Talk:Millie Weaver

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Alternative views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Notability and RS coverage?

There's lots of coverage of Weaver in fringe, conspiracist and deprecated sources, but the RS coverage is overwhelmingly of her August 2020 arrest. I scoured for what I could, but is there any more RS coverage of her that isn't just restating the facts of her arrest? - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is substantial amount of coverage of the female subject's conspiracist views and her apprehension, but nevertheless, the article should stay neutral and not sound biased. The subject does not meet WP:NJOURNALIST as the subject is more of a political commentator, but does barely meet WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's "sound biased" and there's the RS-documented facts that she's a right-wing conspiracy theorist promoting nonsense, and so is her former employer Jones, and we shouldn't pretend this isn't the case, I think - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the subject's conspiratorial beliefs is in fact significantly covered in the references; however, the article should read with an encyclopedic-tone and not like a bias magazine column. There is ample discussion in the article of her preoccupation with conspiratorial beliefs. Also, "nonsense" is a subjective term, as those conspiratorial beliefs may not be perceived as nonsense by similar-minded people. The article should be toned with appropriateness so it is beneficial for all readers; neutrality is important. Multi7001 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"nonsense is a subjective term", but WP:FRINGE and the associated arbcom decision are reasonably clear on the matter: RSes call her work conspiracy theory, RSes note that promoting conspiracy theories in conspiracy theory outlets is what she is notable enough to rate an article for, and thus so should Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. There are already adequate references all over the articlespace of the subject as a believer of conspiratorial beliefs, there cannot be excess political jargon or it will not be encyclopedic. Multi7001 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, anything that seems to require citing a deprecated source should not be present in the article, and it's amazing I need to say that. Even if she's in the deprecated sources a lot, it's not usable on Wikipedia unless it's in an RS - especially on a BLP - and then the deprecated source is redundant. And again, WP:FRINGE and related arbitration cases, e.g. "polarized sources should be replaced with higher quality independent sources rather than "balanced" with equally polarized sources" - stick to RSes, don't introduce deprecated crank sources to try not to appear "biased" - David Gerard (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Newsmax a questionable source by Wiki? Is it because of the right-wing conspiratorial beliefs that they published years ago? Multi7001 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP links to the detailed answer to your question. ~~The deprecation was unanimous~~ oops, sorry, no it wasn't - but it was enough to close the RFC early - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the list of sources. There are a few there that should be deprecated (e.g., The Straits Times, Project Veritas, HuffPost Politics, Democracy Now!, TMZ); WP:RSP is tenuous in reliability. Also, the Heavy.com story that you added is not that reliable. Consider making changes or adding sources to this article, it barely meets WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue with WP:RSP, then WP:RSN is the place to do that. RSP is an explanatory page, but it's an explanatory page of detailed discussions and RFC consensus. Heavy is not the best, but it's not the worst; I used it for the birth date, since it quoted the police report - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories are not "perhaps" what Weaver is best known for - they're why she gets mentioned in RSes.

Per WP:LEDE, the lead should summarise the article; so the conspiracising needs mentioning right there in the intro.

I don't see evidence that "Shadowgate" was very controversial - RSes just debunk it as nonsense.

There's no reason in Wikipedia policy or practice to bowdlerise Jones' fame being based in conspiracy theories; as I've noted, it's amply covered in the articles on both Jones and InfoWars.

The "filmography" isn't sourced, and I couldn't find it in RSes; this is rather too WP:RESUME-like.

Ultimately, representing Weaver's notability as based in things other than her political conspiracy theories is not supported by the RSes; if you want to play this down, or claim or imply she's noted in RSes for any other reason, you need to show RSes that support such a view.

- David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No stories exist of the filmography aside from the IMDb page. Tag added for years active. Consider adding more sources, if they exist, for this article that you patrolled. Multi7001 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Weaver is notable for her conspiracy theories is per the RSes. Per WP:LEDE, leaving this out of the article summary is incorrect - as noted at length above. These are the facts as noted in the RSes, not "bias" in our presentation of the facts as noted in RSes. Attempting to remove this is a violation of WP:NPOV - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend leaving the top section as a broad description of her capacity and elaborating more in the next sections to refrain from bias. The article space reads with too much bias; there is ample discussion in all areas of the page of her preoccupation with those beliefs. Multi7001 (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without mention of the conspiracy theorising, the intro is not a summary of the article. With it, it is. This is not complicated. Again, you're claiming "bias" in the face of the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By labeling a subject a 'conspiracy theorist' you are presuming their beliefs are irrational to your own; Wiki is only an encyclopedia, not a moderator of political beliefs. Removing it from the top, but not the main content, keeps the articlespaces reading neutral, of an encyclopedic tone, and does not offend readers with similar subjective beliefs. If the re-undoing of the edits keeps occurring, I may have to add a cleanup tag to the articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you revert your recent edit - this article is recent American politics, so is under a 1RR rule - you may be blocked if you do not.

The description is how the RSes describe her. As such, it would remiss of us not to say it in Wiki voice. You're literally confessing to bowdlerising the article here. I would remove any such tag, as there would be nothing to clean up. I urge you to review the verifiability policy and the lead summary guideline - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit at your discretion. I've added a neutrality tag as the articlespace reads with a biased tone and not as encyclopedic. There should be input from other users on this before removing the tag from the article. Multi7001 (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

should the article state that the charges vs Weaver were dropped?

~~Should article add that the charges were dropped at the pre-trial hearing?~~

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/10/23/ex-infowarss-millie-weaver-exonerated-of-all-charges/

https://thewashingtonpundit.locals.com/post/239650/millie-weaver-exonerated-all-charges-dropped-the-washington-pundit

~~(FairNPOV (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC))~~[reply]

Yes, if we can find an RS - one is a blog, the other is something that sort of looks like a news site but has weird content. Did RSes cover this at all? - David Gerard (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any RSes for this? - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None? - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PeacePeace sockpuppet comment striked and noted per WP:BE, —Paleo Neonate – 22:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political neutrality tag

The article has been tagged for political neutrality. What is the RS-based evidence that the article violates WP:NPOV in this, or any, regard? - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no discussion or justification for the "political neutrality" tag in seven days - including from the editor who placed it - I've removed the tag, under rules 4 and 8 of when to remove. An editor can't just place a tag then keep it by saying nothing in response to a policy-and-guidelines-based query - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023: No new RSes

I just did a search for new RSes since 2021 and couldn't find any. Even unreliable or deprecated sources are thin on the ground. Weaver seems to be slipping back into obscurity - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No updates on her website since May 2022 - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]