Talk:Mike Lindell

Relevance of Topics and Balance of Coverage

It appears there is very little information about Mr. Liddel's business dealings, of which he originally gained his notoriety. Word count per topic in biographical information should be in proportion to the subject's most important or significant acheivements (or failures) with balance and objectivity. Those criticizing Mr. Liddel do themselves a diservice by bringing the credibility of the page into question, offering overwhelmingly one-sided political coverage of the individual. Please consider including more information about Mr. Liddel's business dealings. How many employees does he have? How quicklyl did he grow the company? How many My Pillows (or other products) have been sold? Is he known as an effective leader or has he been embroiled in workplace misconduct? How big is his following and for what may he be admired or hated? While I don't question the truthfulness of the page, it seems lacks balance and appears to possess an overabundance of political bias, which is unfortunate since most who overcome addiction to find business success and faith or direction often benefit from at the very least a balance of coverage, if not some level of admiration, neither of which Mr. Liddel is not afforded on this page. A proper historical account ought to have much less bias. This is crowdsourced encylcopedia, not a town square or a whipping post, not a social media platform... 67.163.154.224 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As you say - this encyclopaedia is created by its contributors so why not contribute WP:DIY rather than merely criticise Robynthehode (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Details about Lindell's business, including the answers to several of your questions, can be found in the article on that business (My Pillow). While it's sometimes appropriate for multiple Wikipedia articles to contain the same information, I can't really see the need in this case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I can say for sure, a large body of the American population will read a bit, see how bias it is and not read further. I know people have strong feelings about this person but this article is frankly not an encyclopedia article, it has to many elements of an opinion piece. It may be better to say: "Mike has been accused of being a conspiracy theory because of X Y and Z", however simple declaring him one is taking a side on something that doesn't have consensus. Q9d87777d (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Q9d87777d – are you referring to the lede? Lede is a brief summary of article, and is specifically kept concise and terse as possible. Explanatory "X Y Z" and elucidation can be found in article body; but doesn't belong in lede.

Not our problem if individuals reading article don't like what they find – that's their problem, and a disservice to themselves.

Wikipedia has selection bias – one shared by our sources. We can't control the biases of upstream sources we rely upon, nor have control over what they say. Structurally, we are required to parrot them. Our job as an encyclopaedia is to make note of what WP:RS say or find notable. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. If upstream overwhelmingly take sides, that is societies' "problem" to fix, not Wikipedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate

Could it be appropriate to add "one cannot help but wonder if Lindell's prior crack addiction is an explanation for his erratic behavior." HelperHelper1 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, unless you have a citation of someone saying that, preferably a medical professional(which you won't get because no legitimate medical professional would say that without examining him). 331dot (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I see your point. The fact that many wonder if his prior crack addiction helps to explain his bizarre and erratic behavior is irrelevant unless it is true that his prior crack addiction helps to explain his bizarre and erratic behavior. One might find it relevant that "many" do wonder about that, but you make a good point that he should get medical treatment to make that determination. HelperHelper1 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

Citation 127 on Mike Lindell page is incorrect and not up to date 2600:1700:7E90:1B50:2130:CE4F:74F0:473 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2023 (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. Tollens (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

infobox picture

@HistorianL: I noticed you replaced the image in Lindell's infobox to one you have taken. While it is great that you've gone ahead and taken a photo of him yourself, we already have higher quality and recent photoportraits of Lindell so please do not replace the picture.

• 
  HistorianL's selected image
• 
  Higher quality image

―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s obvious which image im voting for. I vote for Option A HistorianL (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a democracy, and please do not let your personal attachment to the photo dictate which photo you will support. It should be obvious that the photo on the left is of a lesser technical quality, considering the odd posture, low resolution, and unprofessional composition. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The image could be used elsewhere in the article, perhaps to showcase his attendance at the Turning Point Convention with some extra information about his connection to the convention. But, according to MOS:IMAGELEAD, the lead image should be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works." This means that we should avoid the usage of casual selfies if we have photographs by professional photographers available.

Also, please do not remove people's comments on the talk page without good reason, see WP:TPO. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the status quo image at while people reach consensus here. I have no opinion myself, just noting that there is a third image in the running here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly fine with the status quo image remaining. It's of high technical quality, although the posture of Lindell is a bit awkward with his neck twisting like that. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)