator" or "conservative podcaster" instead of "conservative influencer," I have seen these and other labels applied to him in recent publications, although not in sources as reputable as the WP:LATIMES.

Additionally, I have (re)set Lindsay’s date of birth to June 8, 1979. This time, we are sourcing the information from his Ph.D. thesis Vita instead of the tweet that Valereee removed.[4]

While reading the Vita, I noticed we have an error in his academic bio. He holds a BS in physics, not mathematics (his MSci and PhD are in math). This is now corrected. XMcan (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative influencer" is clearly appropriate, but I'm not seeing the sources calling him a "cultural critic", and I'm skeptical that he's notable enough as a critic of postmodernism to put it in the template or to include the infobox - it's not mentioned anywhere in the article and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the sources. It seems to me like he mentioned postmodernism in passing as a bête noire but that was extremely common for conservative influencers in that era, who used it as a catchall for things they disagreed with. It wasn't the main thrust of what he was saying, which means it isn't reflected in the sourcing or coverage, which in turn means it doesn't really have a place in the article; he has no notability under that role, as can be seen from the lack of sourcing supporting it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"cultural critic" has been in the article for a long time, but I'm not seeing it as useful or well-sourced. A non-exhaustive search did not turn up coverage in reliable sources that describes him in those terms. I'd support removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

An additional reason to support Jweiss11's point for keeping the CoP box and tags is that Lindsay is best known for the Grievance Studies affair. If you look in the CoP box, you will see it featured there. XMcan (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My contention is that cultural critic is a summary of already established and listed interests, which, if necessary, can also be cited to Newsweek, as well as to multiple conservative sources, e.g., The Post Millennial.

An alternative is scholar (The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal), or even mathematician (New York Magazine).

At the moment, I am leaning toward "author, scholar, and cultural critic" for the lede per Viriditas' concern that "conservative influencer" is pejorative. Of course, we could keep the current descriptor "author," but on its own, that is so generic and nondescript. Author of what -- children's novels, cookbooks, fan fiction? XMcan (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that we have at least one mainstream RS for each descriptor, can other editors chime in so we can move toward consensus? XMcan (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked through recent news articles and they overwhelmingly use 'author' (as do Lindsay's self-written bios, though that matters less), so we should stick with that. 'Author' and 'Scholar' overlap and so are largely redundant, and scholar is much less used. Cultural critic is used by almost no one. MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be beneficial if editors could include links to new articles they’ve found. If there is an overwhelming number of them, a few exemplary ones will suffice. XMcan (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should also consider the negative use of "influencer", as it has become rapidly pejorative over the last year or so, whereas before, it was seen as something almost legitimate or reputable. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

So you are aware that this is a BLP yet you are restoring challenged text without fulfilling the requirements for doing so? Can you explain that? Also note that if none of the sources say it then it can't be a summary, it can only be original synthesis or analysis which are prohibited per WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if your contentions are true — and that’s far from certain — your wholesale reversal that deleted DOB and other key biographical information is clearly inappropriate. Additionally, you reverted Firefangledfeathers' contrib without explanation. That being said, you are welcome to participate in this discussion if you can contribute constructively. XMcan (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What is innaproriate is calling it vandalism... And edit warring on a BLP Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You’ve again blanked out the DOB on a BLP, which answers your own question. I’ve promised Valereee I won’t do repeat reverts over the same content, so I’m backing off and letting others decide what to do with your indiscriminate deletions. Additionally, I'd like to remind you that you have been advised to moderate your tone and behavior in a recent ANI. XMcan (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't actually, I advise you to actually read WP:BLP... Specifically: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." such as the description of the subject as a "cultural critic" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that I don't see the DOB in the link you gave. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The DOB is on the last page of the dissertation. It would be better to change all the dissertation citations to refer directly to the pdf version available on that page (this url). The DOB citation could specify the page number (93). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My word it is actually in there... Well there's a first time for everything (I've never seen a DOB in a thesis before) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's odd. Would you be ok with my restoring the DOB and fixing up the citations? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I went for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry we got on the wrong foot here, Horse Eye's Back. I see now that you made an honest mistake, and I hope you continue to participate in discussions on this BLP. XMcan (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic

I've added notices. If we need to add revert or consensus required restrictions to this page, we can, but honestly I still can't figure out why none of you has taken this to NPOVN or BLPN. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, I agree that we need a formal method to resolve this dispute, and I am considering following Springee’s advice to utilize the RfC format. But first, we need to do something about Pokerplayer513 and their disregard for the basic BRD cycle. Their first attempt to insert SPLC cite has been reverted here. Right afterwards, they re-inserted it in a different place but under identical context.[5] When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib.[6] I have discussed SPLC extensively in the Talk and suggested particular quotes to use, yet Pokerplayer has not posted a single comment in Talk. To make the matter worse, they have reinserted disputed edits from other editors, against a clear BLUNDEL warning to seek consensus first.[7] This is why before any formal dispute resolution process, we need this BLP placed under a "consensus required" page restriction. In addition, Pokerplayer513 should be asked to self-revert the two vio edits or face sanctions. XMcan (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@XMcan apologies. I assumed the SPLC was more neutral/moderate than Jacobin or Current Affairs and since it was saying something similar to the current citations then it would be ok. That's why I made my first edit. When you removed it I was confused as to why, but I figured it was because it was in the lede so I moved it to the conspiracy theory section. I didn't include an attribution because Jacobin and Current Affairs didn't and again, I thought it was more moderate/centrist/neutral than the other two so I didn't think it was necessary.

"When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib.[8]" - XMcan

It did have a in-line attribution, but you deleted it on the previous edit. I suppose I could have done a full revert, but I figured just adding back the citation would be a compromise since I wasn't sure why you deleted the text in the first place considering the other sources do not "attempt to reframe and redefine CMCT" and the Weigel source does "explicitly say Lindsay promotes CMCT" and I said in my original edit. Weigel explicitly says "Most of his rhetoric focuses on the specter of cultural Marxism...". Further the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page says "Conspiracy theories claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society" which is almost the exact same as the text you deleted from @Aquillion which said "...the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which alleges a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism." Those mean basically the same thing in this case.

That being said, even though the CMCT article mentions antisemitism throughout, I can see why it isn't necessary to mention here. I'll make the appropriate changes.

If there's something I misunderstood then please clarify for me. How is CMCT being redefined on Lindsay's page since it's the same as on the CMCT page and how does Weigel's article not say Lindsay promotes CMCT? Also, I haven't posted to the talk page because I put my justification in the edit summary. It seemed like you hadn't read the citation before deleting it so I thought a simple edit summary would suffice. I await your reply. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edit represents a relative improvement over the previous version, but I still believe we should refrain from appending to the original sentence while we continue to debate whether sources support the FSCT link.

That being said, let me highlight areas where we seem to agree. If CMCT were defined as the notion of a "concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism," then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is synonymous with the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, which is described as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness." Do you see the distinction? Jweiss11 can correct me if I am misinterpreting his views, but both he and I are asserting that the latter characterization is a misrepresentation of L's views, and there is no support in reliable sources that L promotes FSCT or anything antisemitic. (Even Lindsay's SPLC profile does not mention anything about antisemitism or the Frankfurt School.) This is why I suggest that instead of linking him to FSCT/CMCT, we follow the approach of the LA Times and simply atrib and quote from SPLC that L promotes "conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world." Can we agree on that?

Another factor to consider is that the term "cultural Marxism" has different connotations depending on whom you ask. To some, it refers to FSCT, while according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which presumably reflects common usage, it denotes something different. I don’t want to debate who is right and who is wrong; I’m simply pointing out that different people attribute different meanings to the term. XMcan (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"If CMCT were defined as... then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is..." - XMcan

It seems like the main issue you have XMcan is over the definition of Cultural Marxism which isn't something that should be decided on Lindsay's page. I see the distinction you are making and I think the CMCT page goes into depth on those distinctions in a way that Lindsay's page can't and shouldn't. I think removing references to antisemitism from Lindsay's page makes sense if it's contentious and if it isn't a very notable part of Lindsay's public persona (but maybe it is, I don't know), I don't think the LA Times/SPLC quote would be an improvement either as it doesn't give it a broader context. Also, Cultural Marxism does vary in meaning and I think the CMCT page goes into those variations as well. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion and MrOllie, what would you say are the two highest quality sources for “Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory”? If Weigel is considered the top one, which would you regard as the second best in your estimations? XMcan (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Both Aquillion and MrOllie seem to have chosen not to respond to the previous question, likely due to their ongoing contributions elsewhere. The ANI hasn't facilitated a resolution; instead, it has stirred up further controversy. It appears that you (and perhaps Novem Linguae) are the only sysops willing to mediate this content dispute. Therefore, I propose to you the following path forward:

1. I will write an RfC for the Weigel source. After about two weeks or so, it would be preferable if Valereee could write the closing summary. You're already somewhat familiar with the issues, and you haven't taken a side, neither here nor in the CMCT Talk. (I don't consider my p-block from CMCT Talk as you taking a side; my final acts there were made in frustration, and that wasn't cool).
2. Before initiating the Weigel RfC, it's crucial to establish a consensus-required restriction on this article, at least for sources. Since I raised concerns about the quality of BLPSOURCES weeks ago, questionable cites have been (re)added without a clear consensus, violating BLPUNDEL and arguably in an effort to substitute quality with the quantity of OVERCITE. [9][10][11][12]
3. In accordance with BLUNDEL, the CMCT sentence needs to be reset to its state before the disputed citations and text were added. The Weigel RfC and potential follow-up RfCs will determine whether the disputed material is reinstated.

Does this proposed plan sound reasonable to you, and are you willing to monitor its implementation? XMcan (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think maybe a consensus-required restriction for sources would be helpful here, but I'd like to hear from @Aquillion and @MrOllie on that, too. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be very concerned about the potential for folks to claim 'no consensus' and force RFCs for every added source as a means to stonewall. In my view we are already seeing indications that that would happen on this talk page, between the repeated argument that sources labeled as 'marxist' in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor are inherently unreliable, or the WP:CRYBLP-style statements that obviously well-cited content must be removed because a minority disagrees. We should not create a situation where obviously on-topic, peer-reviewed sources are subjected to an arbitrary 30 day hold (the standard RFC running time) while RFCs are run because one or two people object to normal editing. I am also concerned by the suggestion that a closer for an RFC would be pre-selected by the person opening that RFC, a principle that would seem to be game-able for obvious reasons. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If anybody is SQS stalling here, it is MrOllie. First with the ANI, then not responding to a simple question above, and now by attempting to derail the RfC plan that would lead to a clear outcome.

If anybody has concerns about V’s impartiality, let them speak plainly. V has been moderating our dispute from the start, and there is no reason to change this – unless V doesn’t want to be involved with all our drama anymore, for which I wouldn’t blame them. XMcan (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If we can settle this with an RFC, I will happily start one. I would phrase it something like "Should the article state that Lindsay is known for promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory?"

But I do not agree to any special conditions for such an RFC. No preconditions about special restrictions. No unusual runtimes. No selecting a closer in advance. No removing things while the RFC runs - we stick with the status quo as it is now.

What say you? MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought my 3-step plan above was a reasonable compromise. Should I have insisted that both CMCT links be deleted from the BLP first, so that you and Aquillion can start a 30-day RfC about re-including them? Because that is my reading of BLPUNDEL and BLPRS regarding contentious material that is poorly sourced.

Given that Weigle alone is 21 pages long, your plan to have editors consider five, or however many, OVERCITE sources at once would certainly waste their time and might discourage many from participating. I have offered to write an RfC focused on what you have repeatedly identified as the best source. If Weigle passes muster, I don’t intend to waste my time or yours by RfCing lesser sources. XMcan (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wasting the community's time would be holding redundant RFCs. If you think the statement needs to be removed, we can hold a single RFC on the statement. But a plan that would involve us holding RFC after RFC for months is not going to work. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's any reasonable way to interpret an attempt to remove the Weigel source entirely as being reasonable; it's the best source available and is obviously superior to the ones already in the article. As I said above, I feel that if you disagree with the way it's being summarized, the best alternative would be to propose an alternative summary yourself. If you think that it is somehow entirely unreliable, you could take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you've really made that argument. From my perspective, though, this discussion is essentially over at this point - you wanted better sources; I found one and added it; and there was a general consensus backing both that use of the source and the general version, even if you refuse to accept it. At that point WP:SATISFY applies, especially given that you've repeatedly failed to articulate any alternative summaries of the source in question or provide any other sources that might point to other formulations. To exclude a source entirely, you need a rationale that it's unusable, not just your personal disagreement with how it is summarized. And, in case it needs to be said, I obviously wouldn't support removing it for the full course of an RFC; it has clear consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

Maintenance tags themselves need consensus, and it is apparent that the 'Better source needed' does not have it. If anything, it seems that the opinion of most who have commented on these sources is that RSOPINION does not apply - and the fact that a couple of editors disagree is no reason to keep a tag up indefinately. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Possibly true, but I have an altogether different take and interpretation based on my own personal experience. Maintenance tags need discussion. If the use of a maintenance tag has already been discussed and consensus has been found to remove it, then it should not be added back. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

JRE #4

Are we really going to keep arguing about this after this latest conspiracy theory JRE upload? Lindsay just went full conspiracy theorist (never go full conspiracy theorist), waxing poetic with Joe about Chinese trans plots to subvert America. Can we please stop pretending Lindsay isn't the number one conspiracy theorist on the right? I don't want to link to it here, but the relevant clip was just posted to r/DecodingTheGurus. Quote from the podcast: "The Chinese are like funding the trans stuff. They're like...pushing it. I just wrote a book...called The Queering of the American Child that talks about how schools have been turned into indoctrination centers. It all goes back, to the not just Marxist, but Maoist strategy to make the world conform, that politics of compliance, to make the world conform to this new ideological vision that they have." Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't do Original Research even when it seems frustratingly obvious what is going on. It is frustrating that News outlets generally don't bother to cover these things events (Just try being British and watching our media completely ignore dangerous extremism when it comes from "respectable" upper middle class authors while performatively wringing their hands over the alleged "extremism" of peaceful protesters!) but we still need Reliable Sources before we can cover anything. We certainly can't use a phrase like "the number one conspiracy theorist", besides that might be seen as a badge of honour and a challenge to other conspiracy theorists to up their game. The only thing I can suggest is to keep an eye out for coverage in Reliable Sources that can be used and then follow those. At least the article is protected now so valid coverage can't be so easily removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is my first day. Lindsay's quote points to his book, so the sources should mention it. Viriditas (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory projection and distorted language.

In the initial paragraph there is the objectively incorrect statement "He has promoted right-wing conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism and LGBT grooming conspiracy theories." THIS is not only incorrect, but a distortion and weaponized use of the term "conspiracy theory". Lindsay has been ACCUSED of perpetuating "conspiracy theories". Whether or not he actually perpetuates "conspiracy theory" is a matter of opinion and based on actual evidence, an inversion of truth. There is no actual evidence these are simply "theories" rather than objective observations of REALITY. This is NOT the equivalent of "flat earth". Labeling "cultural marxism" as a "conspiracy theory" is an obfuscation and subversion of reality and fact. Cultural marxism exists, it is a real phenomenon and it is perpetuated by the "progressive" left. That is a fact. The details of which can be debated. The same goes for "LGBT grooming". This again is an observed phenomenon in the real world. Labeling it a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to delegitimize a very RATIONAL perspective and position. The goal of this distortion of language is to delegitimize Lindsay and his work. This should at MINIMUM be changed to "He has BEEN ACCUSED OF PROMOTING right-wing conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism and LGBT grooming conspiracy theories." BrakeYawSelf (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

BrakeYawSelf, I largely concur with your thoughts here. This article is among the most blatantly biased and defamatory on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner? I’ll wait for an answer. I follow Lindsay’s Twitter feed. He’s one of the leading right wing conspiracy theorists. In fact, if someone can show me a popular tweet he’s made that isn’t a conspiracy theory, I would be very surprised. Also, I will repeat yet again that the idea he’s an atheist is one of the most unusual claims I’ve ever seen. He has literally spent the last few years on Twitter promoting Christianity, and the vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists. Something is very weird here. I believe this might have something to do with the argument advanced by conservatives like Leo Strauss, Roger Scruton, and others, perhaps even going back to Plato, who believe that society must force religion on the common people and oppose the tendency of liberalism to secularize in order to maintain social harmony. Even that crazy idea is a conspiracy theory. I’m having trouble finding anything Lindsay says or does that isn’t based in a kind of conspiracy. Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, ironically you are offering up an conspiracy theory about Lindsay right here, that his atheism is some sort of nefarious ploy or trojan horse that he's been plotting for years (including many years before he was well-known or associated with any conservatives) only to smuggle in Christianity at a later date. He's an atheist because he don't believe in any gods. He's written entire books about this. See the "Works" section of this article. It's pretty simple. Just like he's an American because he is a citizen of the U.S. This isn't complicated. Also, citation needed on the claim that "vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists". How could you know that? As for which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner, here are couple examples: Dennis Dworkin (https://www.unr.edu/global-studies/people/dennis-dworkin) and Fredric Jameson here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The atheism thing is something we have discussed before, so I just brought it up again to note that I’m not done with it. As I said, a so called "atheist" keeps promoting Christianity on Twitter. That doesn’t make any sense. As for how I know his followers are fundies, Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of his followers. I will take another look in about four hours from now. As for Dworkin and Jameson, I don’t believe their use of "cultural Marxism" has anything to do with what we are talking about. Just to make sure, I am downloading their books right now to check. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I know Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of followers of an account. But merely "following" an account isn't necessarily an endorsement of an account or that account's views. Lindsay also has nearly 500,000 followers. Did you do some sort of analysis on an unbiased sample of that rather large population? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t, but that’s a great idea and I would love to know how to run a query on their database. I thought Musk ended all of that by locking it down when he took over. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea about how run queries like that on Twitter, but even if you could, how would you accurately categorize accounts based on what you can scrape from bios and posts while culling out all the bot accounts. Sounds like a very tough project. At any rate, I think it's safe to say you haven't done any sort of meaningful analysis to support the conclusion you offered above. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have and I did, just by eyeing the profiles. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lindsay is apparently funded by Christian Nationalists.[13]. Again, weird for an "atheist". It doesn’t add up. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

When I eye his followers at https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/followers I see lots of accounts that are aren't even moderately religious much less fundamentalist including David Silverman (activist), Yasmine Mohammed, Konstantin Kisin, and Jay Bhattacharya. I mean that's anecdotal. But so is your eyeing. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Per funded by Christian Nationalists...remember when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were allies? Do you remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Or alternatively, remember when the U.S. gave support to Saddam Hussein? And the Mujahideen of Afghanistan (essentially proto-Taliban/al Qaeda)? Remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This article explains who the group is that Lindsay is working with. More needs to be said about this. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you do that, please go publish it in a reliable source before talking about it here. WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM, you know? This applies to all the rest of the thread too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, yes Viriditas's personal impressions about who follows Lindsay on Twitter and what that means are in WP:NOTFORUM territory. But BrakeYawSelf raised concerns with the content of this article, which is appropriate for discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

'I think the conspiracy theories are true' is not really a concern with the content of this article. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, well, that's a distortion of the concerns raised here, which are that we've elevated the opinions of Lindsay's biased political opponents to the level of facts stated in wiki-voice. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

To quote: The same goes for "LGBT grooming". This again is an observed phenomenon in the real world. Labeling it a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to delegitimize a very RATIONAL perspective and position.. Please don't encourage this sort of thing. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)