Talk:Gonzalo Lira/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Categories

Lira was in all sorts of categories that diluted the categories. Expressing a view does not equate with being an activist. Also he is no longer missing, ergo he shouldn't be categorized as missing. --Dorfpert (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. He is certainly not missing, so that category was removed. Since he is an American citizen of Chilean descent, I am going to remove some of the very Chile specific categories, as there are just too many. I will check if WP:MOS has anything to say about "over categorization" as they do about over-cites and other overdoing things.--FeralOink (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A trivial business deal is noteworthy—but international attention for his disappearance is not?

This Steve Keen business is trivial. There's no allegation of wrongdoing, no lawsuit, no criminal complaint. How can this possibly be noteworthy enough to be included.

But disappearing for a week in a war zone while being mentioned on a dozen international news sites is NOT noteworthy?

Priorities, people, priorities. And don't let your hatred for the subject bias you. --Dorfpert (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The only "international news sites" that have commented on it are Russian propaganda outlets or else small, English-language sites located in countries where the main language is not English. And no one has removed his so-called "disappearance." It's still there (at least until this article is hopefully deleted). What's been removed is the melodramatic bloat around the alleged event.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Dorfpert raises a valid concern. The Keen bit does come off as a somewhat petty thing to include here. Content like this does get included all the time in articles, especially when there is not much else to go on. And it is also helpful when sourced content links to other articles. However, per WP:BLP: 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—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. All agree that The Daily Beast is a questionable source, so until better sourcing can be found, I am highly skeptical that it should stay. Havradim leaf a message 00:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the Keen bit doesn't seem worthy of inclusion. As far as I know, nobody has covered that besides dailybeast, in all the years since it has happened. Perhaps if Lira's career as a economics pundit had been more well known or sustained. as far as I know, the notability there was concentrated around writing a few articles in the 2010-2012 timeframe that were republished on some aggregation websites.

I think comments by Maria Zakharova are more noteworthy. The Bulwark (website) (a center-right political commentary site, however, known for their factual accuracy) released an article about Lira this morning that provides more context around her comments relative to earlier articles than what sputnik said: https://www.thebulwark.com/the-redpill-grifter-who-became-an-anti-ukraine-propagandist-gonzalo-lira/ Cononsense (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If we're including that, we should include the bit from the bulwark that it's been speculated that Lira staged his own disappearance. And maybe about his various anti-Semitic, misogynist, and anti-vax statements as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the argument is a false equivalence (and furthermore a wrong one, since there is information about the subject's dissapearance), the included content talks about a personal project started with a notable economist, which is also related to the paragraph it is placed in. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Keen - a business deal where he was locked out of his own commercial website; Suspension for Sexual Assault at Dartmouth; Failed "Show-biz, "rock star," type career tries as a director and novelist (1/100,000,000 odds of Being John Malkovich), constant Reinvention of himself, and attention getting. <-- Its the sum of its parts, the whole story here, the Bio of this Living Person. --- I listened to his recent podcasts (in which he claims he "signed a document with the SBU not to broadcast, yet he is still doing so - incredulous attention getting); he was talking about NGO's being an intelligence tool in the Ukraine fomenting anti-Russian sentiment. Here is an NPOV visit to pre-invasion Mariupol which speaks about NGO's pouring money into public infrastructure to improve a city that was environmentally degraded by pollution from legacy Soviet industry; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phnpmotMusE So yeah; NGO's pouring money into a place with historic environmental suffering essentially would inform folks that that things could be better and therefore lead to dissatisfaction. Propaganda usually starts from an element of truth; or can be largely true. Wikipedia describes propaganda quite accurately and its worthy of a look. Does this entry need to acknowledge that the subject is a propagandist (at best)? 71.203.10.104 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the article already does a good enough job of implying this without straying into WP:BLP violations. Havradim leaf a message 20:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought the Keen deal coverage was WP:UNDUE. I kept it in the article, but truncated some of the details. I wouldn't have a problem if anyone wants to remove it entirely, as Steve Keen is somewhat marginal himself as far as notability.--FeralOink (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

New article (The Bulwark)

Apparently, there is a new article entirely about Lira, published in The Bulwark [1]. It does add to his notability (the topic of the AfD). It brings up some additional elements that could be relevant to the article, such as repeated cases of anti-semitism, and frequently spreading baseless conspiracy theories (particularly about Covid), and a long list of pro-Russian lies about the current war. Jeppiz (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bulwark may be quite correct about Gonzalo; but it is a donation funded opinion journal.. Some of the things they get right; "Gonzalo Lira, a Chilean-American pro-Russia “social media influencer” and video blogger based in Kharkiv, Ukraine." Their description of him is more accurate than the article here. What will it take to change the article here to call him a video blogger? I would say their opinion-conclusion is correct as well; The good part about the attention he got, though, was that it offers a useful glimpse of the kind of Westerner who ends up in the pro-Kremlin camp: a conspiracy theorist who hates Western liberalism for empowering women and thinks white men are oppressed and exploited by sluts and Jews.

https://www.thebulwark.com/the-redpill-grifter-who-became-an-anti-ukraine-propagandist-gonzalo-lira/ 71.203.10.104 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bulwark piece is already sourcing some things in the current article, but this could be expanded to include antisemitism and the possibility of his having staged his own disappearance (mighty suspicious that Lira tweeted about other pro-Russian "journalists" who have supposedly been killed/disappeared in Ukraine and then... disappeared only to show up completely fine a week later...).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the current wording about his disappearance says it well enough. As far as antisemitism goes, that is a serious charge. Is simply reposting something antisemitic? If a source would quote him actually saying something like "I hate Jews" then maybe I would reconsider. Even The Bulwark doesn't label him an antisemite. After all, they themselves admit that he has spoken out against Ukrainian Nazis. Havradim leaf a message 21:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Who "admits" that? The Bulwark is not endorsing the view that Lira is speaking out against "Nazis". You mean how he's spoken out against the Ukrainian Nazis headed by a Jewish president? As that outspoken Anti-Fascist Sergei Lavrov has told us, the worst anti-semites are Jews and also Hitler was a Jew, so I guess in calling Zelensky a "cokehead" Lira really has taken a stab at Nazism. Seriously, you're assuming way too much good faith with this guy. He does not represent some "you need to listen to both sides" balance to the "Western narrative" on Ukraine (=reality).

I would consider him sharing anti-Semitic comments, including one questioning the Holocaust while saying "Something I came across—what do you all think," worthy of inclusion among Mr. Lira's many regrettable statements.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

So are you implying that the Jews themselves are the worst antisemites? Lira's mother is a Lopez and a Hess - both are Jewish family names. [2] For all we know he is a marrano. Seriously, the "antisemite card" being tossed around this way by The Bulwark and others only renders the concept meaningless. Havradim leaf a message 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything - I'm quoting the Russian foreign minister trying to justify their absurd claims that a Jewish man is a Nazi. Lira calling out "Ukrainian Nazis" is BS - he's just repeating Kremlin propaganda. Meanwhile the actual Nazis in Ukraine are looting, murdering, torturing, and genociding the Ukrainians away everywhere they go - except Lira says it's all a hoax.

So you're saying that calling the theory that there was no Holocaust "interesting" and retweeting a post saying that Jews are somehow sucking the life out of workers is not antisemitic?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I am saying that if you come across a situation where both sides are crying "Nazi", then there exists the possibility that a) everyone is a Nazi b) no one is a Nazi or c) one of the sides is a Nazi. In the interest of this discussion not turning into a forum, I want to just reiterate my position above that we ought not get sucked into this cynical game in regards to Mr. Lira's disposition, and I will just leave it at that. Havradim leaf a message 17:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Lol. It's reported that Gonzalo Lira is Catholic (not Jewish) The Bulwork highlights Lira's anti-Semitism and includes Lira's Holocaust denial rant on Lira's blog

The anti-Semitism is far from an isolated instance. Another /pol/ repost last November, shared with Lira’s comment, “Something I came across—what do you all think,” argues that if the Holocaust was real and the Allies really did save the Jews from the Nazis, Jews should be eternally grateful to white men; but since they constantly revile white people and “openly encourage non-Whites and non-gentiles to destroy their society and culture,” this means that either Jews are odiously ungrateful to their liberators and "Hitler was right," or the Holocaust is “just propaganda and lies.”

And it's very ironic that you allege editors are saying "Jews themselves are the worst antisemites" when it is Lira who's the one alleging 'Jews themselves are the worst antisemites' when he falsely & maliciously accuses a Jewish President of supporting "Nazis." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Reminder about --> WP:BLP and WP:BLPDS - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to develop, GizzyCatBella? I think you'll find Ermenrich and I have been around for quite some time and, quite frankly, don't need policy reminders. For your information, WP:BLP means that information needs to be properly sourced. It doesn't mean it cannot be critical. What Bulwark writes is based on Lira's own publications, several of which are cited in their article. Jeppiz (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct or not, I don't think Bulwark meets the criteria of a reliable source WP:RS . 71.203.10.104 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

doesn't it fall under WP:PARTISAN in general?

The only ref to it I see on the RS board is here:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_303

Which is not about making a determination of the site itself, i just happen to agree it's very similar to something like the National Review, so usual caveats around WP:RSOPINION.

Perhaps better sources should be used - if they had existed, but it's political commentary about someone who threw himself into the (geo)political commentator ring, so I think there is some relevance. Cononsense (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

William Kristol (/ˈkrɪstəl/; born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative writer. A frequent commentator on several networks including CNN, he was the founder and editor-at-large of the political magazine The Weekly Standard. Kristol is now editor-at-large of the centre-right publication The Bulwark. Bulwark's opinion regarding GL mostly is true to fact; The description of GL as a blogger is spot on (and IMHO needs to be changed here, by all means retain filmmaker and author in his background information; that "experience" is all puffed up here as to provide "credibility" where there is none IMHO). Should any source that is pure opinion be relied upon to footnote a Wikipedia biography? What is the story here; A Youtube propagandist goes missing and then was found? The turn from man-o-sphere to target of opportunity? | Listened to his latest podcast - 1) Ukraine is going to be leveled, split, and absorbed in part by the east and in part by the west - I give that a P for possibility 2) US to blame - I see that as both propaganda and opinion to which he is entitled. 3) He has an opinion, a bit of sensationalist drama that gained some traction, that is it that is all. 4) 15 minutes of fame 71.203.10.104 (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a useful source, but with opinion caveats. We shouldn't say he "is" antisemitic or misogynistic in Wikipedia's voice but we can report the facts about things that he said where noteworthy and with appropriate attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a video online where he taunted another blogger's position points with soft porn of his Ukrainian girlfriend. The whole Coach Red Pill act/reality is clearly Misogynistic, go to the Ukraine and get some action and a pliant woman. Anti-feminist YouTube blogger - would be consistent with other Wikipedia pages. 71.203.10.104 (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the Bulwark reference as a source, as it is a narrowly-focused, partisan opinion blog.--FeralOink (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

ZeroHedge and conspiracy theories

I saw what I perceived to be problematic edits so I modified them, but BetsyRMadison reinstated them, so I am hoping you will address the issues here. Please explain how you know that Lira posts at Business Insider, ZeroHedge and Naked Capitalism on his own. Can you prove that he owns these websites and/or blogs or otherwise controls what they do and do not publish? Secondly, I am not sure what you found wrong with my version His thoughts were also reposted on Zero Hedge, a far-right blog accused of spreading pro-Russian conspiracy theories which acknowledges your concerns without going over the top. Your edit came across as less than neutral, especially since this is an article about Lira, not ZeroHedge. I don't understand why you removed the link to ZeroHedge, and at the same time included the CBS source which talks about it getting banned from Twitter (it has nothing to do with this article, Lira is not mentioned there, and the ban was overturned, so what exactly is your point for including all this here? People could have clicked on the link to find out all the details.) Finally, what is your point for writing, On 22 April, Lira alleged to vlogger Alex Christoforou that he had been detained by the Security Service of Ukraine after his family had lost contact with him on 15 April but he has not provided any proof to support his allegations. There is no need to repeat that he didn't provide any proof if it already used the word "alleged", which is only repeating the same thing. Either take out "alleged" or "he has not provided any proof" because this scheme works out to be overtly biased. Havradim leaf a message 00:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

agreed. a lot of background info about things like telegram, ZeroHedge, etc, make it sound like some aspects of a WP:COATRACK. Cononsense (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Salon is one of many sources for his financial blogging and it is accurate. He has done three types of blogging over the last twenty years.. his adult years. Financial, man-o-sphere and also Misogyny, Ukraine.. the majority of his career whatever he thinks will give him attention. I do agree with Havrdim on several points 1) Stick to the sources that speak to the subject. 2) The ethos of Zerohedge or Telegram holds no relevance; in fact it creates a fallacy of attacking the person by inferring that he is tarnished because he was featured on a tarnished platform. ----- The Lira entry was not notable thus it was removed from Wikipedia but recently something changed to make it notable (sort-of). What makes him notable was the drama of him becoming a missing-person in fringe and Russian propaganda outlets; The drama was so riveting that he was "pronounced dead." Nobody knows what happened, if anything. A truly notable blogger is "Bald and Bankrupt" who just got arrested in Russia and, unlike Lira, he has been featured in many mainstream outlets. I don't think we should make more of Lira either positively (regarding film/books) or negatively (by stating he was on tarnished platforms); he is what he is a not so notable blogger who dribbled in other vocations that did not hold notability on Wikipedia, but now does perhaps due to some unverifiable or invented drama . 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

PS support for the notability tag exists and it needs to be restated.. it was improper to remove the tag. 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the "Coatrack" allegation. Look, if wiki editors want to allege Lira is "notable" because after he couldn't make it as an author or director (decades ago), he decided to spread misogynist content, conspiracies, repeat anti-Semitic content along with repeating "Holocaust denial" conspiracies, and pro-Russian propaganda (as described in the Reliable Sources: Daily Beast, Salon, the New Yorker, Firearm news, and the Bulwark here [3]; then it is incumbent on wiki editors to state the facts that the blogs he posts on are known for being filled with anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, and pro-Russian propaganda. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

the guy is an unsuccessful alt-fringe-blogger.

He constantly blogged about the "Tiffany Dover VAX Conspiracy" - it was the same nonsense where she was pronounced dead after receiving the Covid vaccine. He also "fights" other bloggers who are more successful in the same space such as Carl Benjamin to gain attention. 71.203.10.104 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

1) All sources say Lira is a blogger. No reliable source claims Lira is a "journalist." Therefore wiki should not imply he is anything but what he is/was: a blogger.

2) No reliable source claims Lira is/was 'paid' for any of his blog posts he posted on any blog. Therefore, wiki should not imply he's anything but a blogger who posts stuff, like millions & millions of other people in the world. Nothing notable about being one of a trillion bloggers in the world.
3) Of Lira's blogging:

a) Lira wrote his own 'bio' on Business Insider & some the blogs he claims are "his" on BI are not his. Take the 1st one he lists here [4] titled "Welcome To The Subprime Debacle, Part 2." Lira didn't write that, he claims he did in his BI bio, but he didn't. The actual piece [5] shows some guy named John Mauldin wrote that.

b) The 2nd blog Lira claims is on BI, is not even published on BI. You go to the link & it directs you to Lira's personal blog here [6]. I could go on, but we all know that on wiki, the subject (here the subject is Lira) is never to be used as the RS.

c) Zero Hedge is a blog were anyone can publish their 'pro-Russia & conspiracy theory' stuff.

d) Zero Hedge is not & never has been an RS. That's why I removed the link; they're not an RS.

e) CBS is an RS. That's why I used the CBS link. The CBS link confirms Zero Hedge is a conspiracy theory blog. If editors on here want to allege Lira is "notable" because he posts blogs at a 'pro-Russian, conspiracy theory' blog, Zero Hedge, then naturally wiki must include those facts about Zero Hedge.

f) On Naked Capitalism "blogger" page, Lira is so NOT notable that on NC past "Valued Contributor" Lira is not listed here [7].

4) I never said he "owns" the blogs at Business Insider, Zero Hedge, or Naked Capitalism, so no, I won't try to "prove" something I never said.
5) I did not write, "On 22 April, Lira alleged to vlogger Alex Christoforou that he had been detained by the Security Service of Ukraine after his family had lost contact with him on 15 April but he has not provided any proof to support his allegations."
In fact, I think that whole sentence should be removed for being an unsubstantiated allegation (conspiracy) with no proof to support it. Wiki editors aren't suppose to post conspiracy theories and/or unsubstantiated allegations that are the foundation of a conspiracy theory
6) I wrote, "but he has not provided any proof to support his allegations" because Lira did not provide any proof.
You're mistaken to say an "allegation" means there's no proof to support the allegation. Many people who allege things can & do provide proof to support their allegation.
In fact, in US Courts all day, everyday, people do provide proof to support their allegations. So it's not 'bias' in any way to state the fact that Lira has provided no proof for his allegations. None. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We have secondary sources now for all the websites. We don't need to describe them more than briefly as they all have their own articles. Adding refs to articles that don't mention Lira is SYNTH (and also might be misleading as Zero Hedge has changed over time). BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and here's why. If wiki is going to allege Lira is "notable" because of Lira's anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying stuff he published at Zero Hedge between 2010-2013; then wiki obviously must explain the type of blog Zero Hedge is: an unreliable, conspiracy theory, pro-Russian propaganda, blog. Also, Zero Hedge has not changed over time. On Feb 2022 from Bloomberg news: "US Accuses Zero Hedge of Spreading Russian Propaganda" [8] "officials said Zero Hedge ... published articles created by Moscow-controlled media that were then shared by outlets and people unaware of their nexus to Russian intelligence.". If editors think Lira is notable then surely to goodness those same editors agree that there's no reason to sugar-coat Lira's sole reason for "notability" which is for the past 17 straight years: spreading hate (misogyny & anti-Semitism), spreading untruths, and spreading conspiracies. That's it. For that last 17 years, that's Lira's sole 'claim to fame.' BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison read WP:BLP. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, I return the comment you made to BetsyRMadison back to you, because your behavior here is starting to become problematic. When the article was up for AfD, you campaigned more actively than anyone else to keep the article. Now, when users try to improve it, you constantly oppose them. You seem to be under the erroneous impression that WP:BLP means articles about living persons cannot be negative, but that is not at all what BLP is saying. What the policy does say is that we need to be careful to use sources. What the discussions over the past few weeks have made clear is that the few available sources about Lira are very negative. One calls him a "sleazy dating coach", and several different sources detail his misogyny, bizarre conspiracy theories, antisemitism and so on. It's not flattering, but that's what the sources say, and then that is what the article will say as well. Not in Wikivoice, but based on the sources. It's very hard to understand your behavior here over the last few days, after you argued so strongly for a keep at AfD yet now you oppose extending the article based on the sources that exist. So instead of telling others to read WP:BLP, please read it yourself. If we are to have an article on a person, then that article will reflect the sources we have. Jeppiz (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz - Source below where is Lira denying the Holocaust and quote it. This is a serious allegation. WP:BLP apply to talk pages as well. Articles should be written responsibly, cautiously and the material should not be poorly sourced. I believe you might benefit from guidance at WP:BLP also. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The source, the Bulwork highlights Lira's anti-Semitism and includes Lira's Holocaust denial rant on Lira's blog

The anti-Semitism is far from an isolated instance. Another /pol/ repost last November, shared with Lira’s comment, “Something I came across—what do you all think,” argues that if the Holocaust was real and the Allies really did save the Jews from the Nazis, Jews should be eternally grateful to white men; but since they constantly revile white people and “openly encourage non-Whites and non-gentiles to destroy their society and culture,” this means that either Jews are odiously ungrateful to their liberators and "Hitler was right," or the Holocaust is “just propaganda and lies.” . That is Lira's anti-Semitic and Holocaust denying content, as per the source. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I take this to mean, if it is true at all (we are not given the full text, only The Bulwarks analysis of it) that either he thinks that Jews are odiously ungrateful to their liberators, or that the Holocaust is just propaganda and lies, not both at the same time, because in his view, they are mutually exclusive. So based on this source, it would be impossible to describe Lira as an "antisemite and Holocaust denier". Let us unpack this even further. He is claiming that Jews who were liberated from concentration camps (or their descendants) "constantly revile white people". Aren't European Jews in the United States classified as white? Is Lira asserting that they hate themselves? Further, I mentioned above that Lira's mother has two Jewish surnames. So, is Lira himself a "self-hating Jew"? (If you don't understand how a nominal Catholic can still be a Jew in secret, read Marrano). In any case, great care is needed when considering using any of this. Havradim leaf a message 02:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Havradim: Lira says either "Hitler was right" (anti-Semitism) for waging genocide on Jews or the Holocaust is "just propaganda and lies" (Holocaust denier). The source clearly highlights Lira as an anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier. You can personally analyze Lira anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials all you want as your own "original research" but your original research isn't allowed in the article.
Gonzalo Lira himself says he's Catholic, not Jewish. All sources I've seen say Lira is Catholic, not Jewish; So I don't know why you keep falsely claiming he's Jewish when he's clearly not Jewish. We have no idea what his mother's full name is. More important though is that the last name "Hess" does not mean you're Jewish & neither does the last name "Lopez"; ie., Hitler's Nazi pal Rudolf Hess "leading member of the Nazi Party in Nazi Germany. Appointed Deputy Führer to Adolf Hitler in 1933." ahh... Rudolf Hess wasn't Jewish & neither is Gonzalo Lira. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not claim he is Jewish, I was only asking questions. And I reiterate my position that we cannot take The Bulwark's word for it when considering if the subject is an antisemite. They are clearly biased, and might have taken his words out of context. "Hitler was right" could mean right about economics or invading Poland. I would need to see the full text of his blog, and even then the whole thing would border on OR. What we would need is a mainstream source stating unequivocally that "Lira, an avowed antisemite and Holocaust denier ... Havradim leaf a message 17:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Havradim: We go by what the source reports. Using Lira's own words, the source highlights Lira's anti-Semitism and Lira's Holocaust denial content. Oh & thanks for finally admitting Lira is not Jewish. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Read the source again. It brings up the spectre of "antisemitism" and only implies something about Holocaust denial. They are careful to not label him either of those things, justifiably so (probably due to libel concerns. Incidentally, we are bound by the same rules. So I suggest you drop it). Havradim leaf a message 18:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Havradim: We go by what the source reports. Lira wrote, "Hitler was right about them (Jews)." Using Lira's own words from Lira's Russian Telegram blog/page (here [9]) the source is clear and the source highlights Lira's anti-Semitism and Lira's Holocaust denial content. Lira wrote

If the Holocaust was real, yet Jews hate their liberators and their descendants, doesn’t that prove Hitler was right about them?

Or alternately, if Jews feel free to attack their liberators and their descendants, isn’t it reasonable to infer that maybe the Holocaust didn’t happen, and is just propaganda and lies?

No matter how you slice it, the source highlights Lira's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I did read it, now I suggest you read it. Things to notice: Since 2005 (17 years) Lira is only "notability" for Lira's anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying content, and pro-Russian propaganda that he's blogged & vlogged about between 2010 - today, and it is all properly sourced. You see, BLP says information needs to be properly sourced. Properly sourced doesn't mean editors have to whitewash & sugar-coat facts, even if you, or I, or any other editor don't like the facts. What Bulwark writes about Lira's spreading misogyny, anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying content, and pro-Russian propaganda is based on Lira's own publications, several of which are cited in Bulwark's article. BLP does not says editors have to pretend Lira (or others) didn't do the things they did do, just that the things they did should be properly source - and they are properly sourced. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You sourced that to this -->[10] web-site. Is this an apropiate RS for such a serious WP:BLP allegations? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The content he produces is odious and he has been producing odious commentary for years. Here is an analog in Wikipedia of other folks blogging in similar space

... is far-right white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, author, political commentator, and banned YouTuber who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views

and another;

is an American blogger, former pickup artist, and writer connected with the alt-right. .... has self-published more than a dozen sex and travel guides, most of which discuss picking up and having sex with women in specific countries. His advice, his videos and his writings have received widespread criticism, including accusations of misogyny, promotion of rape, antisemitism, homophobia, and having ties to the alt-right.

There is no reason to sugar coat documented reality regarding the long and documented history of odious conduct from University forward in favor of emphasizing a fantasy view of an accredited filmmaker, author, journalist, and/or blogger. 71.203.10.104 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@IP - This might be true or not. You need solid sources (s) to be able too write such things about a living person. Your entire comment right now also appears to be in a serious violation of WP:BLP. The BLP policy applies to talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who writes the material. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bulwark is a solid source. I notice you're not complaining about the real tabloid & known conspiracy theory, pro-Russian propaganda blogs: Zero Hedge & Naked Capitalism, used in the article. And I notice you're not complaining about the non-solid source, Firearms News. You're only complaining about the Bulwark.
An editor not liking the source because the source highlights Lira's 17 years of blogging misogyny, promotion of rape, antisemitism, Holocaust denial content, homophobia, Russian propaganda, etc. doesn't make it a "tabloid" & doesn't make it non-solid. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

One cannot just post on ZeroHedge, Naked Capitalism, or Business Insider! They don't let "just anyone" post on any of these websites. I can provide sources if you really want me to, but I can tell you that all three are commercial websites that are sensationalist, left-wing, and finance fluff respectively, but that does not diminish the traffic they generate nor imply they have small readerships. It isn't easy to get one post from one's blog on any of those sites, let alone several, so it worth mention in the article. Although ZH isn't WP:RS, it is not being used as a source.--FeralOink (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Deaths in 2024

Why has Gonzalo Lira’s death not been listed in Wikipedia’s list of deaths in 2024? He is obviously dead and was a notable figure with his own page prior to his death. 47.151.23.99 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

He was nowhere near notable. BeŻet (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

“Death”

The sources added to show that he died are not reliable. One is the Helsinki Times, noted for spreading Chinese disinformation. The other, The Post Millennial, has a similarly shady history and is also sourcing its story to Tucker Carlson. These are not sources on which to base any factual statements, and they don’t show notability of Lira outside of the pro-Russian information bubble.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

His death has received significant coverage in Spanish-language sources, especially in Chilean mainstream media, such as La Tercera. There are also news reports on the efforts by members of Parliament and the Journalists' College (Colegio de Periodistas) regarding Lira's state. Bedivere (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek reported on his death and they say they got confirmation from the State Department. 84.87.206.123 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the death was also reported in Newsweek, I think we can restore the article and remove it from the draft. Now his figure is definitely better known internationally. Mhorg (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Does dying really make him notable? — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

dying in a prison for political crimes? Yes 85.52.203.254 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dying by the hands of Ukraine intelligence services indeed does make him notable. 217.74.153.166 (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is already available in 10 different languages,[11] including Ukrainian. I think it is time to release the English version.--Mhorg (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Given the article is available in 10 different languages, and that Newsweek reported on his death, and that he was an American citizen, I am going to review the draft as an article for creation now. Thank you, Bedivere and Mhorg for providing helpful facts.--FeralOink (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about use of the Post-Millennial in general. For his death, I am going to change it to Newsweek only, as that is sourced directly to the U.S. State Department.--FeralOink (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Helsinki Times is still cited on the article. It's obviously not a reliable source and contains phrases taken directly from Russian propaganda sources like "the Zelensky regime," "the eight-year-long shelling of Donbas residents by Kyiv," and emotional language like "tragic death", "another blow for press freedom," "poignant note", and describes Lira uncritically as a journalist and "a vocal critic of what he perceived as increasing authoritarianism in Ukraine". This clearly has no place in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less reliable. Leave your bias at home 90.174.5.184 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The source is reliable in this case, because western media refuses to cover Ukraine killing dissidents and journalists. Its all we have. 217.74.153.166 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Any source that relies on the Russian narrative that there’s a vast conspiracy of Western Media not to cover something (whether “dombing Bonbas” or some other hidden thing like Ukrainian attack ducks) is by definition not reliable.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of court records is WP:OR

I agree with the addition of the {{primary}} tag and the edit summary from Volunteer Marek here. Court records are primary sources, and their use to reconstruct the timeline of legal proceedings against Lira is original research. In this case, there is an additional reliability concern, in that many of the records appear to be translations from Ukrainian posted to archive.org by pseudonymous users. The authenticity and accuracy of translation of such documents is uncertain. For these reasons, everything in the "Criminal prosecution" section that is not sourced to reliable secondary sources should be removed. That appears to be everything from "On March 29, 2023..." (inclusive) to "In December 2023..." (exclusive), with the exceptions of the bail amount, statements from Russian and U.S. officials, the allegation and denial of torture, and the attempted Hungarian border crossing. Those exceptions should be kept or removed based on a separate analysis of their sourcing. Jfire (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your and Volunteer Marek's analysis.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

They are completely non-rs. I think there is far too many to leave in. They should be removed. scope_creep^Talk 17:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed a bit of the sourcing to WP:PRIMARY and OR in the section, but its quite tangled with the court cases.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning this up, and nice work! Jfire (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

“Was”

“Coach RedPill was…..”

Seeing as it hasn’t been confirmed he’s dead shouldn’t it say ‘is’ - Coach RedPill is…

HardeeHar (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, although I am not sure about the technicalities involved in how to go about this. We have a highly competent source who is citing reports that Lira was killed by the Kraken Unit of the Azov Battalion. While this is not a confirmation, it is also not leaving much room for doubt. Havradim leaf a message 06:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think what you're citing is of any use here. Scott Ritter has clarified that he has no direct evidence, so I'm not sure that anything he said makes those reports more plausible. A person may be extremely competent, but they cannot turn rumor into fact through mere repetition. Jml7c5 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion it is better to wait for reliable info. Mhorg (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Scott Ritter is not a competent source, he was denying the Bucha Massacre - it's a fringe source. BeŻet (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, he didn't deny Bucha Massacre. He said that he thinks that Ukrainians did it. Maybe next time listen to him more carefully. 2A01:114F:72A:100:ECF8:C625:6C3F:D365 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

YOU are drowning in propaganda and calling other sources propaganda because your 'source' told you so.

I Found RT to be FAR MORE factuals than ALL western MSMS, as a canadian that can VERIFY some story. 74.15.206.158 (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Description in first sentence as "novelist and film maker"

Should Lira be described as a novelist and film maker in the first sentence of this article when he is primarily known as a manosphere and then pro-Russian YouTuber? I don't dispute that he wrote novels or made films, but his novels were written in the 1990s, and his last film was made in 2005. None of his books or films seem to have been great successes so that people are likely to look him up because of them. I'd suggest rewording so that the fact that he both wrote novels and made films is mentioned in the first paragraph, but not in the first sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, given what he's known for, I'd say a lot of the article more should be about his pro-Russian activities compared to the amount currently spent discussing his unremarkable writing and film-making careers.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the lede will need to be slimmed. Its usual bullshit about he's this and that. For example, I don't think he is a film-director. He has directed one film but that doesn't make a person a film-director. The rest will need to be looked at, on a individual basis. The thing about being a youtuber. Its well outside consensus for being youtuber. You need a least 500k streamers to be called a youtuber. So that will need to be looked at. That whole article needs slimmed. scope_creep^Talk 01:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he was a novelist -- he received a $1 million advance and wrote two novels that were published by major U.S. publishing houses. Yes, he was a film director -- on its opening weekend his film was #2 at the Chilean box office. We have reliable sources that say these things. We don't omit them just because they happened in the 1990s or 2000s -- that's WP:RECENTISM. Jfire (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not what I stated: Per long established consensus you must show an established career path to be called a particular job-type in Wikipedia. I found one film he directed. Even making two films doeesn't make you a film director. As far as I can see has made one film and possibly a short. That doesn't make you a film-director. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with scope creep. We of course should mention that he engaged in these things, but the current way the lead is worded makes it sounds like this is why he is notable. It's not (and I'm not convinced he's notable anyway). What I mean is this, if you mention Gonzalo Lira to someone, assuming they know who he is, their first thought is not going to be "Oh yes! The Chilean novelist and filmmaker!" It's going to be "Oh yes, the pro-Russian/manosphere YouTuber!".--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

YouTube statistics

I've started a discussion at the WP:RSN about our current use of Social Blade to source YouTube statistics for the Coach Red Pill channel. Beyond whether the source is reliable, is this information WP:DUE for inclusion?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not essential, I'd be fine with removing if the conclusion is that Social Blade is not-RS. Jfire (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Continued additions of people denouncing Lira's death

@JSwift49:: you've now added various Chinese, Russian, or far-right sources denouncing Lira's death, often with strange sourcing (an Alternative for Germany member of the European Parliament's comment sourced to a Serbian website, for instance). None of these comments are notable unless they are reported by mainstream secondary sources - not the South China Morning Post, TASS, etc. If mainstream sources pick up the story, they will include mention of far-right outrage and then we can source that. Until that time, just picking random people who said that Lira dying is bad (particularly sources associated with the Russian or Chinese government, countries that don't give a damn about press freedom since they don't have it), is WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked in the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and saw South China Morning Post as a reliable source, and I also saw that TASS was considered reliable for quotes from Russian authorities, so that's why I included those. I don't see why the country of origin matters so long as the source is considered reliable, however if a random pro-Russia European Parliament member or columnist criticizing the death isn't notable, I can accept that. JSwift49 16:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with including the SCMP piece as an attributed opinion (even though I personally disagree with many of its conclusions). Although this is a heavily politicized event and we do have to be careful about WP:UNDUE weight, if we're going to include an attributed opinion from The Bulwark (which does have a recognizable pro-Western POV), then I think an attributed opinion from an alternative viewpoint is fair. I would dispute characterizations of the SCMP reference as "random", "associated with the Chinese government", or "far-right" (Ermenrich, I'm not saying you did characterize this source specifically in those ways, just that it could be a possible objection). As JSwift49 notes, SCMP is considered a generally reliable source, and this topic is outside the carveouts (CCP, Alibaba) that WP:SCMP notes. Furthermore the author seems to have a legitimate journalistic career. Maybe the objection is that the headline says "journalist"? If so, see WP:HEADLINES. Jfire (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I’d support removing the Bulwark piece as well honestly. The article on the SCMP says that since the clamp down in Hongkong it’s become associated with Chinese soft power propaganda: certainly whenever I have read a story on the war there it’s been obviously pro-Russian.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Should the article be moved to higher level protection to prevent vandalism?

Given the topic, I believe it makes sense to add higher protection to the article. NesserWiki (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can and should have page protection given it falls under Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Jfire (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree.—-Ermenrich (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a request [12]. Not sure if that was the best place to do it, but after an IP just called the project Ukraine flag on my bio a "Nazi flag" while reverting me I think we need to act now rather than later.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Thank you for making a request. NesserWiki (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It was denied.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

A different admin has now granted it for 1 year.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

ToBeFree? If so he is now an Arbitrator, and he went ahead and did that after I asked him how to get it done. My mind went to Arbcom because there was just a discussion there about extending sourcing requirements to Eastern Europe in general Elinruby (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Did some tagging

since I find I am repeating myself at the AfD, and FOX News and Newsweek were still being used, i have been removing them and tagged some of the most egregious remaining sources (Firearms News, genealogy sites) as needing better sources. Elinruby (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a non-Ukraine-affiliated source stating specifically that he was divulging Ukrainian troop movements?

As far as I looked the Independent only refers to him spreading Russian propaganda. CVDX (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The source of the assumption that he spied on Ukrainian troops is from a note about an unidentified milblogger, that lived in Kirovohrad Oblast while he lived in Kharkiv Oblast. Also the milblogger of the source was charged with a different Article114-2 while Lira was charged with Article 436-2. 170.239.49.231 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the IP may be correct. I just saw something very similar in the Bulwark story, cited to a linked New Voice of Ukraine. Pretty far down under a graphic or photo. Elinruby (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Career missing chronology of Coach red Pill and Misogyny - His rebuttal of sexual assault charges at Dartmouth

His career is missing the chronology of "Coach Red Pill" and his misogynistic positions, treatment, and opinion of/on women.

Is a University Paper an acceptable source? If so, then his suspension from Dartmouth is very relevant since it ties directly into misogynistic blogging. The two life-choices are in fact the same in that he treats women as sub-humans.

https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/1995/02/my-education-at-dartmouth

"My freshman fall, I was accused of sexual assault and harassment by another freshman. I was brought before the Committee on Standards (COS), and though there was proof that I did not harass the woman in question and more than a reasonable doubt as to whether I assaulted her, I was suspended for three terms by the COS, having been found innocent of harassment but guilty of assault."

"It's easy -- and let's be honest here -- it's fun to support causes where everyone agrees, where everyone is showing support. Homophobes? Racists? Sexists? Elitists? Let's get 'em! Yes, it's fun and easy to be a part of Peter Pan's gang, flinging your slings and arrows at some bad old, distant, maybe even illusory Captain Hook."

He could have sued Dartmouth if he was not happy with the result of in house discipline; an avenue of appeal was open to him. Most reasonable people would defend a false finding on sexual assault that would follow and tarnish them throughout life. He claims to be the victim in TheDartmouth, his alleged victim would be further victimized in any rebuttal.

How should we handle a nefarious BLP? Is this person notable because they are notorious? There is not a single positive about this fellow in any reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well they might be notable because the number of notorious youtubers outspoken on unpopular stances against government, who die in prison, is relatively scant.152.117.104.137 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"notable because hey are notorious" ... good question. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate help with change to Lede below; the idea is to assure that film-making and books are in the body of the article; with the emphasis where it should be in NPOV; fringe blogger. 71.203.10.104 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Salem Press

We have several citations of "Gonzalo Lira" by Rosemary M. Canfield Reisman in Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works published in 2007 by Salem Press. For example this is our only source for his film "So Kinky", which appears to have no other reference on the internet that does not use this Wikipedia article as a source. I cannot see this as I do not have access to Ebscohost. Is it definitely a reliable source? If not, we need to remove mention of the film. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You might have access through WP:LIBRARY. Salem Press seems to be a publisher of reference works, either licensed or acquired by EBSCO. I think that generally sources indexed by EBSCO are presumed reliable unless there's some sort of evidence otherwise. See for example Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Ebsco a reliable source. Jfire (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing and would encourage looking into it at RSN since we rely on it so heavily. And no, we can't rely on it just because of Ebsco. Most of what is in those databases is reliable but not everything. Maybe try "Gonzalo+Lira+disinformation" Elinruby (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(later, having reread the source a bit) This seems like hagiography but you're right in that I'd feel silly taking this to RSN, there is that much of a presumption. Does it actually say anything that another source doesn't? I just can't take it seriously somehow, and it seems to detract overall. Elinruby (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

LA Times

it's firewalled paywalled and while that does count, the accessible Orlando Sentinel covers this point, so I would like to replace the Times with the more easily verified Sentinel. Anybody going to get mad if I do that? Elinruby (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced the ProQuest link with a non-paywalled link for the LA Times. The Orlando Sentinel reference is not a suitable replacement because it does not detail how the book came to be published in the way the LA Times article does. Jfire (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

sounds reasonable Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jfire: can you make the paywall go away for the Globe and Mail also? Elinruby (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find a non-paywalled version of this article. However, the LA Times says the same thing as the Globe and Mail but in more depth, so I replaced the citation for that sentence. Jfire (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ref 19 a proquest ref, would ideally be replaced with a source ref to the document itself. Ref 1 needs to go really. It makes no sense. Anybody looking at it will be turned-off. Its non-rs. Either that reformat it so closer to the source document scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Some questions about article quality

The question being a youtuber and a dating coach need to be examined. Being on a youtuber on Wikipedia needs secondary sourcing and needs a least 500k streams and he misses by a long way. The 500k figure was upped from 250k in 2016/2017 when folk taking on mountains of streamers, so as to differentiate the regular from the influencers. The "dating coach", self-styled seems to indicate it may be not valid, although the Jacobin ref clearly states he was in the supposed toxic manosphere thing and that is a solid source. If he had been doing it for a decade or more then yea. It would need corraborating evidence. I'm glad the question of film director has been answered. The lede looks look better.

The question of 2-refs per sentence. Why are they two refs per sentence, which is particularly bug-bear at NPP. I would suggest the worst of each is removed, when the referencing problem is resolved. It is suffering from WP:CITEKILL at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

La Tercera

Says his family lost touch with him. Sources=Chilean equivalent of State Department and two tweets. Ok-ish wire story, it looks like. Annoying ads. But it doesn't support him claiming anything about the SBU Elinruby (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Several articles were quoted from this source. I removed one of them because it cites Sputnik. We should re-examine the others. Elinruby (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Career"

Elinruby, thanks for your attention to source quality. You added a couple {{bsn}} tags in the Career section where I'm not sure what your concern is.

• Released in January 1998, Counterparts follows the exploits of a fierce female Federal Bureau of Investigationagent and her "counterpart", an ambitious Central Intelligence Agency operative. [13] Can you elaborate on why you believe that Kirkus Reviews is an inadequate source for the sentence of plot summary and the fact of the book's release date?
• For Newsday, Jane Goldman wrote that it was "far-fetched and heartless... as arrogant and clever as its hero". [14] Why would Newsday not be an adequate source for the attributed opinion of its book critic?

Thanks, Jfire (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

they are both about as useful as an opinion cited to me. Newsday is a great source for Long Island and New York City but thia is not that. i keep hearing that there.are all these sources. Use something else. And please explain to whoever went to town at newspapers.com that the topic area has higher standards and some of the other odd sources (Cyprus Mail, Orlando Sentinel) for this article probably don't make the cut either. In other words beyond the souce iffiness there are also big questions of DUE. Elinruby (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Newsday has won 19 Pulitzer Prizes, including in the category of criticism. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I see no problems with the sources used. No evidence has been presented that they are unreliable and there is nothing indicating it in their wiki articles. Each is used for just one sentence, so I don't see how WP:DUE is relevant either. Alaexis_¿question? 17:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contentious topics in case you missed it at the top of the page Elinruby (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the contentious topics procedure and the fact that this page is covered by it. I don't see how that is related to my question however. Regarding Newsday, I don't see how the fact that it covers the Long Island and New York City region in its news reporting is relevant. We are not citing its news coverage, we are citing a book review. There is no policy that says that book reviews are reliable sources only if they are published in a source whose news reporting specializes in a particular region.

To seek a wider consensus, I've opened a thread at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Jfire (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. To answer someone else at the same time, I saw the Pulitzers, but if they are for local news reporting for example, that would not necessarily mean that they know anything about Russian disinformation campaigns. If on the other hand the review was written by a staffer (vs the more usual scenario where they pull it off the newswire to plug a hole in the advertising), and one or more of the Pulitzers is for reviews, that might be ok. But as I said to someone else, if all of this is so blindingly obvious then you should be able to source it without resorting to the Orlando Sentinel and the Cyprus Mail. I did see, after I posted that, that you have marked yourself aware of contentious topics, or you would have been one of the people I gave a notice to about that. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about a book review, written in 1998. "Russian disinformation campaigns" aren't a relevant concern in relation to the material you marked as needing a better source. Consensus here and at WP:RSN is clear: these sources are perfectly adequate for the material they cite. I'll be removing the tags. Jfire (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not that you actually need to be great at covering Russian disinformation campaigns to do a review of a work of fiction, but if you've actually seen the Pulitzers that Newsday has won, then you would know that they have won multiple times in the category of "international reporting", and yes, as was posted above, they have won in the category of criticism, which is where reviews of cultural items fall. And when you talk about "resorting" to the Orlando Sentinel, you are again talking about a paper with multiple Pulitzers. This just seems to be a random rejection of sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

What categories are the Pulitzers in, please? Possibly there may be some reassurance there.

But what I see is an article about a man who can't be believed cited to many very obscure and difficult to verify sources. *I mean. Firearms News? Cyprus Mail?

• And when they are checked, the statements are often at least somewhat wrong. Someone just claimed on their talk page for example that one of the books was a best seller, based on a purported advance from the publisher, and it looks like he himself may be the source for that advance. I'm still trying to nail that down because the source for that is a scanned paper clipping in Spanish.
• Google cannot find the supposed review by the Washington Post with the given citation information, although possibly a different headline is the problem there.
• The sourcing *is* improving but initially included TASS, Newsweek and the Times of India.
• People are putting sources back in because they are only "no consensus" and not actually deprecated, even though the article is in two different categories of contentious topics. So naturally all this has increased the level of suspicion and while editors fight tooth and nail for these sources, some are simultaneously claiming that sources are very thick on the ground yet the additional sources turn out to be more obscure and dubious publications. In contentious topics you are supposed to do more than meet a bare minimum of what might maybe be reliable: one of the reviews seems to be cited to a dust cover

The most relevant are from 1982 (television) and 1984 (invasion of Granada). Quotes are from the Pulitzer site

Newsday's Pulitzers: the most relevant are from 1982 (television}

• 1974: Criticism (Winner) — Emily Genauer, Newsday Syndicate "art and artists"
• 1982: International Reporting (Finalist) — Bob Wyrick "For his series on the distribution abroad of American-made products in ways that would be held illegal or improper in the U.S. itself."
• 1982: Criticism (Finalist) — Marvin Kitman: television
• 1984: International Reporting (Finalist) — Morris Thompson invasion of Grenada

1984: Criticism (Finalist) — Dan Cryer: architecture

• 1985: International Reporting (Winner) — Josh Friedman, Dennis Bell, and Ozier Muhammad: "For their series on the plight of the hungry in Africa."
• 1992: International Reporting (Winner) — Patrick J. Sloyan Gulf War
• 1993: International Reporting (Winner) — Roy Gutman: "human rights violations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina."
• 1996: International Reporting (Finalist) — Laurie Garrett: Ebola in Zaire
• 1999: Criticism (Finalist) — Justin Davidson
• 2002: Criticism (Winner) — Justin Davidson: classical music
• 2005: International Reporting (Winner) — Dele Olojede: RwandaElinruby (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The point of pointing to the Pulitzers is that you were putting better-source-needed tags without seeming to know much about the source you were complaining about, which is a very respected newspaper. No, they don't have to have won Pulitzers exactly on some topic for that to be the truth. Please save better-source-needed tags for times when you can actually find the deficiencies in the source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You assumed a very great deal based on something for sure. I am going to assume you hadn't seen my post about this. And by the way the tabloid I was referring to was generic, not Newsday specifically. I see Newsday as individual articles and don't care about its print format. Can we focus please? I am impressed that it got a prize in Rwanda and another in Croatia but so? Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

let me not forget architecture. Orlando Sentinel's are all three of them about Florida. Just saying. Elinruby (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: can you please clarify your concern with the sources citing The coming-of-age novel, Tomáh Errázurih, was published by Grijalbo/Mondadori in 1997? You wrote this is an entry in a library database. It proves the article exists but no more. The library in question is the National Library of Chile and the database is an archive of Chilean literary criticism. They provide a scan of the entire article, not just an "entry". It would be preposterous to suggest that they are fabricating articles which do not exist. So I don't understand your objection. Jfire (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Library of Chile makes stuff up. What I am saying that an entry in their holdings listings demonstrates that the book exists but does not support "coming of age" for example. And even if it does contain a publish date it is not substantive discussion by a secondary source. There are all these other sources, you say; pick one. Probably one of the reviews will have it probably. Elinruby (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not continue to mischaracterize the sources. They are not entries "in their holdings listings". They are full-length newspaper articles demonstrating the attention paid to Lira in Chile in the wake of his US book deal. The La Tercera source says, for example: A raíz de este éxito, Lira recibió la oferta de publicar en Chile su primera novela, escrita en 1990, la que había sido rechazada por las editoriales en 1991. Se titula Tomah Errázurih y será lanzada en agosto por Grijalbo... Este relato, ambientado en 1988, narra un día de un cuico de 19 años, que recotre Santiago. Observa, opina y crítica. Está escrito en un habla coloquial, más aún, siguiendo el sonido de las palabras y alterando la ortografía. Lira está convencido de que va a ser un éxito, porque su anterior rechazo no se habría debido a la calidad del texto, expresa, sino a la falta de contactos. The Mercurio source says Posteriormente trabajo como profesor de inglés y escribió su primera novela en castellano de título "Tomah Errazurih" que narraba un día de Tomás, un "Cuico" santiaguino, la cual concluyó en 1991. Al terminar el libro, lo registro. Pero al buscar editoriales, todas le cerraron las puertas, constituyéndose en una de sus grandes frustraciones. If your objection is specifically to "coming of age", well, you could have said that in your edit summary. The Reisman source that is already used elsewhere in the article says His second book, written in Spanish, was a coming-of-age novel, Tomáh Errázurih and I will add that as a third citation. (Meanwhile we have another editor objecting below that two references after a sentence is already too many. There's no satisfying those who would rather see this article deleted.) Jfire (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that I actually care. It should never have been created but that doesn't mean that at this point we should delete it. It's probably too late for that. Note that I have not voted.

However if we must have it I don't see why you feel a need to pile the references up. Just use the best one.

I am not contradicting Scope creep btw. There's one place where I left three references but we can group them later. Usually though, he is right, one is enough.

La Tercerais questionable; in one of our references it was citing Sputnik'.

PS: please do not continue to ask me not to continue doings things I am not doing.

We're talking about the source published by the national library that contains bibliographical information only? That is their record about a physical book. You say the full text is there also. I have said I will look again. As for Tercera, say what? Also, why are we using ria.ru again?

Here's the diff: [15]. You added {{bsn}} after citations to these sources:

1. Baden, Denise (December 10, 1996). "El hombre del million de dolares" [The million dollar man]. El Mercurio. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-04-21. Retrieved 2022-04-21.
2. Gómez, Andrés (1997-07-06). ""A muchos críticos chilenos les va a cargar mi éxito"" ["Many Chilean critics are going to be bothered by my success"]. La Tercera. pp. 56–57.

If you are mistaking these sources as being "their record about a physical book" containing "bibliographical information only", then perhaps you should not be adding {{bsn}} tags. Jfire (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Game Developer and Washington Post

Being signed into the Wikipedia Library isn't helping with the Ebsco paywall. I was able to find an open-access link to the Washington Post review, and replaced the link to the paywalled version with it. I still think these reviews are probably undue, but it will be easier to discuss this if people can actually read the reviews.

For Game Developer the question is again due weight. I have verified that it does say that Lira was involved as a writer, way way way down the page. Is this an important point? It's definitely not what he is famous for. Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought GameDeveloper would be reasonable to add only because the game itself seems notable, and the article makes it seem like he played a significant role in plot development. JSwift49 03:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that is a question. I was thinking about the tinker tailor soldier sailor nature of his career path, and yeah, it does sound like he did a lot there. I just don't know how much weight to give it because I don't follow gaming, shrug. If it's important it's important. We don't have to decide this right now either. Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The weight is fine. It's 15 words in a ~3,500 word article. The reviews establish Lira's notability per WP:AUTHOR and are also WP:DUE. Jfire (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

which particular aspects of that policy do you see him as meeting? Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention. The consensus interpretation of these criteria as they relate to authors is recorded as WP:LITERATUREOUTCOMES, which says Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Jfire (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

he's very far from receiving multiple awards. The two and a half reviews consist of two paragraphs each saying that the two English-language books are terrible. I see why people fought so hard to keep them though; apparently the suggestion is that panning his books makes him notable as a collaborator? Elinruby (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep

Since my vote did not count, I want to make it clear that this article is relevant, since the Chilean Foreign Ministry confirmed his death. The article has enough notable and valuable references. It is developed encyclopedically. My position is that it be maintained, maintained, maintained. 57ntaledane9 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@57ntaledane9: I informed admin on the simple english wikipedia about your blatant canvassing for your Afd. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: The article stands and cannot be refuted. When are there legal bases that demonstrate the relevance of the topic? @Scope creep: well I see where the matter is going 57ntaledane9 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

i'm sorry but that sentence doesn't make any sense. Assuming that you are just confused because you got here after prior discussions, the assertion is that he is a notable blogger because two and a half reviews panned his book. I'm not actually sure the third book was ever even published. It hadn't been when Miramax bought the film rights. And the Spanish-language didn't get picked up until the publishing deal in the States.

But anyway, if it's the books that make him notable then maybe all that free speech stuff is off-topic?

Scope creep said there were specific standards for vloggers. Did he meet those? Elinruby (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

"The neutrality of this article is disputed." 158.96.4.13 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Cyprus Mail

This source makes me uneasy. More important though is that Though the somewhat shaken Lira did not provide details, it was apparent he had been held and interrogated by the SBU doesn't really validate claimed to have been detained by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Elinruby (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, replaced it with this which is much better: [16] (from Chilean affiliate of Metro International) JSwift49 15:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

k. Plan to sit down and go through Spanish sources. I do read it but not fluently enough for anything likely to be nuanced, so I'll want to check myself with apps that only run on some of my devices.

Point is, thank you for making it easier to verify that one. Elinruby (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

i got interrupted part way through but I agree that this is a much better piece of journalism. With the kind of corporate background you're describing, it probably has at least come sort of editorial process, but it does give some details I have not seen elsewhere

(suspended from Dartmouth for example, and that his parents had supported Pinochet) that perhaps we should include. Elinruby (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish, but through Google Translate I couldn't find anything about a suspension from Dartmouth? I did find that he supported Pinochet though. JSwift49 18:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

i think it says his parents were, about half-way down. (checking) I did say parents. However in the lede it calls Lira himself a Pinochiste, or some similar word. Spanish does use that sort of construction quite frequently to indicate political supporters. I first read this word as liar (ie from Pinocchio) but given the later remark about the parents i think it means Pinochet supporter. It would be nice to be right about that however. I will find the Spanish quotes for you if you want. You are right to check. We should not rely on my Spanish for anything controversial or complicated, though it is adequate for stuff like "the city was invaded in year x by caudillo y"...But this is also why I semi-questioned the reliability of the source. Oh I just reread and saw that you agreed about that. Hang on and let me make sure of what I am saying about Dartmouth if you can't find it.Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

so, you are correct, it isn't in that source. I can't put my hands on it right now. Guessing it's in a link off one of the sources. Obviously we aren't going to say that without a source, and if it's important it should theoretically be in sources somewhere and come back up. I'll note it right away this time when it does. The significance of it was that it involved misogyny and possibly sexual assault.

As to details in the Metro source though, I also saw Pinochet in another Spanish-language source, so that is interesting and would explain a tolerance for totalitarians. That source also says he was "expelled" from the hotel where journalists were staying, which seems relevant. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: found it. [17] I think good school newspapers are reliable for on-campus events etc, and ABOUTSELF might apply, with attribution of course, because what he says about himself isn't necessarily true either. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting. I think it could be put in, sure, with appropriate attribution/hedging. JSwift49 03:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just right after the first mention of Dartmouth: Lira wrote in a (date) column in the Dartmouth student newspaper (name) that he had been suspended in his freshman year due to a complaint from a female student

? Elinruby (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem, though I couldn't find any secondary sources that mentioned it, up to you if you think it's worthwhile JSwift49 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It adds color to the dating coach thing. I might add it. I want to finish going through the Danish language sources anyway for overcite, and I think one of them mentioned it Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

SF Examiner

While this is on the face of it a pretty good source for the article, it jumps to page 11, which we do not have. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately newspapers.com doesn't allow me to create a clipping from multiple pages. In this case it doesn't matter -- although the review indeed continues on page 11, all the material needed to verify critic Patricia Holt identified it as following a trend in mainstream commercial publishing of replacing what would conventionally be a male character with a female is on the first page, namely the following:

As noted previously, the New York Times reported last year that women buy far more commercial fiction than men, and as a consequence, editors are rejecting manuscripts with traditional male protagonists and telling writers to use strong female characters instead. But nobody seems to have cautioned writers that you can't just replace Mr. Tough Guy with Ms. Tough Gal without causing some smirks and giggles among readers. In COUNTERPARTS by Gonzalo Lira (Putnam; 343 pages; $24.95), for example, who should be racing out of her son's soccer game in Washington, D.C., and "driving like a demon" to RFK Stadium but Margaret Chisholm, a "little suburban house.

Secondly, as a reminder, internet accessibility is not a requirement for sources. This would have been a perfectly acceptable reference even if I hadn't purchased a newspapers.com subscription and made a clipping of this source. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. –– WP:PUBLISHED. Jfire (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes yes of course all this would be just fine if he was running for mayor of Davenport Iowa. But this is not that, it's Russian propaganda we helped to create. Which is still at work. I think that raises the threshold for due diligence a fair bit, given the history of hijinks on this article. It may be that an article can be built about the YouTubers as a group. But it would need to be very well sourced, because it seems like if we have the article it should follow its best sources. And its best sources say he's a shill, right?

If you're seeing a link to full text, otoh, then maybe it's an OS thing; I'll check later on my laptop. Elinruby (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In what way is this article Russian propaganda? It's pretty clear about him spreading Russian disinformation/propaganda himself, and it doesn't treat the torture/killing allegations with undue weight. JSwift49 21:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

As written, it built him up as a credible source, glorified the failed dating advice, failed economic blogging and failed filmmaking, glosses over the fact that these books just barely saw print and that he was a manipulative loser with a need to feel important. The more seriously we take all that the more we feed the propaganda that he was some sort of martyred prisoner of conscience Elinruby (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree that the article’s current focus on Lira’s not particularly notable or successful career as a novelist and filmmmaker seems designed to take attention away from his activities in Ukraine. That’s what he’s known for and that’s what the article should focus on, not some books that got panned in the 90s.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

However, yeah, I agree the novels are given too much weight, I will work on trimming that section now. JSwift49 14:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It does not glorify it is clear that he spread disinformation and if his books received reviews/coverage, that's just a fact of life. The lead is about his activities in Ukraine as well so that's what the emphasis remains on. JSwift49 14:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

that's fine as long as we keep it straight straight that it is not the case that he was also a life coach, dating coach and a film director and an auteur and a princess and the pony the princess rode in on also. I think it is notable as a disinformation tactic. See Ruslan Kotsaba also. Elinruby (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I can definitely see the problem with too much emphasis on his novels, as if we take the time to about the origins or backstories of novels it does imply they are more significant than they are. So I think we've hit a good medium on coverage now. IMO some aspects (being called the 'highest paid Chilean author in the world', having his film #2 on the box office his opening weekend) are important to mention, but stuff like 'the manuscript was pulled from a slush pile' is too much. JSwift49 18:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't per se object to the slush pile, which if true is worth a raised eyebrow. The cookie-cutter reviews are just filler though and there is enough else to talk about. What percentage of spy novels is reviewed by Kirkus? I suspecr it's high.

Novels

I believe that all of the stuff about his advance, the book reviews, etc. is WP:UNDUE on this page - Lira is not known for being a novelist. We should limit discussion of the novels to the bare fact of their existence and remove all of the material about how they were made etc. (I'd say that's all covered on the pages for the novels now, but I'm highly suspicious that those articles will not be there much longer.)--Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that JSwift49 has already done this (the current edit warring must have obscured the changes). Consider this section in support of his change.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I also removed the number of videos/subscribers he had (that to me is bordering on WP:PROMO). JSwift49 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the extensive press coverage in Chilean sources documenting how unprecedented it was for a Chilean-American novelist to receive a $1m advance in the 1990s, I think this is blatant WP:RECENTISM. Jfire (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Do Chilean sources now refer to him as a novelist? It might have been unprecedented in the 90s, but neither novel went anywhere.—-Ermenrich (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

La Tercera refers to him as having had a brief career as a writer [18] though not beyond that. I can get on board with referencing the million dollar advance though as that was notable in Chile at the time JSwift49 16:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Do Chilean sources now refer to him as a novelist? Yes. They did so in the '90s:

La noticia del escritor chileno que logró su primer contrato editorial por US$ 1 millón ha sido recibida con incredulidad y sorpresa por los escritores latinoamericanos. "Es absolutamente inhabitual que se pague una cifra tan alta para un novelista no conocido", señala Tomás Eloy Martínez, autor de Santa Evita. [19]

Conocido como el escritor del millón de dólares por el jugoso contrato que firmó con una famosa editorial norteamericana, el chileno Gonzalo Lira Rijke estará de vuelta en Chile en agosto para presentar aquí su primera novela, "Tomah Errázurih". Editada por Grijalbo, esta historia de un joven cuico de 18 años que vagabundea por Santiago después de haber sido expulsado de la universidad saldrá al mercado cinco meses antes que "Contraparte", novela por la cual la editorial Putnam le pagó esa abultada cifra como adelanto. [20]

And they do so now, for example [21] El cineasta, escritor de novelas policiales y youtuber and [22] cineasta y escritor de novelas policiales. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

i deleted one La Tercera cite because it in turn cited Sputnik. I am not certain was policy says about coliting a source likw that when it doesn't. i will look at the others you mention. Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)