Talk:Nathan Rich

21 June 2019

The sources are certainly terrible. I would recommend AFD, as was suggested previously. Beach drifter (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The article has sources from CNN, Huffington Post, Rolling Stones, Hollywood Reporter, CGTN and the Associated Press, among others. Which of these are terrible and why? Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Content Dispute June 2019

In an effort to focus on content, what are the disputed items for the last full revision? Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Trufeseeker, as you've tried to delete and speedy delete, as well as removed much of the article, I've mentioned you here. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 June 2019

Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich to the top of the page. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Sasquatch t|c 19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Modification of article request

I found reliable sources during a Google search and would like to modify the article. Because the article is fully protected, I am unable to to do that. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Article needs Extended Confirmed Protection

This article gets high levels of abuse from IP editors (who escape the DS warnings on this TP). There are some very inappropriate things on this BLP. He is clearly a controversial figure, and also it seems has enemies. I also get the feeling that his own supporters also edit here. They only way to resolve this is ECP. It has already been to AfD twice in 3 months. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted page to July 31, 2019 version

Per the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich (2nd nomination), this article was reverted to the July 31, 2019 version due vandalism and numerous edits referencing non-notable sources. DrIdiot (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: Fully agree with this. Will be watching this page. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: The deletion of the Youtube section is not justified by your claimed reasons. The section was following the common form of describing the social media activity of an individual. Please deliver an explanation or this will be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:810a:82c0:eea:19ee:e147:a118:ae9b (talk • contribs)

IP-user, youtube is not in general WP:RS on Wikipedia - particularly when primary. Material about the subject speaking on youtube will be removed from this BLP. If you have independent reliable RS discussing his work on youtube, use that. This BLP is not a platform for broadcasting the subject's youtube videos. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: The degree of WP:Notability of the removed section far exceeds that of any other content of the current page, particularly when considering the WP:RS of MOS:QUOTATIONS. This is substantiated by the fact that most sources of the remaining content of lesser notability are based on WP:PRIMARY as described in WP:Interviews. Consequentially, the claims made for the reversion would in fact require a deletion of the remaining article content contrary to the deleted section 'Youtube Career'.

I don't follow that logic - the material there now, which was from 31 July, successfully went through a WP:AfD, so its WP:GNG is stable. If you have content, or references, post them here on the talk page, and I will check them for you and point out if I don't think it passes WP:PAG. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: The result of the second WP:AfD was: "speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn.", with votes particularly emphasizing the higher notability of the 'Youtube career' section. The result of the first WP:AfD does not provide an argument against a section that was created later.

@DrIdiot: I agree with you that the Scientology content is almost exclusively based on WP:PRIMARY as described in WP:Interviews, which warrants for deletion. However, there is empirical evidence (YT subscriber numbers, etc.) that the 'Youtube Career' content has a higher notability than the other (current) content, which is further substantiated by the sections reliance on MOS:QUOTATIONS which are considered superior content over statements based on WP:PRIMARY. Additionally, the votes of the second WP:AfD do not warrant as a reason for the deletion of the section.

I disagree, and you mischaracterize my position. I was on the fence about the Scientology stuff, but since it passed the first AfD, I agree with User:Britishfinance that it should stay. I withdrew the nomination because I believe I made it in error for that reason. I see no basis for inclusion of the YouTube content; it has not been discussed in any RS (this excludes Chinese state media, since Nathan promotes their point of view, see Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources) as far as I can see. The votes in the 2nd AfD in favor of keeping the YouTube section all failed to cite RS for reasons I mentioned in that discussion. Again, please refer to the discussion there and point out specifically what you believe are RS. Like User:Britishfinance I do not follow your current logic. DrIdiot (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment placed in wrong area.75.145.223.225 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't even put in a simple link to his YouTube channel?? Why not?

Other pages on personalities have links to their YouTube channel. How is this information NOT something that should be on this Wiki Page??

Wikipedia once was THE goto source for raw information. It now seems to have certain political agendas as well.

I had tried several edits to link the YouTube channel and each time it was deleted without reason given. The last edit I tried was simply a "here's his YouTube channel" and that was deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianAnarchist (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Rich is not notable for his YouTube channel. He is notable for his work on Scientology, which has been covered by reliable sources. His YouTube content, on the other hand, has not. If a personality is known for their YouTube channels, then they will be linked. If you can find RS for Nathan's YouTube channel that is independent (this excludes state run media) then we can add it. Otherwise, it's a form of promotion. There is already a reference on the page to his work in China, and readers interested in Nathan can google his name and his YouTube channel is the first result that appears. DrIdiot (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect: "Nathan Rich is not notable for his YouTube channel.: His YouTube channel has over 400,000 subscribers. Very few people know of or have read his Scientology book. I think this Wiki page needs some data on his pro-Chinese Communist Party YouTube entries. Bonhomem (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 with DrIdiot. This has been a prombelatic BLP that has been abused as a WP:COATRACK to platform non-notable aspects and views of the subject. The case for this BLP, per the past AfDs, is borderline (and I !voted Keep), but if it reverts to past problems, and no stronger RS emerges on the subject, it will end up merged. Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

His YouTube channel is definitely something he's "noted for". He's becoming "notable" as a pro-CCP puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.223.225 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Need reliable sources covering it. Lots of "notable" people in my professional field are not on Wiki because they have not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Because notable to you doesn't mean notable enough for Wiki. DrIdiot (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a Chinese news site that links to his YouTube "pro-Beijing" commentaries. It's an article about the trade war. This was a quick search and I'm sure you can find many news stories like it. Especially in Hong Kong where the fight against tyranny is in the front of most of the citizens minds. Is this the kind of thing you need to make it "notable"?? https://progressive.org/dispatches/foreign-correspondent-u-s-trade-war-with-china-erlich-190808/ ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's another from the pro-Beijing mouthpiece... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201910/09/WS5d9d2657a310cf3e3556f45e.html ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh and another about how Rich and others have taken their propaganda to PornHub in order to get around YouTube restrictions... https://qz.com/1747617/chinese-users-go-to-pornhub-to-spread-hong-kong-propaganda/ ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Another quick one just to make sure the point is clear. Nathan Rich uses his YouTube presence to promote the CCP of Beijing... http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1162818.shtml ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

See the two AfD discussions. State run media is not RS when they have clear conflict of interest. The Quartz article is borderline. Progressive article doesn't quite seem neutral, but maybe that doesn't matter. @Britishfinance: thoughts? DrIdiot (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

DrIdiot, and ChristianAnarchist. The issue at AfD was regarding use of the BLP to promote the subject's non-notable (at thT time) blogging in China (which was also promotional for the subject). This material above is different. While none of the four sources above make the WP:RS/P list, all four RS are at least sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article (e.g. they are not blogs per the AfD sources), Global Times, China Daily, Quartz (magazine), and The Progressive. Quartz is very close to an RS, however, I can't rule on the others. Perhaps we should have a separate section on "Blogging", with a sentence saying "Since moving to China, Rich has become known his blogging activities, which have been criticized by some sources as being overtly pro-China." (and then add in the 4 above sources; we can always bring to the RS noticeboard too)? Britishfinance (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance Global Times and China Daily are state-run media (a potentially unreliable source). I would hesitate to cite them since there are sources without the same conflict of interest. The article in The Progressive reads like an opinion piece, and I have hard time as seeing it as neutral -- further, the author seems to cite Nathan rather than talk about him. The Quartz article seems the most reliable, the author is a reporter for South China Morning Post and it also features Nathan in the most direct way (i.e. the article talks about him, and doesn't just name him as a source). Maybe the following: "Since moving to China, Rich has started a video blog which often takes a political stance defending the Chinese government. (cite Quartz)" DrIdiot (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DrIdiot, thanks for clarifying that; I would support your proposal which seems sensible. Thanks again, Britishfinance (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I included sources that are both pro and anti China. All sources are "Chinese" in nature as that is where he's most notable. At this point it's clear that you don't care about what is submitted here. You have an agenda and you are not going to yield... 75.145.223.225 (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Chinese state media is explicitly listed as a potentially unreliable source. It's not the role of Wikipedia to link to propaganda outlets. Also, we've agreed to include a reference to his video blogging activities, so it's a little unclear to me why you are insistent that we cite those specific sources when there are clearly guidelines against doing so? DrIdiot (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Rich recognized internationally much more as a blogger about China-related issues than he is about Scientology. THERE SHOULD BE A PARAGRAPH ABOUT HIS PRO-CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY STANCE HERE. He believes the corona virus was transmitted from US athletes to Wuhan in 2019. His blog has tens of thousands of followers. In contrast, how many copies of his Scientology book have been sold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhomem (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)