Talk:Larry Elder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Questions about "Moral Court"

Is the daytime talk show "Moral Court"? If not, it should be clarified that Elder was the host of that show, which seemed to me to be a sort of People's Court/Judge Judy thing.

Elder's earlier show was Moral Court (a pseudo-court show) -- his current show is The Larry Elder Show and is more a traditional talk show in the Montel or Oprah vein. Warner Bros. TV Distribution pulled the plug in early April. Episodes will air througout the remainder of the season (until early September).

This statement needs to be backed up: 'Because of his libertarian leanings, some African Americans have accused Elder of being "anti-Black."' Why would libertarianism be seen as anti-black? Hashshashin 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Libertarianism is generally opposed to Affirmative Action and race-based preferences and a lot of so-called "black leadership" is threatened by that.—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 07:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it's an imprecise wording and still not backed up--imprecise because they supposedly object to his opinions on affirmative action and not his supposed ideological identity. I'm changing it. Hashshashin 06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Change noted

I changed B.A. to A.B. I am a Brown Grad with the same degree its called A.B. not B.A. there.Jasev01 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson quote

He has often cited a Thomas Jefferson quote to sum-up his views: "The government that governs best is the one that governs least." Although such a statement might be consistent with Jefferson's views, there is no proof he ever said that.

It was originally attributed to Jefferson by Henry David Thoreau. Other than those two, it has also been attributed to Thomas Paine. From wikiquote...

That government is best which governs least.

Attributed to Jefferson by Thoreau, this statement is used in his essay on civil disobedience, but the quote has not been found in Jefferson's own writing and the statement may well have originated with Thoreau himself. It is also commonly attributed to Paine, perhaps because of its similarity in theme to many of his well-documented expressions, such as "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" and "security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

I don't think this deserves to be included in Larry Elder's criticism section. --4.239.168.43 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Links

Could anyone clear up why the Massachusetts gun law link is in this article? Redoy 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Please

First, the author states that Elder was a liberal minded Republican, then they say later that he's a Libertarian. Which is he? The two are not the same things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.96.176 (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He often says he is a Republican with libertarian leanings. He was an official libertarian until the libertarian party wasn't as strong on security after 9/11 (his views, not mine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.246.21 (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On his radio show, he often refers to himself as a "Republitarian". He says he didn't coin it, but has willingly co-opted its use. PlayCuz (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

I'm sure if someone emails Larry at sage@larryelder.com that he'll gladly give us a picture and the right to use it for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.246.21 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Rockyobody (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Style/Grammar

Article needs cleaning up in places. If no-one objects (or takes it on themselves) I'll have a try. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservative not liberterian

75.27.237.187 claims The Advocates for Self-Government states Larry Elder is philosophically libertarian. There is no mention of Elder being "philosophically libertarian", the article even says he is a "fiscal conservative". So my opinion is that he should be a conservative, even though he has said himself he changed allegiance to the GOP. Rockyobody (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the link? It calls him a "fiscal conservative" AND "social liberal." That's a basic definition of a libertarian. If you read the very next sentence it reads "Larry Elder is a true libertarian." The title of the link is "Larry Elder - Libertarian" and is one of several entries for libertarian celebrities on a libertarian site The Advocates for Self-Government. It couldn't be more clear that he's a libertarian. By your standard, since it does in fact say he's a "fiscal conservative" and you choose to ignore "social liberal", one could theoretically call Larry Elder a liberal talk show host, because that article mentioned he's a "social liberal" and simply ignore the fact it also says he's "fiscally conservative". The bio on his website http://www.larryelder.com describes him as a "firebrand libertarian". It couldn't be more clear. Also I think it's sloppy when you can't spell the word libertarian correctly. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you forgot to mention that your source is from Feb 23, 2003. If you look at his biography, it clearly states he became a REPUBLICAN in May 2003. If you have ever listened to his show he is pro-Bush and pro-McCain, and does not even mention libertarian candidates. When he says he is a libertarian, he either says firebarnd libertarian or republitarian, because he still shares some of their platforms. Many people have differences with their party, but overall he is a republican. Your right, it should not say he is a conservative. It should say Republican. Rockyobody (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your inability to face the facts. Larry Elder is a libertarian. He is a registered Republican, but so are people like Ron Paul, who is also philosophically libertarian. His own label "Republitarian" is used to describe a registered Republican party member, who is philosophically libertarian. I think the confusion you are having is with the difference between someone who is philosophically libertarian and one who is a Libertarian Party member. One is a philosophy, and one is a political party. I further do not understand your removal of a citation that identifies him as a libertarian. This is article is not a pet project for you to some how removal factual portrayals of Larry Elder as a self described libertarian and described by critics as a libertarian just so you can call him a conservative or equate that he's a conservative. This is factually dishonest and does a grave disservice to this site and those who choose to rely on its information. 65.211.194.176 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your mention of Ron Paul only strengthens my point. People like Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman are mentioned by their party, not what you say is their philosophical belief. I guess you didn’t bother to look at the link, but what it says is that he was a libertarian (when your source was made) but is now a republican. My guess would be that you are a libertarian. But if he himself claims to be republican, why are you arguing. Many people have changed party affiliation and Larry certainly is one of them. For the future, please approach these article without you libertarian bias. And when he says Republiterian he means he has beliefs from both parties. But lets go by what he says he is, and you can elaborate in the article. Rockyobody (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand you taking a blind eye to what's right in front of you. The link you are showing right now does not say Larry "was" a libertarian. It says he is a libertarian, but was registered as "declined to state" and changed his affiliation to "Republican." Once again, these facts dispute your claim. It further says in his bio that "He continues to support the libertarian principles of limited government and maximum personal and financial responsibility." I still believe you're problem is that you don't understand the difference between a "small l" libertarian, one who is philosophically libertarian and a "big L" Libertarian, which is a Libertarian Party member. 65.211.194.176 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He continues to support a few of the party’s principles. Just about every politician supports ideas of different parties. I fail to see how you think you have a legitimate argument. He is in fact a registered Republican. You can debate all you want about what he believes, but he is a registered republican and it is very simple. I believe Ron Paul is a libertarian. But for the same reason I don't change it. Rockyobody (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added a quote from a 2008 interview with The New Individualist Magazine, where he talks about being a libertarian. [1] He says he's still a small-l libertarian and always was. This was only a few months ago. Your contention that he was no longer libertarian in 2003 when he became a registered Republican is baseless. For one thing, I've found multiple citations establishing Larry Elder as a libertarian. His bio says he's been described as a "firebrand libertarian", The Advocates for Self-Government have a page, calling him "a true libertarian" and this most recent interview in fall of 2008 has him in his own words say he's a "small l-libertarian." You on the other hand have not only misrepresented him as being only a Republican, you tried to remove perfectly accurate factual information in the rest of the article, which refers to his libertarian beliefs. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing his description to conservative or republican when there is so much evidence that goes against your edit. You haven't even offered any citation of your own to refute the fact that he is recognized as a libertarian talk show host. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should ignore the fact that he is a Republican? Once again, I understand that you believe he has a lot of libertarian views, but are we going to ignore his status as a registered Republican? I think we can put conservative or maybe Republican/Libertarian, but if we cannot ignore his libertarian views why ignore his republican views. I think the article should just say Republican, but we can’t have it just say Libertarian, because it is misleading. - Rockyobody (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Larry Elder is ideologically libertarian. He's for abortion rights, gays in the military, gay marriage, and the legalization of drugs, gambling and prostitution[2]. Conservatives are against all of those things. Conservatism is an ideology. A conservative only believes certain things. A libertarian only believes certain things. If you have a vastly different point of view, you can't be classified as one of those ideological groups. A Republican is a member of the Republican Party. Anyone can be a Republican. All you have to do is sign up. The Republican party is made up of a mixture of different interest groups and ideologies, including social and fiscal conservatives, some moderates, some populists, some libertarians and even some liberals. The Libertarian Party is a political party, like the Republican Party. It's just a group of individuals who have certain viewpoints. It's definitely more ideologically uniform than the Republican Party is, but it's also just a group of people, not a philosophy. When describing people in the talk radio industry for example, the practice is to say someone's ideology, not their party affiliation. Nobody calls Sean Hannity a Republican talk show host, they call him a conservative talk show host. Likewise, nobody called Al Franken a Democratic talk show host, they called him a liberal talk show host. The same should go for Larry Elder. He should be classified as a libertarian talk show host, not a Republican talk show host, and certainly not a conservative talk show host, since he is not ideologically conservative. His political party affiliation is already in the article in a more appropriate section. The article mentions he's a registered Republican under the "politics" section. There are several references there to his decision to register as a Republican from being Declined to State, some of which i personally added. There is nothing misleading about keeping his party affiliation there. It is misleading to try to cover up the fact that he's a libertarian. Notice I say "libertarian" and not "Libertarian." When spelled with a small 'l', libertarian refers to the philosophy of libertarianism. When spelled with a capital 'L', Libertarian means a member of the Libertarian Party. Larry Elder was never registered as a Libertarian Party member, but he has always been philosophically libertarian. I've added numerous accurate citations and references to back up the information i've put in this article. You on the other hand have not offered a single shred of evidence in the form of a quote, citation or reference to back up your view. For that reason I refuse to allow you to change his ideology. Going back into the history, I found out that you were the one who originally changed it from libertarian to conservative a month ago, with your edit comment "Liberterian is conservative, and Elder makes it clear he IS NOT a liberterian." You haven't backed up any claim that he's conservative, other than he's a Republican, which is insufficient. You also haven't cited anything to back up your edit comment that Larry Elder has made it clear that he isn't a libertarian. For those reasons I will not let you remove "libertarian" and replace it with "conservative" in the article. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

Due to edit-warring, I have fully protected this page for a week. Discuss this and come to a consensus, and when one has been reached, contact me or any admin to have protection removed. Horologium (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: libertarian or conservative/Republican

We have a disagreement over how to classify Larry Elder as a radio talk show host. One user has changed the description to call him a conservative talk radio host and has also changed it to read Republican talk radio host. I on the other hand have changed it back to read libertarian talk radio show host. Opinions from third parties are appreciated in resolving this. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I will reiterate my position that Larry Elder should be labeled a libertarian radio talk show host, because he has been described as a "firebrand libertarian"[3] by Daily Variety, and has been called "fiscally conservative", "socially liberal" and "a true libertarian" by the libertarian group, The Advocates for Self Government and is listed among other libertarian celebrities[4], and because Larry Elder has described himself as a small 'l' libertarian as recently as July/August of 2008 in an interview.[5] I think the core of this dispute arises from the misunderstanding of the word "libertarian." A libertarian (lower case l) is one who follows the philosophy of libertarianism, while a Libertarian (capital L) is one who is a member of the Libertarian Party. Larry Elder is a registered Republican, but one can still be a libertarian (lower case l) and a Republican, because membership in a political party does not dictate what you choose to believe. On the other hand, one cannot be both a Libertarian (capital L) and a Republican, because you can only be registered to one party at a time. I think we have a problem with semantics and I hope this clarifies my point. That being said, I feel that it is important to highlight Larry Elder's libertarian beliefs, because as a talk radio personality, it is his libertarianism that stands out in his nearly 15 years on the radio. His party affiliation seems less significant since he has criticized the Republican Party for many years and after reregistering as a Republican from being Declined to State in 2003, he wrote a column explaining that he is still philosophically libertarian in his views and implied that his change in party affiliation was so he could be more influential ("I can exercise greater effectiveness cajoling, pushing and advocating on the inside, than nagging as an independent from the outside.")[6] I also want to add that his party affiliation is already adequately highlighted in the politics section of the article. Those who want to read about his party affiliation can simply scroll down and read it. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree that Elder should be called a libertarian in the article. He holds libertarian views on the war on drugs, abortion rights and voted against prop 8 (to ban gay marriage in CA) and calls himself a libertarian frequently. I think we should keep the format similar to other articles of talk radio personalities. Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Al Rantel and Sean Hannity are all labeled "conservative" talk radio hosts, not "Republican." Likewise, Alan Colmes is labeled a "liberal" commentator, not a "Democratic" one. I think a great parallel example is Neal Boortz, who is described as a "Neo-libertarian" talk radio host and later in the article it's explained he is a current member of the Republican party, while still holding libertarian views. Thorburn (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I do not think he should be a libertarian. I have listened to his show from 2003 until the cancellation, and after he left the party he NEVER mentioned himself as a libertarian, usually referring to himself as a Republitarian. Just like all the other radio/commentators, he should be listed as a conservative, liberal, right or left wing. Obviously he would be a conservative. He is included Black_conservatism_in_the_United_States#Talk_show_hosts. I think referring to him as a Libertarian is misleading. We can elaborate in his political views section. But there is also the option of not mentioning a political affiliation in the first paragraph. Rockyobody (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is it absolutely essential to give him either label? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think that Martin is right. Why doesn't the article just cite the facts, namely that Elder has called himself both Libertarian and Republitarian, cite sources who have criticized either label, and leave it at that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougHill (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 January 2009

That is exactly what I meant. To give people themselves labels is destructively simplistic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't have a problem with calling him any name that's been cited somewhere. I feel the the main problem with this dispute is that I have found numerous sources citing Larry Elder as a libertarian, while Rockyobody has yet to cite any source calling Larry Elder a conservative. I've listened to Larry Elder for years as well and I have heard him mention his libertarianism, but that kind of evidence is not easily citable. Same for hearsay evidence for someone who never heard him talk about something. I have provided at least 3-4 independent sources in the article either describing Elder as a libertarian or Elder calling himself a libertarian, one as recent as August of 2008. If someone has a source where he calls himself a conservative, I'd be more than happy to have it in the article, but Rockyobody has yet to offer any citation for his editing other than POV evidence. In addition he is also wrong in saying Larry Elder was ever a registered member of the Libertarian Party and I corrected that in the article as well (with a citation). If it will bring this dispute to a close, I'm very open to removing any ideological label, since there is a section already on his political views. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think that the only thing we can do is not give him a party label in the first paragraph, and use the section in the article to elaborate. But I do want to reiterate that the link you used in the first paragraph was made in 2003 before he switched. If it is misleading to put Republican, I think it is also misleading to put Libertarian. It looks like all the edits you make on wikipedia are just for that party, but I am looking at this from a neutral pov and I think the only thing we agree on is to not have an affiliation. But here is a link where he talks about being a Republican and why he endorsed John McCain(a Republican). - Rockyobody (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I do not think removing an ideological label, which would be inconsistent with other wikipedia articles on talk radio personalities, who are known for their political positions on issues is warranted when there is still no evidence offered to say he is a conservative. Not one single citation. The validity of a small part of an article should not be held up by one person who has offered no evidence to back up his claim. Voting for John McCain in 2008 does not a conservative make. I am also surprised that after further discussion about what the difference between a "libertarian" and a "Libertarian" is as well as talking to the admin who protected this page, Rockyobody still does not understand the difference. We should not be holding up an accurate edit of this article when an opposing user has never offered a single citation to doubt its validity. Thorburn (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the link has him claiming to be a Republican. What I said earlier was that he is in the Black conservatism in the United States article, and that radio hosts are classified as conservative or liberal. A link had him classified as a fiscal conservative, but I agree we can't say he is a conservative. When I was told we could classify with a party, I said he should be a Republican. And I did not say voting McCain made him a Republican. I said he talks about being a Republican and why he endorsed a Republican. So I stand by my claim that he is a Republican, given that the article calling him a Republican was something HE HIMSELF RECENTLY WROTE, the article calling him a Libertarian is a LIBERTARIAN-BIASED ARTICLE and was made BEFORE he switched parties. Rockyobody (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I said that I wasn't going to get involved in this; I lied. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies. Rockyobody, you need to understand this: Libertarian ≠ libertarian. Nobody is calling Larry Elder a Libertarian (i.e., a member of the Libertarian Party). Instead, they are calling him a libertarian (i.e., one whose political beliefs are congruent with libertarianism). I don't know how this can be made any simpler, and your refusal to accept(or understand) the differentiation between the two terms is, to say the least, incredibly frustrating. I do appreciate that some progress has been made in that you no longer insist on adding the factually incorrect "conservative" label, but adding the "Republican" label is not a good thing either. As I explained to you on my talk page, Larry Elder is at odds with the Republican Party platform on any number of social issues, such as abortion, drug legalization, gay marriage, and legalization of prostitution. (All of his views on these issues are consistent with libertarianism.) He is no more an exemplar of Republican Party values than Jim Naugle is an exemplar of Democratic Party values, despite his party registration. (I used Fred Phelps in my original post on my talk page, which is an even more extreme example.) Removing the label might solve the current difference of opinion, but it makes Elder one of a small number of politically-oriented talk radio hosts whose general political leanings are not addressed in the lede of their biography.

Rockyobody, your repetitive and obstinate refusal to listen to other editors is beginning to approach the point of Disruptive editing, and you might end up getting blocked or topic-banned if you don't start working collaboratively with the others who have been involved with this article. I would suggest you stop and listen to what other editors have been saying. Horologium (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would put it to you all that when writing the biography of a living person there are no reliable sources as to the person's actual current views other that those clearly stated by the person themselves. Of course reliable sources can be quoted as giving opinions on a person, as in 'described by The Times as a libertarian', but no source can be considered reliable enough to give a person a label. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would direct you to Larry Elder's Official Bio (from his website), in which the opening "Firebrand libertarian" is attributed to Variety and then the bio explicitly identifies his ideology: A blend of fiscal conservative and social liberal—with attitude—Elder’s libertarian views have fueled controversy and made him one of the most in-demand radio personalities in the country. The next sentence notes that he changed his party registration in 2003 but retains "libertarian principles" (note the lowercase l). FWIW, that whole section is lifted verbatim from his column published May 15, 2003. I think that in this case, his self-identification is clearly enumerated. Horologium (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is that link any better than the link I gave from the column he wrote? But anyway, I love how you use the example of Jim Naugle, whose article says, Although a lifelong Democrat, he frequently votes for and supports Republican candidates. Listen I understand the difference between libertarian and Libertarian, but I don’t think you can just say he is a libertarian. If you said Although a registered Republican, he has views consistent with libertarianism, or something along those lines I would not object. Rockyobody (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Martin Hogbin's assessment that one's political views are best evidenced by his own words, but as cited in the article already, Larry Elder in his own words calls himself a "small 'l' libertarian" in an interview with a publication called The New Individualist in their July/August 2008 issue.[7] How much closer can we get to the truth of his beliefs than his own words in an interview only months ago? If the problem is with this particular citation present in the article, I'd be entirely in favor of substituting it for this one. If you read the interview he even talks about his evolution from being a kid in a family with a Democratic mother and a Republican father and how he discovered libertarianism through watching William F. Buckley on Firing Line, to interviewing libertarian economist Walter Williams on his PBS show, to reading all the works of Thomas Sowell. He even talks about how he was never a Libertarian Party member, but did give speeches at a few of their meetings, but declined joining. Essentially everything that's been disputed in this edit war is made clear in this interview. I feel that if this isn't enough to convince someone Larry Elder is a libertarian, then we should all be removing labels like "conservative" and "liberal" from all political commentators and talk radio personalities for the same reason, because the standard set would be absurdly unreachable. Thorburn (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I think this needs to end. Horologium, I just noticed that Rockyobody changed Neal Boortz's article to read "neo-conservative" instead of "neo-libertarian" [8] and after a dispute with another editor he tried to label him a "conservative"[9], there is no longer a label. I assume he did this because I had cited Neal Boortz as an example of an article of a libertarian talk show host we might want to follow. This has got to be a violation of some wikipedia policy. Thorburn (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockyobody has also as of yesterday tried to edit the libertarianism article by removing Ron Paul from it, claiming he can't be both a Republican and libertarian.[10] I do not think we can have a proper discussion of this dispute when he is changing other articles to fit his position. Thorburn (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you see Neal Boortz, his political affiliation was removed by User:Morphh, because I was talking to him and we both said that the intro was too long. His political affiliation was not even a valid link. In no way was I trying to make some sort of point, because I was told a long time ago that other people's articles should not be of any influence. And in regards to the Ron Paul edit, I did not think he could be called a libertarian if he was a Republican, without sourcing that, but I don't know exactly how that would even affect the article. Anyway neither of those edits were to bolster any type of point, although I do find it a little odd that Thorburn was watching my every move but I thought I'd clear that up. Rockyobody (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Edit-protected again

I came very close to blocking both Rockyobody (talk · contribs) and Thorburn (talk · contribs) over the renewed edit-warring on the article, but instead I edit-protected it. Both of you need to come to an agreement (on this page) to how to word this. If either one of you tries the same stunt that was pulled last time (editing related articles to advance your POV) you can expect a block. Unlike last time, the block this time is a nice long one, so we don't have another round of "wait a week until protection expires to start editing warring again". Horologium (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What if we compromise and call Larry Elder a "libertarian Republican" in the intro paragraph? Although, I think the politics section should be put back to include the information that Larry Elder was once registered declined to state and then became a Republican. The way Rockyobody changed it, is misleading and the removal of certain sentences was unnecessary. Thorburn (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Am I the only one who cares about the integrity of this article by going through the proper, rather than lying in wait until I can change it to get my way? Thorburn (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thorburn, I think you are the one that would wait until you can change it to get your way. Before the page was locked, you reverted my edits; you changed the first sentence without giving a reason. Before I reverted you, I left a message on your talk page, asking what was wrong with the first sentence, and what you think is wrong with the politics paragraph. Instead of answering me, you simply removed my comment from your talk page. That’s fine because even though you did not answer my question, it’s your talk page so you can do whatever you like. However you then requested the page to be locked in your format so you could have it your way, although that request was ultimately denied. Since you refuse to answer me on your talk page, perhaps you would not mind answering me on this page. What relevant information am I removing? I think the way it is right now, it is easy to read and understand his views. I removed one of his quotes, because we could find a million about his views. I think it is easy to read, and has a relevant quote at the end. - Rockyobody (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't act so innocent. I didn't touch the article during the RFC. You stopped commenting and waited and unilaterally changed the article to suit your own POV without discussing it with anyone. You also changed several related articles to suit your argument such as Neal Boortz, who I cited as an example for us to follow and you removed Ron Paul from the libertarianism article to further your POV that being a libertarian and a Republican are mutually exclusive, when it's not true. That's what Horologium is referring to. All I did was revert what you unilaterally changed back to what was already there since you no longer showed an interest in discussing how to word the article and you preferred to just get your way. I removed your comment from my talk page, because you posted the same comment in 3 distinct places. You removed his own quote from his bio calling himself a "firebrand libertarian", you also removed the description of him from the advocates for self government calling him "fiscally conservative, socially liberal and a true libertarian", you removed the fact that he was declined to state before he became a Republican. I'm surprised by this, because you of all people in the RFC was the most adamant in mentioning Larry Elder's political party membership. You also removed the quote from Larry Elder's own column, where he declares that he has become a registered Republican and explains that he is still philosophically libertarian. It's his own words, no one else's. Why did you remove that? My only guess is to further your POV since you were the only one who kept calling him a "conservative" and not a "libertarian." That is why I reverted the unilateral edit you made while the RFC was still going on. Thorburn (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thorborn, your not exactly the brightest crayon in the box are you? Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed either. Look back at the edits to Boortz, and the conversation I had with Morphh. Also in the last discussion I gave an explanation so feel free to look through the archives, although I refuse to explain myself again. Either way it is irrelevant to this article, because we should not base it off of another article. I think when we say libertarian people assume Libertarian. So we should not have libertarian link to libertarianism, instead I think the article is better off with the first paragraph as it is. When I asked you what was wrong with it, trying to avoid an edit war, you removed my comment. Key phrase: asked you. I left that comment on your talk page only, and you simply removed it saying you were cleaning up. I’ll put it back up, because maybe it will take you a second time to will realize. The sentence that says social liberal fiscal conservative should be added again, I agree with that. His concern over the Iraq war was mentioned twice, and the quote can be summed up best with the second quote. We have to keep it easy to navigate and informative, I think it is fine after that. - Rockyobody (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's threatening to block your username for editing Boortz and libertarianism, Horologium is. You only have to explain to him. I think keeping a similar format to other more well established articles is preferable than to creating a format that's foreign and awkward. When people read "libertarian" they do not think "Libertarian." Maybe you do, but nobody in the RFC ever felt that to be true. Three different people have attempted to explain to you the difference between libertarian and Libertarian already. Do you think "a republican form of government" means one run by the Republican party or that a "democratic nation" is one that's run by the Democratic Party? When people see "libertarian" they think of someone who adheres to the philosophy of libertarianism. You may not, but of all the people who commented in the RFC, you stand alone as the only one. Some of the most famous libertarians were never members of the Libertarian party: Milton Friedman, P.J. O'Rourke, Grover Cleveland, Thomas Jefferson, Clint Eastwood, Larry Elder, Ayn Rand. How many famous libertarians were actually Libertarian Party members? Ron Paul was one at one time, but nobody really comes to mind. On top of that, the link from libertarian won't lead to the Libertarian Party. It will lead to libertarianism. I think this article deserves to be improved in quality, but the process shouldn't be hampered by your inability to understand a basic concept and dumbing it down for you several times doesn't seem to be working. I think we should remove the repeated portion to the Libertarian Party's stance on the Iraq War, but we should use the entry that was there before you changed it after the lock was lifted. You removed portions of him talking about his reregistering as Republican, from being declined to state and his quoting Milton Friedman why he registered. You can see what you cut out here[11]. You never gave any reasons for removing this information, and given your pattern of trying to call him a conservative (as well as trying to call Neal Boortz a Neo-conservative of all things) I assume you did it to hide the fact that Larry Elder is a libertarian. Thorburn (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When I said you're not the sharpest tool I was joking, but now I know it wasn't so much of a joke. Horologium clearly stated he would block BOTH OF US, because of edit warring and not irrelevant edits to other articles. I see you paid no attention to my earlier reasoning, which by the way I had to explain multiple times to you, because otherwise you would not have said half of the bull you said up there. You also need to understand that I DO UNDERSTAND the difference between capital L and lower case l libertarians. The problem is other people reading the article might be confused, especially with libertarian redirecting to libertarianism. You are also accusing me of editing the page during the RFC. That would only strengthen my point about you not being the brightest crayon, because the page was locked during the RFC. Did you not read my earlier comment? I gave a reason for removing your so-called “relevant information”. You still refuse to answer my question that I left on your talk page. You claim I left that comment multiple places, but I bet you cant find another place because the only place I left it was your talk page. It doesn’t take a genius to see that I left it there in order to avoid edit warring that would result in this. You clearly have no problem with this back and forth conversation. The only reason you are mad is because your request to lock the page was denied so the page was later locked in the way you did not want it. I would agree with you if you said Horologium was on your side, however you fail to realize that he threatened to block us both, not just you. - Rockyobody (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is like having a conversation with a child. First, Horologium would block one of us if either of us made edits to related articles to further our POV. I never did that...you did though. He's talking about you. I was the one who pointed it out in the first place. I wasn't the one who attempted to edit an article you cited as an example to follow by attempting to remove all relevant points. Second, the RFC was never finished, because the issue was never resolved. The article's protection was only temporary for you and that other editor to figure out what to call Elder. It was never resolved. Once the protection period lapsed you changed the article unilaterally. The issue was never resolved, so the RFC was never concluded. The comment you left on my page was moved and put on both Horologium's page[12] and on the RFC[13], because that's the appropriate place for them. Furthermore there was no question asked of me, just an attempt to rationalize editing related articles which is what Horologium says will result in getting blocked if done again. If I did that, I'd deserve to be blocked too, the fact is i've never done that; you have. Thorburn (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you really telling me you feel like you are having a conversation with a child? I feel like I'm talking to a freaking wall. You can't even get the facts straight can you? Horologium never questioned me about the edits, you did. For the third time, he threatened to block us over our edit warring, you know the one that would have been avoided had you replied to my comment. Clearly you don’t read English. The comment you sourced is a completely different comment than the one your talk page. They are also two weeks different. I know we established you’re not the sharpest tool or the brightest crayon, but really? Honestly can you read? I am no longer going to edit Larry Elder. You and I will never agree. But before we end the discussion please answer questions that any 2 year old could have answered by now. Did you finally understand that after I made multiple attempts to try and make you understand, Horologium was going to block us both, not because of edits to other articles I made, but because of the edit warring, that I tried to avoid? Once again, you were the only one who questioned me. And please take a look at your talk page. Could we have avoided the whole edit war and this long discussion, or was it some comment I posted multiple places? It really isn't rocket science buddy. - Rockyobody (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but your inability to understand basic concepts of logic are astounding. Here is Horologium's statement -> "If either one of you tries the same stunt that was pulled last time (editing related articles to advance your POV) you can expect a block." Unless the entire English language changed last week, he's talking about blocking for changing relevant articles...like say...Neal Boortz or libertarianism. You obviously still have not gotten the grasp of the difference between libertarian and Libertarian if you still think it was warranted removing Ron Paul from the libertarianism article and that it was fine to change Neal Boortz from a libertarian to a neo-conservative. Moreover your unique inability to find relevant citations for your claims when presented with evidence counter to it is astonishing. Thorburn (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you want my opinion on this, but I think the politics section is fine. I compared it with the older version, and this one looks easier to read, and in my opinion better. I know there is also a disagreement on the first sentence, where is says he is a republican and libertarianism. It’s terribly worded; I think it should say Libertarian Republican. I don’t know if this discussion is still going on, but I thought I’d give my opinion. - 71.175.27.49 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a big discussion on what to call him, and I’m really not sure why. He is a libertarian and nothing else. If Obama registered as a Republican, would that make him a Republican? For now I changed it to Republitarian, but when this discussion straightens out he should be called libertarian. Eaglesfan619 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we fix this already? It has been 7 years. Elder clearly should be described as a libertarian. Not only are his views in line with libertarianism, he even describes himself as one. It doesn't matter if someone else calls him a conservative ("[he has] been described as conservative"). He's pro same-sex marriage and against the War on Drugs, so why not include "liberal" in the same sentence? The discussion above is between two people who either want Elder in our out of their camp. Ddnixx (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Dad's age

I can't edit the article, but on the The O'Reilly Factor yesteday, Larry Elder said his dad was 93, and this article says he is 91. 71.175.27.49 (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reregistering as a Republican

I put back prior removed references to his reregistering as a Republican, including a quote from his column announcing it and a more recently interview mentioning additional reasons for why he did it. The fact that he was declined to state before 2003 was put back and cited. I don't know why it was removed, since it implies he was a Libertarian Party member, which was not the case. I also removed awkward phrasing such as "a Republican who identifies with libertarianism" and just said he was a libertarian talk show host, which is more the custom of radio talk show and political commentator articles (ie ideology instead of political party). I also reworked the POV line about how he has supported Bush and McCain throughout his career. This is misleading, because he has criticized both men for various reasons over the years. Instead I changed it stating who he supported in various election years, and I added Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, who he supported in 2000 over Bush. Thorburn (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep it Neutral

I was looking at this talk page, and these users that just fight over nothing have no reason to keep coming back here. Larry is a libertarian, because he says he is. The two users who keep fighting should be told not to modify this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undefined4me (talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that we should keep this page neutral. 2600:1012:B008:994A:9D43:1F06:925C:E2D4 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Race

Why is the first descriptor about Larry about his race? Rush Limbaugh's page does not say "white" first and Barack Obama's page does not say "black" first neither does Clarence Thomas'. Can we move that to later or not mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.133.158 (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A better question might be: why isn't there any material on Larry's views toward affirmative action and entitlement programs? That perhaps is one of his more notable aspects: positions on controversial Black issues that run counter to mainstream Black positions. In fact he makes no secret of being called "Uncle Tom" regularly. One of his books was "Stupid Black Men." He coined the term "victocrat." He is one of a rare breed: a Black Republican. C'mon people - let's get cracking! Lionelt (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you all seriously believe that people will be interested in picking up a book titled, "Stupid Black Men?" I wouldn't buy that book unless I was a racist belonging to a specific racial group in America. I'm not a fan of Larry Elder by no means because his "constructive criticism" consists of downing African Americans and saying that the younger African American community blames their failures on "The Man." I don't understand his logic. That's why his show only lasted 7 freakin' months. I will bash this man until the day he dies and I know for a fact that majority of other people feel the same way as I. I would love to see what type of parents he had. They should be ashamed of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truanjel (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Vent your anger over Larry Elder somewhere else and stop vandalizing this page.Thorburn (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The title "Stupid Black Men" is a parody of Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men.

It is important that the reader know that Larry is black up front. His tweets obsess on race so it is noteworthy. Joshsteinbarr (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

CBS

I remember Larry Elder having his own syndicated talk show on CBS in late 2004 and early 2005. Why is it not in the article? B-Machine (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're correct! He played a judge I think. Feel free to add it! Lionelt (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Moral Court? It's already in the article.Lionelt (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

This is a proposal for merging Michael & Me into the DVD section of this article. Michael & Me is a short stub with no potential for expansion, no independent secondary source coverage, and no notable film reviews or commentary. Currently, all of the sources about this subject, except for an interview with Elder on Hannity & Colmes, mention this subject only in passing. If this film can be shown to meet the GNG and/or film notability guidelines, then I will withdraw this proposal. Currently, the use of multiple sources indicating only passing reference to the topic and no significant coverage is a somewhat deceptive if not misguided attempt to confer notability to a topic that hasn't received significant coverage. We don't create articles using dozens of sources indicating passing reference to the topic. Such articles are automatically redirected to the parent topic or deleted.

For reference, I have commented on why the sources don't support a standalone article at Talk:Michael & Me#Sources_and_notability and I've performed an evaluation of all of the sources currently in use in the article over at Talk:Michael & Me#Recent edits. Per best practice outlined in WP:WITHIN (and many other policies and guidelines all saying the same thing), we should not have a standalone article on a topic that can be briefly described in the parent topic. When such a situation exists, we prefer to merge the information into the parent article and redirect the daughter topic to the parent. If the article was merged today, we would have a small paragraph composed of about 140 words (when removing the duplicate material). It would look something like this (just an example of the current text, not an endorsement of this wording):

The direct-to-DVD documentary attempts to disprove statements made by filmmaker Michael Moore in his 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine about the relationship between American culture, gun ownership and increased violence. The documentary mirrors Moore's landmark 1989 documentary, Roger & Me, in tone and interview style. The film is frequently presented at right wing film festivals. Elder interviews people who have used guns to prevent becoming a victim of crime to provide evidence that an armed society is a safer society. For example, Elder interviews a woman identified as "Jane Doe," a real estate agent who was raped by a client. Elder states that the victim would not have been attacked if she was armed. In an August 2005 interview on Hannity & Colmes, Elder stated that he took out an equity loan on his home to finance the documentary's estimated $350,000 budget.

This is about the size of a single paragraph in a FA-class article. Since 2005, this has been the size of the stub. It is unlikely to expand into a full encyclopedic article about a major film because there has never been any significant coverage in reliable sources, not even two reliable reviews. In my research on this film, I did find one review in WND, but that is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, and it was not written by a notable film reviewer per the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is never going to be more than a 'stub' or 'start' level article so a merge is the best solution. The film is a significant aspect of Larry Elder's career so probably meets criterion #2 in the second list at WP:NF#Other evidence of notability: The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career ... An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. A section in Larry Elder's article can easily accommodate this requirement. Betty Logan (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom, the film on its own is not notable and can be accommodated in Elder's bio. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Larry Elder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090422032550/http://www.larryelder.com:80/bio.html to http://www.larryelder.com/bio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318115238/http://www.caglepost.com:80/column/Larry+Elder/6491/Historians+Write+Off+Bushs+Presidency.html to http://www.caglepost.com/column/Larry+Elder/6491/Historians+Write+Off+Bushs+Presidency.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100718024706/http://www.rollcall.com:80/issues/54_117/atr/34108-1.html?type=printer_friendly to http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_117/atr/34108-1.html?type=printer_friendly

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Larry Elder/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references, expand - close to a B-Class - Keep at it. Morphh 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larry Elder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130228111826/http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/nicole-kidman-and-84-others-stand-united-against-terrorism/ to http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/nicole-kidman-and-84-others-stand-united-against-terrorism/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.caglepost.com/column/Larry%2BElder/6491/Historians%2BWrite%2BOff%2BBushs%2BPresidency.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Larry Elder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321051202/http://www.kabc.com/Article.asp?id=1961389 to http://www.kabc.com/Article.asp?id=1961389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225155304/http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/columns/article_1691930.php to http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/columns/article_1691930.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217030842/http://www.kabc.com/Article.asp?id=1047854&spid=18042 to http://www.kabc.com/Article.asp?id=1047854&spid=18042
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040201220327/http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=20 to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBTQ

An anonymous user has added a note to Elder's possible LGBTQ social issue stances ((possible because it's outdated)) and after reverting back and forth, I wanted to make sure if the note is appropriate or unnecessary. Lostfan333 (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The cited RS explicitly says that Elder has a history of anti-LGBT remarks[14]. The reasons for removing the content are poorly based. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone help debug this?

References

Aug. 19 edit

I have removed some intervening edits by Anish631 that consisted of (1) rewordings that were either not supported by, or diverged from, the cited sources; (2) WP:SYNTH material; (3) material that is redundant (for example, the Hollywood Walk of Fame is already covered); and (4) gives excessive space to primary-sourced content. Anish631, if you have anything specific in that batch that you want to make a case for, please do so here -- absent consensus, of course, this must stay out. Neutrality^talk 16:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Using Elder's piece in Fox News as a source

I've been having a somewhat related problem with someone who keeps citing WP:SELFSOURCE but who does not seem to have read or understood it. The user imagines somehow that a published op-ed by Larry Elder from 2020 cannot be used as evidence for Elder's opinions about COVID etc in 2020. This despite the fact that there's a section of WP:SELFSOURCE that states that an op-ed can be used in such circumstances as a source about themselves ("Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). Talk about pushing an illogical argument to its illogical extremes. 72.86.135.33 (talk)

You're missing the point. We're not using someone's own writing to source their own opinions because there is no evidence whatsoever that that opinion is worth mentioning--that is something only secondary sources can do. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Things said/done do not become significant because a journalist posts something online about them; nor are things said/done insignificant because no journalist has posted something online about them. Your comment is highly ironic because the reason Elder has a WP page in the first place is precisely the fact that he has been given media platforms to express the very opinions that you are claiming can't be treated as significant about him in their own right.72.86.136.198 (talk)

Elder is making claims about Trump (who coincidentally is very litigious as I understand due to the many lawsuits he files). If Elder makes the claims and a journalist reprints it in a newspaper, the newspaper went through a process to verify that Elder makes the claims, and assumes responsibility for misquoting, etc. (libel). Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources for this reason. If Elder is making a claim about himself, and determines his statements are slanderous, he has to sue himself? Of course that is absurd, which is why it would be fine if he was just making claims about himself, per WP:SELFSOURCE. But he is making claims about another person. This is the background of WP:SELFSOURCE as I understand it. What if you paraphrased Elder's claims about Trump in a faulty manner, section 230 is repealed, and Trump decided to sue Wikipedia? That's why they're so strict about claims about others. The entities underwriting what you see in the news are not wikipedia, facebook, or google news. Technically, wikipedia is protecting editors like you, too, if they have a risk-averse policy, because if you were to put something slanderous on wikipedia and someone didn't like it, their recourse under current law (section 230) would be to sue you, not Wikipedia. Your addition is extremely loaded...your paraphrasing: "denied that Donald Trump mismanaged the response to the COVID-19 crisis" is so loaded that this should be obvious. You don't even have a knack for paraphrasing in an impartial manner. That's why these rules exist. 174.193.203.17 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your response makes little sense. My paraphrases is accurate and fair. Elder does deny that Trump mismanaged the response. He does make excuses for Trump not wearing a mask and for holding mass rallies. That is the entire substance of my edit - which nowhere states that Trump (as a factual matter) mismanaged the response or that (as a factual matter) he is at fault for not wearing a mask and for holding mass rallies. My edit is about Elder's stated positions. Your understanding of the relevance of WP:SELFSOURCE is itself the problem here. Trump's litigiousness is not relevant because this edit is about Elder's published defense of Trump's behavior, not about Trump's behavior. How in the world is that hard for you to understand?72.86.135.10 (talk)

WP:SELFSOURCE encourages "de minimus" primary source usage regardless, even if these are Elder's solipsistic musings about the abstract concept "Trump", and not claims about another individual named "Trump". You now have been reverted by 3 different editors...even if I misunderstood those rules by bringing up liability rather than notability (did I?), you really should just find a secondary source, like every reverter is requesting you to do. 2600:1012:B066:507:142B:C5BB:22C6:7AC5 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, the sourcing is fine by my lights, but is it a notable opinion? I see no evidence that it received any sort of coverage by third parties. If this were worthy of inclusion simply by dint of Elder having expressed the view, then literally everything he has ever said or written in a public way becomes fair game in terms of notability. I don't think that's a workable or desirable outcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It is notable because it makes a travesty of scientific consensus. If other statements of Elder make a travesty of scientific consensus regarding issues of great public import, then those should be added as well. He is a leading gubernatorial candidate, after all. As for the earlier editor so determined to delete the information, the disingenuous suggestion "get a secondary source" is absurd. Journalists rarely write up reports about what op-ed authors are saying because ... what would the point be in summarizing an op-ed? His own edits/reversions have been reverted on this page repeatedly by multiple editors as unhelpful; should he apply his "you're obviously wrong because of the fact you've been reverted" standard to himself then?

Here is a recent discussion in a CA newspaper column of exactly the Elder op-ed I cited, pointing out that then Elder backed all of Trump's COVID nonsense to the hilt but now Elder pretends he was never particularly a Trump supporter. https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2021/08/15/larry-elders-fibs-about-his-ongoing-love-for-trump/ Dumuzid, your declaration that these statements by Elder are inconsequential really is not borne out by how Elder's statements are being revisited during this election campaign.72.86.137.172 (talk)

Let's be clear that what I find personally consequential and what passes muster under Wikipedia's many policies are not the same thing. And yes, this is more like the sort of source you need! I am not sure I would the inclusion WP:DUE based on this alone, but my bigger problem is that it doesn't actually particularly reflect the debated language. It's in the ballpark, but I would still want something more specific, or pointing explicitly to the Elder opinion you want to cite. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How can it possibly NOT be consequential that the leading candidate in the gubernatorial recall argues that there's no harm in refusing to wear masks during a deadly pandemic and in holding mass unmasked rallies?! You appear to be the only person who questions whether this is consequential. The other editor arguing for its deletion presents a range of confused and contradictory justifications...as if he sees quite clearly why public awareness of this particular information would be detrimental to Elder's public esteem.72.86.136.206 (talk)

Again, I personally think it's consequential, but Wikipedia relies on more than that--WP:DUE demands that the opinion have received some sort of coverage somewhere. Essentially, you're saying your own thought or original research is enough to put things in to the article. By that standard, we could put in every public utterance the man has ever made. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Surely a journalist somewhere has produced something somewhere which allows you to add your contribution or something in the spirit of it, then. And I don't even have any sort of disagreement with what you're saying, seeing as these claims appear to have been made prior to the introduction of the vaccine. FYI I don't think all of the reversions you are referring to were on my edits; anyone editing with a cellphone has a long and garbled IP address which starts with 26. Click "geolocate" on the IP userpage to see the general area of where the editor is. I added Elder's affiliation with Stephen Miller to this page, something that was really pathetically absent and (in my opinion) reflects very negatively on Elder in the eyes of the California electorate...I really don't care about the subject matter to be honest, but my weakness is getting sucked into arguments; anyhow, just find a secondary source. Here's a good place to start; there is information about both Trump and covid stuff here: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/03/recall-election-conservative-radio-host-larry-elder-on-gavin-newsom-covid-and-whether-trump-lost-in-2020/ 2600:1012:B066:507:142B:C5BB:22C6:7AC5 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is in fact a secondary source who repeats what Elder himself states, as you assume, and you believe a secondary source would bolster the credibility, then why don't you add one yourself? I see zero need to prove a second time that Elder said what his own op-ed says. At least one other editor backs that position.72.86.136.198 (talk)

The onus is on you to find it, since you want to include it. I and others are allowed to be the lazy ones here by simply reverting you, while citing robust wiki guidelines. You now have five editors who have, independently, reverted you, and yet you continue to stubbornly insist... 2600:1012:B066:507:68B3:1BEB:800D:5CD6 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You're the sole person who declares that, contrary to the very policy you yourself cited, op-ed statements by the subject are inadequate to determine what the subject actually said. Others have pointed out your error. There is no need for a secondary source to confirm that Elder stated what he stated, and that won't change no matter how many times you declare a secondary source to be necessary.72.86.136.198 (talk)

Clearly neither of us are the experts here, but the experts that are here seem to be in unanimous disagreement with you. 2600:1012:B066:507:68B3:1BEB:800D:5CD6 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The faulty primary-sourced contribution remains in the article, now that IP addresses are shut out of this page, it wouldn't be a waste of time to revert it. 174.193.128.14 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Info on Alexandra Datig. Relevant, irrelevant?

Alexandra Datig had previously, before coming forward with her abuse allegations, expressed her preference for Kevin Faulconer in the recall election on her political blog. Is this relevant or irrelevant to include? Thoughts? https://sjvsun.com/news/politics/carecall/larry-elders-ex-producer-fiancee-isnt-standing-by-her-man-heres-who-she-backs-in-the-recall/ SecretName101 (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Issue with source

From another IP address, 2600:1012:b066:f864:d83e:8380:6ac7:b3a3, not me, moved for proper formatting:

• "The source provided for Elder's disapproval of universal basic income doesn't mention the subject at all."

174.193.128.14 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That is correct; the cited source is about the minimum wage and does not mention universal basic income. I have replaced it with another source in which Elder states his opposition to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There also seems to be a source issue with regards to one being added for his controversial claim about women. I agree with the attempting editor that this should be added. The article appears highly misinformed if good sources aren't used.

Anti LGBT?

Do you think this page should repeat the claim in that newspaper that Larry Elder's remarks were Anti LGBT in general or just anti Transgender, or can we interpret this ourselves as news sources can be biased. @KidAd: Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we cannot interpret this ourselves per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also, are you aware what the T in LGBTQ(+) stands for? KidAd • SPEAK 18:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If a news article said that "I like eggs" was anti LGBT then by the same logic that would also be considered anti LGBT, and being anti LGBT would mean being against all of it, :There is no synthesis or background original research here, it's literally just stating that he is anti transgender, because he is,and not repeating a dubious claim made by a news outlet, are you suggesting we should repeat every "this is this" claim made by the media even when they are as dubious and debatable. Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Your "I like eggs" example really doesn't make any sense. KidAd • SPEAK 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

fair enough, but do you genuinely agree with the first two comments? particularly the comment on the pulse shooting as homophobic, i'm genuinely interested to hear your opinion Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

is it ok if i write his comments in just to clarify what he said, without removing the part about LGBT? Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not your job to clarify or interpret. KidAd • SPEAK 22:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

„ Elder's views are conservative[1][29] and right wing.[30]“

Larry elder is NOT a right winger. This “source” is a opinion hit piece to discredit him for the Sept 14 governor recall in California.

Anyone who has been listening to his show will confirm this, and described himself here as a LIBERATARIAN.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4KOSlNCPGg

This misinformation can be misleading for this election, where he’s polling high! Dennislisbon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

LA Times article

Pro-democracy and pro-human rights Los Angeles Times is saying he is a (Redacted) most likely the next (Redacted) and I think this should be added to the main article Perhaps his real name is (Redacted)

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians PearlJamDemocracy (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I've been multitasking. But things like Larry Elder Hitler are not appropriate by any means per WP:BLP. I have redacted portions of your comment. KidAd • SPEAK 22:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I had already added the "black face of White Supremacy" information into the article a few days ago but my edit was reverted. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Although Larry Elder might not be the next Adolf Hitler but he might me a white supremacist just like Nazis. PearlJamDemocracy (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so you actually believe Elder is a white Supremacists?? And you claim he "might not be" the next Hithler?? You must surely know that the Los Angeles Times article on this is a bland opinion. Lostfan333 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read up on Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. I have no stance on Elder - i hadn't heard of him until I recently stumbled upon his article - but the proposed labels and wording mentioned above are far from how an encyclopedia writes about a living person. There's probably ways to add some of the loose sentiments here, but these attempts/requests are far from the way to implement or word it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal of Controversies section

While one could argue that Elder's status as a contrarian means that Positions cover his controversies, I would argue that some of these warrant their own section. His comments on women, which led to his condemnation by fellow gubernatorial candidates Kevin Faulconer and Caitlyn Jenner, are of this kind. I don't know if this topic has previously been discussed, but I believe we should debate a Controversies section. PickleG13 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article has no controversies or criticism section. Yes, she has said some controversial stuff but they have fallen under her political positions. I believe Elder's criticism should remain under political positions. Lostfan333 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversy sections tend to become magnets for criticism-cruft by mud-slinging, barrel-bottom-scraping partisans who can't write but self-pleasure to like-minded partisan web outlets whenever they publish negative and sensationalist content about a subject. See WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRITS. Not every disagreeable opinion is a controversy, and including them under a devoted "controversy" or "criticism" risks unduly framing factual events under a select point of view. You don't find "controversy" sections in Gavin Newsom, Ilhan Omar, Barack Obama, nor controversial radio hosts like Howard Stern and Tucker Carlson. Not even even Adolf Hitler has a controversy section (sorry Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Brian Williams; the amateur scribes of Wikipedia have structured your tables of contents as more controversial than literally Hitler's.) --Animalparty! (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm beginning to concur. If we're going to create a controversies section for a politician, it CANNOT be one-sided, regardless of our opinions. Transparency is a requirement. This involves not taking quotes out of context, nor leading the reader to a conclusion without ample sources.

I've tried twice now to add much needed context via a source link to a study Elder has quoted continuously in support of his statement about women not knowing as much about politics as men. He quotes this study repeatedly when asked about his statement, which regardless of our opinion, provides very specific clarity to the intention of that statement. It's dishonest to omit that and the reliability of Wikipedia suffers at each instance of this. DanielkHartness (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversy sections are now just low-quality smear huckstering. Is there actually a controversy about him? Is it a national scandal? Over-used. 96.59.126.42 (talk)

Trump

The article says Elder "is an ardent supporter of Donald Trump" both in the introduction and in the political positions section, and tying Elder to Trump is a key part of this Wikipedia entry as well as the Newsom campaign against him. However, Elder has pushed back on his description. This is not a "routine quibble" with the media like described when this edit was reverted, but rather a key element in the campaign against him. To exclude the candidate's own voice and only include the viewpoint of the Newsom campaign does not make for a neutral entry. Swyilk (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• The content that you've tried to add has been removed by two editors, so please don't re-insert it again (you need consensus in order to do so, see WP:ONUS). This content is both undue weight and misleading:

• First, it suggests, misleadingly, that Elder denies being a Trump supporter. In fact, Elder's media quibble is all about framing: per the sources, he says that he doesn't like the term "Trump supporter" because he supports all Republicans as a matter of course and would also be a "Bush supporter," "Romney supporter," etc. But that is already made clear in the preceding paragraph, which makes clear that Elder has supported Republicans since the 1980s.
• Moreover, a candidate's complaints about media coverage are not sufficiently noteworthy to be included here. We are not obliged to include every statement or preferred framing of an article's subject. This article extensively explains Elder's own views expressed over 30 years of commentary, so I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the "viewpoint of the Newsom campaign."

13:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Black face of White Supremacy

Elder has been constantly attacked as the "Black face of White Supremacy." I believe this discussion has been ongoing but I'd like to revisit it, as not only was it the LA Times who said this, but now speakers are saying it in rallies against the Recall Effort. I don't want to sound stupid but, I understand that little things that politicians say about the Squad are immediately added to "controversies," so adding these attacks on Elder shouldn't be that hard. Lostfan333 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Lostfan333, please provide additional RS. It's quite an extreme claim, we'd need multiple reliable sources to include it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In late August, the Los Angeles Times published a column, calling Larry Elder the "black face of White Supremacy." Elder responded by stating that Liberals are "scared to death" that he could actually take control of the state.

</ref>Chasmar, Jessica (September 6, 2021). Fox News https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-speaker-larry-elder-black-face-white-supremacy. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref>

These are the 3 sources I have for this articles' request. I don't know how to word that 3rd source.Lostfan333 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Lostfan333, Fox News is not considered reliable for politics. See WP:FOXNEWS. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This phrase comes from an opinion piece by Times columnist Erika D. Smith, who quotes Melina Abdullah. Wikipedia is neither dictated by, nor beholden to, the views of Smith and Abdullah and should not give the views Smith (or any other opiner) disproportionate emphasis. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good encyclopedia doesn't, nor shouldn't, list all of them. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Lostfan333 If you say you have witnessed Elder being constantly attacked as "Black face of White Supremacy", if you can recall and find those sources, and if they are indeed WP:RS then you can add it in if it seems noteworthy. However do be aware that if it's an opinion piece, most people's opinion aren't notable enough for article inclusion. You would have to use verbiage that indicates that it is indeed somebody's opinion, as to not mislead the readers into thinking opinion is fact (Crazy concept I know), another good rule is the ten year test aka WP:10YT (which is a good test of notability, if nobody will care about some journalists personal opinion about a topic in 10 years, then don't add it. As some editors sometimes present op-eds as fact in good faith, and it can be a mess.) MaximusEditor (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

In the section "Statements and views on women", the quote "emotionally driven, but often unsound policies" is used twice in nearly identical sentences.

Use #1: Elder argued the Democratic party was often successful with women because of their "emotionally driven, but often unsound policies" Use #2: Elder has asserted that Democrats achieve more success among women voters because they have "emotionally driven, but often unsound policies."

One of these should be removed. 50.230.19.66 (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK _Talk 00:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

proposed correction to slavery vs. welfare

Article at present reads:

Elder believes that welfare is more harmful to Black families than slavery

I think there should be clarification that Elder is saying welfare is more harmful to Black families living today than the historical impacts of slavery up to 1865 are to Blacks in the US today. Otherwise, the article reads as if it is saying welfare is more harmful in 2021 than slavery was in 1861, which is a false comparison.174.0.48.147 (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but it's not how he explained what he was talking about. He was comparing welfare to historic slavery, not to today's legacy of slavery. He said, "The welfare state has done more to destroy and destabilize the Black family than even slavery did." -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Slavery Reparations

The article claims Elder "argued for reparations to descendants of slave owners who lost property (the slaves)" and cites an interview with conservative radio host Candace Owens. This section of the article is an obvious hit piece, as Elder did not assert he was a proponent of payments to descendants of slave owners. In fact, he did not mention descendants of slave owners at all. He is simply commenting about the murkiness of slavery reparations, i.e. "do you want to go there". If I had edit permission, I would change the passage to read "In a conversation with conservative radio host Candace Owens, Elder pointed out that, ironically, slavery reparations have historically included payments to slave owners who lost "property", i.e. their slaves.". That is a fair description of what Elder actually said. The cited article also inaccurately conflates slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, which was abolished in the U.S. in 1808. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubsvices (talk • contribs)

That claim is sourced to Business Insider which is a yellow source per WP:RSP with concerns related to reliability. Absent better sourcing I would remove the contentious claim. Springee (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cubsvices and Springee that this section does not accurately reflect the tongue-in-cheek nature of the exchange. I will go ahead and remove it Swyilk (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems that "the tongue-in-cheek nature" is WP:OR. If the source is problematic, we can substitute with a different reference: Yahoo News, [15] Banana Republic (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an example of churnalism. The Yahoo article cites the BI article and points to it. Concerns regarding stopping context from the original comments are not OR. Instead they are valid reasons to question the reliability and weight of the source. Springee (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Whatever it is, this bit of information sounds like a big deal, considering the platform Elder is running on. An egregious claim like this cannot simply be left without coverage. The comment was made, that is verifiable. We should be looking for a reliable source that covers it as opposed to removing the information. It's hard to believe something like this didn't receive coverage. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The original source has stripped the context of the comment away which is something a RS should never do. This is part of why BI is not considered a RS. Presenting a "shocking" quote that will lead the readers to a false conclusion is never OK and we would be lying to our readers if we said this is what Elder actually thinks. Conversely, the argument, "well he said it so we have to report it" isn't true at all. Given Elder's public profile, if stronger sources aren't covering this then we can assume it doesn't have weight. Springee (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Which is why we need to find better sources instead of unceremoniously dismissing the whole thing. As for context, the comment was made in the context of a PragerU videon in conversation with Candace Owens. Both are known for peddling disinformation and historical revisionism, and denying systemic racism. As it turns out, his comment sounds even worse in context. Of course I get the feeling that by context, you mean "he said the words 'it can be argued', ergo plausible deniability".

The onus is on those who wish to include to find the better sources. Springee (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: "Larry Elder" + "slave owners" yields over 165K hits on google, including the following:

• https://www.essence.com/news/larry-elder-argues-reparation-for-slave-owners-california-governor-recall-election/
• https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/jack-ohman/article254108908.html
• https://www.revolt.tv/2021/9/7/22661010/larry-elder-slave-owners-owed-reparations
• https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Larry-Elder-is-the-Trumpist-that-may-save-Gavin-16450323.php
• https://www.reuters.com/world/us/larry-elder-right-wing-radio-host-seeks-governorship-california-recall-2021-09-14/
• https://newrepublic.com/article/163651/california-recall-election-larry-elder-rose-mcgowan-bonkers
• https://californianewstimes.com/larry-elder-insists-slave-owners-are-owed-money-because-their-property-was-stolen-during-the-civil-war/513247/
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-09/little-support-for-candidate-elder-in-south-la

Many of these are either green on WP:RSP, or their articles suggest they are generally reliable. Note that I delibetately ommitted at least three other sources that are listed as red, but they mostly say the same thing. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you are doing key word search digging here. The only way such a claim should be included is with full context per ABOUTSELF or not at all. Given how the major sources are covering this it's clear this is not something they want to make an issue about. Perhaps that is because if they do the full context would be covered? Note that they aren't asking Elder for comment. Sorry, the object of wikipedia is to be impartial, pushing this sort of content without providing full context is not impartial and doesn't improve the article. Springee (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Impartial is giving due weight to material from reliable secondary sources, proportionate to their coverage. The incident is clearly notable enough to be widely reported, and your argument for dismissing the sources, despite them being reliable, is that they don't include what you believe they should include. Not to mention that you have yet to explain what you believe this context is. What other context is there besides what reliable sources provide. I did as you told me and presented better sources. Isn't the onus on you now to prove that this context is relevant, by providing reliable sources that discuss it? Am I missing something? Should I ping other editors for a second opinion? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This has scant mention and in examples like Reuters it was buried deep in the article. Sorry, this is a BLP, we don't include statements like that unless the weight and context are clear. There is a world of difference between saying "I think salve owners deserve reparations" and "If you follow the logic of that argument then this argument also makes sense...". Additionally, RECENT would apply to something like this. Sources like "Essence" is not going to be a RS for such a claim. It's also clear in most of your sources the writers are clearly mixing opinion/commentary with actually looking at the arguments. Unfortunately there is a world of difference between making a legal type argument and actually advocating for something. Many people with a legal background will argue or illustrate a point by showing how the logic behind what ostensibly looks like a good idea is the same as that which looks like a bad idea. Its rather bad faith to strip that part of the discussion away and then act as if he is actually advocating for something when in fact he is trying to explain why allowing A opens the logical door for B. It is dishonest to claim he was advocating for reparations for slave holders. I would hope you can understand that. Springee (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to get into the dissection of what he actually meant, then you can see that he's drawing legal equivalent between a person being a slave and a slave owner having his slaves taken away. This type of logic presupposes that owning a slave is a lgitimate form of property, indistinguishable from owning a house. That in itself is bad enough, even if the person making it isn't explicitly advocating for paying reparations to slave owners. Not to mention your interpretation of LE's comment is original research. I ask this again. Should I ping others who contributed to this talk page, or the article itself? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Which leaves us where we started. This is RECENT, it's clear that context is being left out. The sources that are actually talking about it vs just mentioning it down in the article are lesser sources. It isn't DUE in this article. Springee (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You keep insisting that his comment was "stripped of context" when I already explained how the context actually makes it even worse. I asked you twice, and I'm going to ask it one last time: should I ping other users and see what the consensus is? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Springee here. It'd be like including Joe Biden's quote where he said he "didn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle" on Joe Biden's Wikipedia page (without the proper context). It's certainly notable, but that's in large part because it's been stripped of context. Swyilk (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Swyilk:First off, plase fix the reference. It's on the bottom of the page. Second, Biden is not, nor has he ever been a member of the party of the south. He isn't a supporter of a certain former president who's greatest achievement is stoking racial tensions in the past 6 years with his hateful rethoric, and he doesn't associate with lost cause apologists and "white genocide" believers, so this is false equivalence. The problem with the Biden quote isn't that it was stripped of context, but rather that there is no context in which it could be read to mean anything even remotely similar to what republicans want to frame it as. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Gorilla mask assault?

There is widely available video of this guy being confronted by a woman in a gorilla mask. She appears to throw an egg, and then proceeds to slap a security person in the face. I'm not a fan of the man, but this sort of overtly racist behavior is outrageous, and warrants inclusion in the article. What are other editor's thoughts on including a mention of this incident? 2601:18F:4101:4830:35B8:F991:87F:C2A7 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Many politicians have had eggs, tomatoes and cream pies thrown at them. In this case, the egg missed Elder. Should all such minor incidents be mentioned? What reliable sources report that racism was the motive, as opposed to Elder's far right Ideology? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If it was just an egg, I'd agree - that's par for the course. However, the woman who threw it was wearing a gorilla mask. The history of associating African Americans with non-human primates is well documented, and obviously racist. If the heckler was simply trying to hide her face, it strikes me has highly unlikely that she just happened to select a gorilla mask to accomplish that goal. [EDIT: Someone else added that Snopes "racial jungle" link, it is not part of my post]. 2601:18F:4101:4830:35B8:F991:87F:C2A7 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question: What reliable sources report that racism was the motive, as opposed to Elder's far right Ideology? Your interpretation of the woman's motive is original research and we summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. If someone showed up in a KKK outfit, certain assumptions about their message would be made by all thoughtful people. Those assumptions do not constitute original research, they are inherent in the KKK outfit. To pretend that an individual showing up to protest an African American, while wearing a gorilla mask, has no racial connotation is what Andy Dufresne would call "Obtuse". I understand rationally evaluating politically charged topics can be tough for many people to do, you're not alone. And as I stated earlier, I don't like this guys politics at all. I don't speak for all African Americans, but I assure you that you are on the tiniest of margins in not characterizing this gesture as overtly racist. It is unfortunate that we still need to have these sorts of debates in 2021. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, this is not a matter of what you think or what I think. It is entirely a matter of what reliable sources say or don't say about racism as a motivation behind this incident. This is Wikipedia 101. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with it's inclusion. It's obviously different than a typical egg-throwing case.

I also dissent with assertions of "far-right" ideology claims about LE. We should not let our opinions or our ideologies disrupt a mission of honesty and transparency. His politics should be described at most denotatively (libertarian), which is not anywhere close to "far-right", and not connotaively through our ideological lense. DanielkHartness (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not different from any other egg throwing event. And nowhere in the article is he called "far-right". It calls him a "conservative" and "right-wing", which are supported by sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To pretend that an individual showing up to protest an African American, while wearing a gorilla mask, has no racial connotation is what Andy Dufresne would call "Obtuse" Actually, from what I heard, the woman was a member of an activist group that uses a gorilla as a mascot. the claim that this incident was racially motivated might carry water if LE wasn't a republican in a Democratic stronghold. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please don't hijack this section, if editors want to debate how best to articulate the man's politics, create another section. This section is about whether the gorilla mask incident is appropriate to include in the article. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, I agree with you muboshgu, the egg throwing is not the point, it's the fact that the protestor was wearing a gorilla mask. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to an LA Times article about the incident, the writers clearly state that other commentators have described it as a racially motivated incident, and then they correctly follow it with "given the white supremacist history of dehumanizing Black people with ape imagery". https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-10/lapd-investigating-egg-throwing-incident-larry-elder-venice-homeless

2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this "racial jungle" link included at the bottom of this section, and how do we remove it? As far as I can tell it is a quote from President Biden, and has no relevance to this discussion. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The racial jungle quote was brought up in another section. Apparently the person who cited it put it on the bottom of the page. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad this was resolved. And yes, it is different, being racially motivated. This is the point of the debate.

Now, should we include under Political Activities or a new section? DanielkHartness (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The comment made by "Cullen" referred to LE a far-right, which is what I was referencing, simply supporting the need to report this incident and not lose site of it being important, which is now obvious. DanielkHartness (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Has the assault been added yet?? I assume Cullen probably thinks it's offensive for DeSantis to simply say "monkey" things up but an actual attack against an African-American man is simply nothing. Lostfan333 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Lostfan333, I have never commented on that DeSantis remark and consider it trivial, so please do not assume to know what I think. As for Elder being far right, DanielkHartness, just Google "Larry Elder far right " and you will see many reliable sources describe him that way. The LA Times story is hidden behind a paywall for me. But one thing that I do know for sure is that we need impeccable coverage in reliable sources to say that the egg-thrower was motivated by racism. That is a matter of WP:BLP policy which is non-negotiable. Can someone quote the relevant sentences in the LA Times story? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sticking purely to definitions, I'm of course required to stringently disagree with "far-right" labels. Lowest hanging fruit being simply his policy stances not meeting that denotative threshold. Regardless, I appreciate the opinion and would happily agree if we do reference him as such siting those media sources, we should do so explaining that is their claim. Thanks Cullen DanielkHartness (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DanielkHartness, I am not trying to add "far right" to the actual article, but was simply using the phrase in discussing possible motivations of the egg thrower, since Elder is often described that way. We have stringent restrictions on adding BLP related content and I am trying to explain why we need coverage in reliable sources to say that the motivation was racism. "Res ipsa loquitur" is not a policy or a guideline on Wikipedia, and editors are forbidden from adding their own conclusions, as reasonable as they may be. The role of an editor is to summarize reliable sources. Period. I am not trying to defend or excuse the egg throwing incident. Personally, I think that it was foolish, counterproductive, childish and criminal. I am just asking for excellent sources if we are to call it racist in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen, that's so cute!! I myself happen to stumble upon these pay wall articles. Makes me sad, lol. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. We're definitely on the same page. No worries. I've been trying to uphold those standards on the article page. Thanks Cullen. DanielkHartness (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to understand something here, are you attempting to suggest that dawning a gorilla mask to harass an African American candidate for public office is not an overtly racist act in of itself? You believe more information is required to evaluate intent? Comparing African Americans, and people of African descent in general, to monkeys and non-human apes is a well established racist trope. The egg is harassment, but not necessarily racist. Adding the gorilla mask into the mix changes the equation. If you don't have access to the LA Times, that's unfortunate, but irrelevant. Wikipedia guidelines do not require all editors have access to source for it to be considered. 2601:18F:4101:4830:6847:F2A2:C042:4CCA (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:6847:F2A2:C042:4CCA (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are several outlets whose coverage of the story includes the racist angle. https://denvergazette.com/news/la-sheriff-on-larry-elder-s-gorilla-mask-assailant-how-is-this-not-a-hate/article_6e315549-46d0-5890-ae52-05c0e5794f4b.html https://ktla.com/news/local-news/police-seek-woman-wearing-gorilla-mask-in-attack-against-larry-elder-in-venice-supporters-claim-double-standard/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-elder-were-a-democrat-11631225349 https://nypost.com/2021/09/09/media-ignore-racial-attack-on-larry-elder-because-hes-republican/ https://news.yahoo.com/larry-elder-egged-woman-gorilla-125305685.html

In addition, Elder himself said it found the incident to be racist, if that counts for anything. 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Just because there are sources does not mean it should be included, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. It's also not up to us to decide if this is a hate crime or not. That's up to law enforcement. Ascribing a racist motive to the person in the gorilla mask is WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

So by your definition, ascribing racism to anything is only appropriate if the subject self-attests that their motives were racist? Anything short of that is opinion, so we can't make any assumptions about someone in a Klan outfit either right? Because ascribing a racist motive to the person in the white robes is original research? 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

In regards to NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, about a quarter of the negative info on this page only popped up when the guy became a (failed) candidate. I understand you don't like the man, as I said before, I'm no fan. But we can't suddenly close our eyes to racist acts just because they are committed against a jerk like him. 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Klan robes and a gorilla mask are not the same thing, and the coverage of those are not the same either. When the extent of sourcing to suggest that this was a hate crime is The gorilla mask prompted conservative commentators to suggest that the incident was racially motivated, it's not enough to suggest that it was racially motivated. We could only say that some conservatives think that it was. (Also, that WSJ piece is an opinion piece, written by one of those "conservative commentators".) If the cops treat it as a hate crime, that may change things. Not sure. My opinion of this man doesn't matter. Any negative info that "popped up" on this page when he became a candidate can be reviewed on its own merits, I'm only talking about the gorilla mask egging right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is a mind reader, so the fact that the piece was in the opinion section is irrelevant. Absent an admission of intent by the woman, any characterization of her motives would be opinion, no matter where it was published. I didn't suggest a Klan robe and gorilla mask were the same thing, only that they would both be racist gestures in this context. I'm really not trying to be glib, but is your assertion that Gorilla masks are less racist than Klan robes supported by a reliable source, or is that just original research? (EDIT: I'm not saying it was a hate-crime, I'm saying it was an act of overt racism, they're not the same.) 24.63.16.140 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 24.63.16.140 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 24.63.16.140 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the WSJ article is not written by "one of those conservative commentators" it is written by a business/finance journalist, James Freeman, who is characterized as a journalistItalic text' on Wikipedia. 24.63.16.140 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede: "The recall was defeated by a landslide"

"The recall was defeated in a landslide" is better. 174.193.200.205 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Elder a "conservative" or a "libertarian"?

The main profile picture for Larry Elder in the main article was taken from this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h13SuVRBUk

I watched that video, to see what it was about. At 3:08 into the video, Elder says, "I am really not a conservative, I am a libertarian..." and then goes on to make a number of claims in support of his reasons as to why he believes he is a libertarian and not a conservative. Given that the lede section of this article opens with describing Elder as a "conservative", should we change that to say "libertarian"? Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 14:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but no. We base our description, not on how he wishes to be described, but how Reliable Sources describe him. Virtually every article about him calls him a "conservative talk radio host". Even if you Google "Larry Elder" together with "libertarian", most of the sources that turn up in the search describe him as conservative. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @MelanieN: ! I appreciate that. Just a question though... could we, or would we ever mention in the lede (or elsewhere) that he himself considers himself "libertarian"? Where is it appropriate to put how someone self identifies? What weight ought to be given to self identification (if any) versus how mainstream reliable sources report on someone? Genuine question! Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 17:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It already says that in the article, under "Political views": "Elder labels himself a "small-l" libertarian as opposed to a member of the Libertarian Party.[1][51]" -- MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Verify 2020 election denier claims

"After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Donald Trump made false claims of fraud while refusing to concede, Elder said that he did not believe that Biden won the 2020 election fairly.(53)"

Unfortunately, the contributor decided to link a paywalled site, but I'm finding a hard time verifying this claim. There is a video of Larry speaking on his views of the 2020 election here: https://www.sfgate.com/gavin-newsom-recall/article/Larry-Elder-governor-California-Biden-election-GOP-16379759.php

Seems to me that sentence should be deleted, and it makes me wonder how accurate other claims about Larry are in this article. Should I try to veridy more citations for this article? Wolfmanfinn47 (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no restriction on the use of reliable paywalled sources. Here is the quote from the New York Times that verifies the content: Mr. Elder initially staked out a position counter to those in his party who are focused on claims of fraud, telling a left-leaning editorial board over a month ago that he believed President Biden had won fairly last year. But after his campaign began to garner attention, he quickly reversed his position, telling conservative radio interviewers last month, “No, I don’t.” Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Editing out the third paragraph.

I wanted to take this here before doing anything else. I think tha third of the opening paragraphs has to go. Expect for the ''right-wing'' one, the other ''sources'' here are clearly biased against him and this goes againts the whole neutral point of view thing. The wikipedia article sholud just present what he did and let the readers decide for themselves, the people who wrote these artcles are entitled to their opinion bu again, neutral point of view. So what do you think? RookieInTheWiki (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

oops

I messed up the formatting and don't know how to fix it, sorry. Cash713 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

it fixed itself, it was something on my end, nevermind Cash713 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)