Talk:Nick Shirley: Difference between revisions

By /

The cited USA Today article includes misleading language that is not a direct quote. Shirley’s exact quote in the video is: “…if you take a look at the Minnesota state flag, they recently changed it. And it very much so resembles the flag of Somalia.” The cited USA Today article states, misleadingly, that Shirley claimed “the Minnesota state flag was recently changed to resemble the Somali flag.” There is a difference between pointing out a similarity in design and stating that the design was deliberately chosen because of that resemblance. Since the USA Today article is a secondary source and Shirley’s quote is a primary source, attempting to insert this as a claim is inherently biased. The statement about his comments regarding the flag remains in the article, without the loaded and misleading language that changes the context as explained here. ~2025-43946-09 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. WP:USATODAY. V. S. Video (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP. “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. ~2025-43946-09 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello. A link to the USA Today article this discussion is about, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today Article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/12/29/video-nick-shirley-day-care-fraud-minnesota/87944078007/ The video in question is Nick Shirley’s video, entitled “I Investigated Minnesota’s Billion Dollar Fraud Scandal” on YouTube. The statement in question starts at 9 minutes, 45 seconds. Though USA Today is generally a reliable source, the statement made in the article is demonstrably not within the same context that Shirley used in his quote. The USA Today article lacks a direct quote, instead paraphrasing. Nevertheless, the context is doubtful and therefore a neutral perspective (e.g., he made a statement about the redesigned Minnesota flag resembling the flag of Somalia) should be maintained within the article…not one that he “falsely claimed” the flag was “redesigned to resemble the flag of Somalia” as the cited article suggests. Nowhere in the quote did Shirley say that the flag was deliberately redesigned to mimic the Somali flag, merely that the redesigned flag resembles the Somali flag. That context remains in place in the article. ~2025-43946-09 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Okay, I wanted to make sure it’s not a part of USA Today’s contributor network. In general, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources’ interpretation and avoids interpreting primary sources directly (cf. WP:PSTS). Whether that applies here and if the content should be included even if verifiable, I won’t judge. I just wanted to check if the issue is obvious enough for an admin to step in. WP:3O perhaps? The person providing a third opinion should please not count my comments as a third person already present. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and understand about WP:PSTS. This issue essentially hinges on the use of a single preposition and the awkward wording of one sentence in a single article published within the past 24 hours. Given the contentious nature of the article and the viral moment, it would be wise to: A. Present within the article that he did indeed make a remark that the flag of Minnesota resembles the flag of Somalia and B. Avoid wording the statement as if he claimed the redesign was purposefully intended to resemble the flag of Somalia. I’m only seeking neutrality in the article and a presentation of facts here. ~2025-43946-09 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the video (9:45 timestamp). Shirley’s exact words: “if you take a look at the Minnesota state flag, they recently changed it. And it very much so resembles the flag of Somalia.” This is an observation of visual similarity.
Fact-checks from Snopes (“Sure, we admit there are similarities. But the resemblance is purely a coincidence”) and the Star Tribune (“Conservative critics say the final design, with its blue backdrop and white star, still resembles Somalia’s national flag”) acknowledge the resemblance while noting that it was coincidental.
Labeling an observation of similarity as “misinformation” is editorializing.
Per WP:BLP, suggest: “Shirley stated that the redesigned Minnesota flag resembles the flag of Somalia; the flag’s designer has stated the similarity was a coincidence.” Bladerunner24 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of an AI-generated image regarding the Springfield pet-eating hoax is unrelated to this article. Please avoid use of controversial imagery that is unrelated to this biography of a living person. A citation to the Springfield pet-eating hoax article sufficiently explains the context. WP:BLP P. Musgrave (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen countless amounts of people online referring to this person as far-right and alt-right. Can we add that to the lead? AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right implies that he is involved in extremist movements, e.g. skinheads, neo-Nazi, etc. It is a loaded term and strongly suggests bias. Shirley’s views can reasonably be described as right-wing or conservative, but not far-right. WP:BLP standards require neutrality and cautious judgement to prevent treading into libelous territory. P. Musgrave (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He openly supports the trump administration which is defined as a far-right ideology. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Defined by whom? Support for the conservative side of a two-party system is hardly grounds to label someone an extremist. P. Musgrave (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The trump regime is far from your standard “conservative” party. They are compiled of far-right, fascist extremists. This is well-documented in educated circles. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV WP:BIAS WP:V P. Musgrave (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a space for speculation or tabloid style gossip. Unless verifiable sources can be cited demonstrating that he is an extremist, the use of such loaded language violates WP:BLP standards. Merely supporting Trump does not make someone a far-right extremist…otherwise 77.3 million Americans would fit that definition. Examples of far-right politics include issues that are generally seen as reprehensible by society writ large, such as Holocaust denial, overt racism (e.g., David Duke, KKK, etc.), violence or terrorism (Timothy McVeigh). Shirley holds right-wing or conservative views, but not far-right. We cannot hyperbolize every stance with which we disagree…otherwise there would be no need to distinguish between right and far right. P. Musgrave (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Political labels like “right” and “left” are valuable descriptors only when they are presented neutrally, can be used as a basis for accurate comparisons, and are substantiated by fact. “Countless amounts of people online” is not a reliable source. Nick Shirley has been documented to hold political views which are consistent with standard American “right-wing” conservatism. An individual’s political alignment is accurately gauged by comparing against an average of the general population, not by comparing against an average of a subset of leftist ideologues. ~2026-24796 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lede has been revised to read “self-described conservative independent journalist.” This wording is based on information provided by Snopes and NPR which are described as reliable sources in WP:RSPS. The existing citations used to describe Shirley as “right-wing” were from The Guardian and Semafor. WP:RSPS describes The Guardian as “generally reliable” but cautions it is biased or opinionated on politics. Semafor is not included in WP:RSPS and has financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party and therefore should be used with extreme caution and not in the article lede. P. Musgrave (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not adequate. It’s moving in the direction of downplaying this far-right shock content sloptuber and his contributions to the far-right ideology of MAGA. I’ve revised the article to a better description of “right-wing, self described journalist” wich much better matches reality. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not further edit the lede without providing appropriate, reliable sources that have been reviewed by other editors. The current sources provided, Snopes and NPR, are both highly reliable and politically unbiased sources which describe Shirley as a conservative self-described independent journalist.
Wikipedia is intended to provide accurate, well-sourced data and not opinions or tabloid gossip. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons as it could violate their privacy and venture into the territory of libel. To wit: “Biographies of living persons (“BLPs“) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.”
May I also point out that five editors have contributed to this discussion so far; four have decided against labeling him a “far-right” or “alt-right” figure. No sources have been presented for discussion or review with other editors that label him as “far-right” or “alt-right” figure, beyond mere conjecture or “heard through the grapevine.” Editor bias, especially when the editor labels the subject with a pejorative like “sloptuber,” should be avoided in all Wikipedia articles. P. Musgrave (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley is neither a far-right nor alt-right independent journalist. He clearly leans conservative, but Wikipedia is doing way too much to label every conservative as “far right”. Just because a number of dominant media have certain leftward lean bias and may use the term “far right”, doesn’t mean Wikipedia should lead with that label in a article lede of a person. neutral encyclopedic explication is better. N2e (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

he does not “lean” conservative. He supports the alt-right/far-right ideology that is MAGA. AcademicallyPerfect (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSCANDAL “Scandalmongering, promoting things “heard through the grapevine” or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects’ right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.” So far in this discussion, we’ve “seen countless amounts of people online” and established zero reputable sources that Shirley himself is an extremist beyond a shaky definition of “guilt by association”. This has all the characteristics of agenda pushing and bias, which is not what Wikipedia is meant to be. Neutrality is the goal. P. Musgrave (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think he should be described this way. This much should be obvious to anyone based on the source coverage and also him doing stuff like amplifying racist fringe such as immigrants eating pets. High Professor (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on sourcing. Which sources describe him as far-right or alt-right?–CNMall41 (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I provided sources for right-wing below, and many of them also note ties to extreme political movements. I wouldn’t oppose far-right or alt-right, but right-wing with his political views noted is also sufficient. High Professor (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My question is which ones call him far-right or alt-right? The only one I see is The Intercept which is a biased source. You will not get consensus based on that source. —CNMall41 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists it as reliable. There is no consensus for “independent journalist”. High Professor (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source” – Please ensure you read everything in the summary section for The Intercept at RSP. Regardless of your feelings about it, one statement from a baised source is not going to satisfy inclusion requirements. —CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be in the context of science and not news. According to the policy non-neutral does not mean unreliable so this isn’t a proper argument. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says generally reliable which is apparently the highest standard on the list. And, please do link me to it if I’ve missed it, but I have not seen any consensus or inclusion requirements met for your preferred wording. There are certainly more sources calling him right-wing, and more calling more far-right or using qualifiers to associate him with extreme political movements, and any calling him an independent journalist. High Professor (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If he’s referred to as “right-wing” in secondary sources most of the time and infrequently referred to as “far-right” or “alt-right” then I think describing him as just as right-wing is appropriate. The wikipage should reflect the common usage, not the outlier usage.
I do agree that The Intercept is reliable source. Biased doesn’t mean unreliable. Sibshops (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yet he is not commonly referred to as anything other than a YouTuber. At this point, I would suggest you open a RfC but I would not agree with putting any descriptor on him at the moment. —CNMall41 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in most reliable sources, he is described as right-wing as opposed to any other label.
Right-leaning:
Right-wing:
Conservative:
Pro-Trump:
MAGA Journalist:
No right wing label:
Sibshops (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“most reliable sources” – yet you only list 13. That looks more like a few you selected as opposed to “most.” Most of the actual sources have a consensus that he is a YouTuber and independent journalist (although there may be debate about self-prescribed). Again, I don’t see the need or a consensus to put any political label on him. —CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the claims of cherry-picking see WP:FOC.
But that is a fair point about consensus, I’ll wait for other people to chime in. Sibshops (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest WP:AGF as I have done so far. I did not claim you were cherrypicking. I am statign you cannot claim “most” sources when it appears you only looked at 13. And yes, it is a fair point. Some publications will label him politically based on their own POV, but there is nothing consistent across the board that shows he is one or the other. What is the reason you feel so strongly about putting a label on him? —CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fair, I was too terse there. WP:FOC means that the discussion is drifting toward editor intent instead of article content. I didn’t mean to imply bad faith accusations.
As for whether or not a label should be included, I feel like a description which mirrors the usage in reliable sources would add encyclopedic value. It would help readers more quickly understand the content creator’s goals and the types of material he produces. Sibshops (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your contention. I agree that we should mirror the label in reliable sources about what he is (per WP:FIRSTBIO). And we already do by describing him as a YouTuber. The part I disagree with is that Wikipedia needs to label him to state his goals. Wikipedia is not here to tell readers about someone’s “goals.” As far as “material he produces,” it is kind of saying that he produces all right-wing videos which is not the case and there no sources to support such. There is nothing else I can say as we are in WP:DTS territory. Again, maybe a RfC would work for consensus on what you are proposing. —CNMall41 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about goals and material he produces. It’s a personal opinion, and it’s why I think adding it would help make the article higher quality for readers. This is the issue I was trying to avoid by steering away from editor intent. It’s probably more productive if we stick to policy.

Per policy, first bio includes what he is noteworthy for in secondary sources, my opinion aside, in nearly every reliable secondary source I found, he is given a right-wing label of some type after being discussed.

One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.

As for RfC, I feel like it’s way to early for that. WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL still apply, maybe in a few months. I don’t think editors can predict his noteworthiness WP:10YT at this time. Sibshops (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I think maybe I should create a separate topic. Since far-right and alt-right doesn’t have support is the sources.
And I realized I didn’t really explain well why I think creating an RfC for an evolving news story is a good idea. Editors can’t weigh in effectively if all the information isn’t presented at the start. Sibshops (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fix this stupiditiy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-33090-45 (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on the changes you want to make? —Opecuted (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The website nickshirley.vercel.app has been linked as the official website of Nick Shirley by @Artaxerxes in the infobox and the External links section. However, I cannot find any links to it outside of this article on Wikipedia, and its only content is a dubious article featuring an obviously AI-altered picture. Additionally, it states “website made by [some Twitter handle]”, which leads me to believe it is either an impersonation or a parody. Therefore, I have removed it. Ikkibird (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed some of the wording around the sentence saying Shirley’s claim that the Minnesota flag was changed to look like Somalia’s. Basically, in the USA Today article they said he was “criticized for publishing false information”. However, I could not really identify who said that in the article. The part he cited about Reuters is to refute the claim that the flag was inspired by the Somalian flag, so it’s not Reuters claiming Shirley is “publishing false information”. So, I’ve attributed it to the author of the USA Today article as that seems to be the only reasonable conclusion. Feel free to correct and/or trout me if I’m wrong —Opecuted (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to rephrase that as well, that was kinda botched. —Opecuted (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley’s specific allegations have not been verified, with some challenging them in recent days. The manager of one Minnesota day care center has since said Shirley visited outside of its regular hours, while a CNN camera crew interviewing Shirley outside a different center filmed caregivers dropping off their kids in the background (he dismissed them as “showing face”).

<ref>https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/nx-s1-5662600/nick-shirley-minnesota-daycare-fraud WAStateReporter (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it’s not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a “change X to Y” format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone oppose the inclusion of the fact that Shirley implied that Ukraine had used US-backed resources to buy a Ferris wheel and that he repeated Trump’s immigrant peat eating allegation in this article? V. S. Video (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t see anything wrong with it. Go ahead and be bold. I’d lump it in with the section about British Muslims and Portland though. UppercutPawnch (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t describe Shirley as a journalist. I would describe him as a political operative or a political activist

He paid a number of Hispanic men $20 each to hold pro-Joe Biden and pro-immigration signs in front of the White House as part of a publicity stunt in favor of Trump

Shirley has falsely implied that Ukraine had used United States-backed funds to buy luxury cars and a Ferris wheel. He has also amplified Trump’s false claim that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio

The first rule of journalism is that you try to report facts as accurately as you can. You don’t pay people people to be fake witnesses. You don’t make stories up in order to favor a political outcome.

What he is is doing political activism, not journalism.

Walanian (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have to follow what WP:reliable sources say.
Side note: Here’s an interesting Aug 2025 article by the Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/08/20/how-americans-view-journalists-in-the-digital-age/ . It seems like a quarter of Americans consider people who “make their own videos or posts about news on social media” to be journalists. Some1 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yet reliable sources overwhelmingly don’t describe him that way. He is a far-right political activist who is known for anti-immigrant/xenophobic youtube videos. He’s most commonly described as right-wing.
https://theintercept.com/2025/12/31/nick-shirley-videos-minnesota-somali-day-cares-fraud-claims/
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/12/31/somali-child-care-providers-report-vandalism-threats-after-viral-video
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/30/media/nick-shirley-minnesota-somali-video
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/business/media/trump-conservatives-videos-viral-loop.html
https://www.axios.com/2025/12/29/nick-shirley-minnesota-fraud-vance-fbi-somali High Professor (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve not seen a single playground on any of the news reports. ~2026-13858-5 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn’t the venue for this kind of discussion.

article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else

WP:NOTFORUM Sibshops (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest someone add this to the article. Love him or hate him, his videos about fraud in Minnesota had a significant impact on Governor Tim Walz deciding to not seek re-election in recent days. I think this would make the article better, as this is probably what he is most notable for now. SilverhairedHarry (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverhairedHarry, I know that his resignation is covered over on the Tim Walz article. Do you have any Wikipedia:Reliable sources that state Shirley as being involved in the reasoning behind resignation? If RS doesnt specifically state that the resignation was influenced by Shirley, we can’t really word it as such as that would be getting close to Wikipedia:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. TomaHawk61 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. I understand. Thanks! SilverhairedHarry (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the MOS:ROLEBIO for Nick Shirley?

Below is a collection of reliable sources that describe/identify him (generally in the context of the Minnesota daycare-fraud video and its aftermath). The goal is to determine the most common neutral role description for use in the lede.

Sibshops (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources in the table:

  • YouTuber / influencer / content creator: 20/20 (100%)
  • Political descriptor (right-wing / conservative / MAGA-friendly / pro-Trump): 15/20 (75%)
  • Journalist (often self-described): 3/20 (15%)
Possible ROLEBIO options, depending on how conservative we want to be:

  • Common-denominator: American YouTuber and content creator
  • If including the majority-applied political descriptor: American right-wing YouTuber and content creator
Sibshops (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When opening a new thread about something already being discussed, it would be nice to reference the other thread where the discussion is taking place. His role has already been named as a YouTuber, which you conceded in the previous section. Again, as stated many times already, you should probably start an RfC if you want to label his political affiliation as something he is known for (which he is not). —CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the two references you removed here are not WP:NEWSORGINDIA. They are bylined so we have to assume they have editorial oversight. Also pointing out that they both do not support your contention about adding a political descriptor. They both say “YouTuber.” —CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll let someone else weigh in on the Indian news articles. If the claims made don’t have broader coverage in US or RSP listed sources I feel like there is a question of WP:DUE\WP:WEIGHT. Sibshops (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being that I have had these NEWSORGINDIA discussions in-depth over the last couple years, and the community has come to consensus on the guideline involved it, I am not sure what else can be weighed. Tell me why these two are unreliable other than they are Indian publications. —CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the table, I see evidence supporting the claim that his political affiliation is something he is known for. A majority of reliable sources describe him using a political descriptor.
I agree that YouTuber is well-supported, but journalist in some form only appears in a small minority of sources. Sibshops (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What someone calls the person and what they are known for are exclusive of each other. —CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still based on the sources. High Professor (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He is easily and obviously right-wing. Far-right would also be acceptable based on the sourcing. He isn’t an independent journalist. Respectfully you need to stop claiming you have consensus for something you don’t have it for. High Professor (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in favor of right-wing YouTuber and content creator as that’s pretty clear from the source list.
I’ll go ahead and note on this comment though that far-right requires adequate sourcing directly saying “far-right”. To do so in tandem with sourcing in the article referencing his current political positions would be WP:OR. UppercutPawnch (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While consensus is forming, there appears to be agreement that “journalist” does not belong in the ROLEBIO. It reflects self-description rather than how reliable secondary sources categorize Shirely.
As CNMall41 notes:

I am not advocating for inclusion of “journalist,” I am objecting to using a political affiliation to describe who the person is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020s_Minnesota_fraud_scandals&diff=prev&oldid=1332246615
The remaining point of disagreement is not whether Shirely is commonly described using a political descriptor in reliable sources, but whether “right-wing” is appropriate neutral umbrella term for the range of descriptions used (Right-wing, conservative, MAGA), and whether such a descriptor belongs in the lead at all. Sibshops (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then you do understand how ONUS works based on your objection to the term “journalist.” Where we fail to have an understanding is the reason for the discussion around the political attribute. You say the remaining point of disagreement is whether right-wing is the appropriate neutral language to use. That is not the disagreement. I contended throughout this discussion that he is not known for such and therefore it is not necessary to use such descriptor. For anyone wishing to include “journalist,” please start a new thread so this one does not get muddied. —CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it appears that right-wing would be an appropriate neutral umbrella term for the various political descriptors, if we want to apply a political descriptor, at all.
The remaining disagreement is if his political affiliation is something he is known for and belongs in the MOS:ROLEBIO.
MOS:ROLEBIO says the way to determine if someone is known for something is see how secondary sources describe the subject, and as the table shows, I believe that has been met.

The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources.

If there is another policy that overrides or conflicts with ROLEBIO in this case, I’m happy to consider it. Sibshops (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was already addressed. I have suggested many times that anyone wishing to include it to start a RfC. Repeating arguments and asking me to respond to those same arguments is getting into WP:DTS territory.–CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the previous concern was that the list of 13 sources wasn’t representative of broad reliable coverage. To address that I increased the number of reliable sources to 20.
Is there another concern I’m missing or is there another policy I missed? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to read the entire thread. “What someone calls the person and what they are known for are exclusive of each other.” addresses ROLEBIO directly. You can read everything below the sentence that starts with “This does not make it very obvious” which gets more in-depth with comparison and reasoning. At this point, I have explained my contention to death. You don’t have to understand it, but you certainly don’t have consensus. Again, RfC is an option. Any reason you aren’t filing one? At this point, there is an impasse and I don’t see myself changing my contention based on what you have presented. —CNMall41 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are directly contradicted by the ROLEBIO, which says “The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources”. There is no impasse here. You’re the only one in disagreement. High Professor (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This makes it very obvious the article needs to be updated to say right-wing, with a listing of his notable political views. High Professor (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make it very obvious. For saying they are in favor without giving a policy-based reason why it qualifies for inclusion, be mindful that this is a contentious topic and you will need consensus (which is NOT a vote count). —CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy reason is that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and this is what reliable sources say about the person as shown in the source table provided by @Sibshops. Also, your preferred wording would also need consensus. High Professor (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works. I do not have a “preferred” version. I am objecting to the use of a political descriptor. And, I am objecting to the POV-pushing attempting to say someone is known for somethign when even the media cannot get it right. CNN here (the latest article) says “conservative content creator” while here they say “MAGA Journalist.” So again, go with a RfC if you like but you don’t have consensus. —CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing seems justified, calling him conservative feels like whitewashing. Would need strong sources for far-right. Just for comparison/separation of those terms: In my opinion the classic Republican party was conservative while the current MAGA majority is right-wing. —Denniss (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that we do not even need a descriptor. Especially when there is no consistency across news sources. Is he a political commentator? Politician? Then no need to label his political affiliation (assuming we can come to consensus on what that is). Scott Jennings is a political strategist so I would argue there is a need to put a descriptor since that is related to what he does. Hasan Piker? Of course, he is a political commentator so again, include it. We do not even call Joe Rogan by a political affiliation as he is a podcaster, despite sources calling him right-wing. —CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in this case Shirley holds the same status as Scott Jennings due to being intertwined with his content (largely of a political nature) and political actions (such as the Tommy Robinson video and the Trump roundtable). Additionally, the Rogan talk page indicates that sources have conflicted on the right vs. left debate, whereas Shirley’s terms are largely synonymous with each other. While sources aren’t directly consistent in value due to using “conservative” and “MAGA friendly”, is “right-wing” really not enough of a broad enough label to have it completely removed from the lead? UppercutPawnch (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify your contention here as I am not following the logic. We have sources placing political labels on both Shirley and Rogan. Since Shirley went to a roundtable at the White House, he deserves the label; but, Rogan having Trump on his show for three hours to discuss politics means that Rogan does not deserve teh label. Is that correct? For Jennings, he is “intertwined” with things of a political nature which is why he gets the label; and, you feel Nick Shirley is also intertwined with politics so he also deserves the label? I mean, wouldn’t every correspondent at CNN and Fox be intertwined in politics as well? Jennings specifically speaks on politics (he is a political analyst). —CNMall41 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Rogan, no. Sources for Rogan appear to indicate that his accepted political values are not strictly conservative in spite of the fact that some claim he is right-wing.
In regards to Jennings, yes. Sources say that Jennings is right-wing so its on the page, same should apply for Shirley.
My only contention here is “say what the sources say”. On your part about news correspondents, journalists do have their leanings published on their page where is relevant (see Medhi Hasan for example). Rogan is different because he either does not specifically align with one set of left-right politics (hence why his page is part of the libertarianism in the US series) or has no consensus, such as with this section of his talk page:
The Guardian article doesn’t refer to Rogan at all. The Variety article says: “That’s why [Becca Lewis] also included YouTubers like conservative commentator Candace Owens, comedian Joe Rogan and libertarian talk show host Dave Rubin in her analysis.” Note how the author simply refers to “comedian” Joe Rogan, yet provided actual political labels to the other two, in addition to their occupations. The Wired article refers to Rogan as liberal: “Liberals included channels by Joe Rogan and Steven Bonnell II.” The only article I could find that made any reference to Joe being anything other than liberal was this article from the Daily Beast that refers to Rogan as “a comedian and self-described libertarian”, but the author doesn’t mention where or when he described himself as such. UppercutPawnch (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following up here since I notice I forgot to include these and since I have yet to receive a response:

  • My opinion is that “right-wing” specifically is a broad enough label to use here to encompass the multiple descriptors used to describe Shirley’s politics.
  • I feel as though this argument has evolved to become one individual claiming consensus against a larger group of editors. I see the argument being made to form an RfC, but I can only see that being used to create a vote instead of a sufficiently different alternative to this ongoing dialogue, and votes are not consensus. Please WP:DTS. UppercutPawnch (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who you are asking to WP:DTS, but no one is required to appease you and there is no deadline with Wikipedia. I for one mentioned RfC numerous times to cut down on people using the same argument over and over to support contentions. And, consensus is not a vote count. I will advise you not add the content without obtaining consensus. You were already notified about this being a contentious topic but just a friendly reminder. —CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly asking you to drop the stick. High Professor (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve started the RfC below. See Talk:Nick_Shirley#RfC:_Political_descriptor. Some1 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that The Hill opinion has anything to do with this person. It seems more of a veiled insult. IMO (of course) only facts should be posted. ~2025-36256-92 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it’s not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a “change X to Y” format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AirmanKitten203 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m concerned about the lack of criticism in this article. In regards to the allegations of daycare fraud, several RSs (NPR, NBC, CNN, CBS, etc.) have stated that the allegations lack substantial evidence at best, if not false at worst, and that is documented at 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals § Nick Shirley’s video. However, this is not mentioned at all in this article, neither in the lede nor in the body paragraphs (and it should be in both). To me that is a serious WP:NPOV violation and should be rectified soon, because otherwise, to a reader it seems like these claims are without fact-checking or correction. The current “Media appearances” section is not enough as that does not directly counter the claims. AG202 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a BLP, we do not include everything. Not sure what criticism you are wanting to include. If it is about the videos themselves, there is already a page that discusses that. Putting too much here could be considered WP:COAT. Do you have specific suggestions for the content other than stating a general “lack of criticism?”–CNMall41 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we’re going to include coverage of the videos and state that the videos alleged fraud in this article, then we should mention that the claims are considered to be unsubstantiated and to have lacked evidence in this article as well. A sentence or two like “However, his allegations were later found to have lacked evidence and were unsubstantiated.” would be fine, pending better wording. And keep in mind that WP:NPOV trumps every other policy or guideline, so “not including everything” or “it’s already mentioned elsewhere” would not be a reasonable defense here. AG202 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very familiar with NPOV after editing here over the last decade. Simply citing it as an argumentum ad legem is not sufficient to put up a preferred version however. So no, we do not include everything, especially on a BLP. With that in mind, I can see an addition similar to the last paragraph of this section which states news outlets described it as [enter wording here support by reliable sources] and that Shirley defended the videos by saying [insert his quote here]. Do you have proposed wording?–CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the allegations lack substantial evidence, coming from several reliable sources, is a pretty crucial fact that clearly belongs in the lede (which is not very long at the moment). NOTEVERYTHING is a flimsy excuse for omitting it. —Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Flimsy excuse” is not exactly WP:AGF wording. I never said NOTEVERYTHING applied to the lead so please do not make assumptions. If we are talking about the lead, that would require WP:BALANCE. Right now, the lead it very weak so there would need to be a better summary of the body, not just a single sentence of “the allegations lack substantial evidence.” Adding only that would be a NPOV issue the other way. —CNMall41 (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding only that would be a NPOV issue the other way Only if there were reliable sources who agree with Shirley’s claim that daycare centers refusing entry to a group of random aggressive guys is evidence of fraud. WP:FALSEBALANCE is not required. —Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may reading FALSEBALANCE incorrectly. Adding one sentence about something you want while not accurately summarizing the important information on the page, does in fact violate NPOV. FALSEBALANCE talks about minority or fringe viewpoints. —CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources that agree with Shirley’s claim? If not, his claim is FRINGE. AG202 gave four RS that say he has no substantial evidence. This is not about what I want, it is about RS say. And you are trying to circumvent them by WP:WIKILAWYERING. FALSEBALANCE is a perfectly valid response to BALANCE when there is no case for one of the two sides, but this is even worse because in this article, the side with no case is the one that gets to determine the narrative. You are not trying to keep balance, you are trying to keep the other side (the one with a case) out of the article. Yes, one has to assume good faith, but assumptions can be called into question by evidence. —Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if there are or not. My point is that adding only a partial summary of the overall content on the page (the preferred wording that is POV pushing) is in fact NOT NPOV. Not sure how else to explain it. —CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hob and AG202, the neutral point of view is to include prominent opposing views. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:COAT don’t apply here. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not know, then you have no leg to stand on. I repeat: we have RS against Shirley’s claims. So we should include them. “I do not know if there are RS in favor of Shirley” is not a valid reason against that.
I don’t know how exactly a “partial summary” is defined, but the one-sentence lede was definitely a very partial summary. —Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does the lead look like as of this edit? Does it address everyone’s NPOV concerns?

Nick Shirley (born April 4, 2002) is an American YouTuber and content creator. In December 2025, his video alleging fraud at Somali-run child care centers in Minnesota went viral. According to some media outlets, the video’s allegations were unsubstantiated. As of late December 2025, state officials said that investigations were ongoing and had not found evidence of fraud at the sites Shirley visited.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@High_Professor
I have a couple of comments with the latest edits
For this change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Shirley&diff=prev&oldid=1333854852
From:

According to multiple media outlets, coverage stated that the video’s allegations lacked substantial evidence.

to

The video’s allegations were unsubstantiated.

I believe this shifts the sentence from attributed reporting to wikivoice and removes who is making the assessment, which seems important since there is also an ongoing investigation, too.
Also, different reliable sources use different language here, from “lacking substantial evidence” to “unsubstantiated”. Describing all them with the strongest term may be editorial synthesis.
I think keeping attribution and using the least-strong phrasing reflects the range of sources and avoids WP:OR issues. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed, as I have stated throughout, is a “full summary” for the lead, not just portions related to Minnesota. ONLY including that is a NPOV issue. Either do a full lead or leave it with a single sentence. For instance, would it be NPOV to just state, “Nick Shirley (born April 4, 2002) is an American YouTuber and content creator. His YouTube channel has over 1.1 million subscribers and more than 200 million total views.”?–CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I’m aware, for high profile individuals who are notable for a single event, the lead commonly uses the second sentence to summarize what they are notable for.
For example:
George Zimmerman Mark Felt Monica Lewinsky ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything in WP:BLPLEAD that talks about how we make exceptions for WP:ONEVENT. Again, summarizing one thing (most of it COAT by the way), is not NPOV. In the least, you can say he came to popularity for the video, but stating the events surrounding is something reserved for the main page about the fraud. If you are able to summarize the lead better by removing the COAT and adding more about him that would acceptable. If not, I feel we are in route to yet another RfC.–CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is MOS:LEAD

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article’s topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

In this case, the coverage in the news is why he is notable.
WP:COAT generally applies when an article gives undue weight to a topic unrelated to the subject’s notability. Since what is written reflects the reason for why he’s notable, I don’t think WP:COATRACK applies. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a YouTuber (which is what he is known for), stats should be listed to give context which is common in BLPs of YouTubers. Removed by a user on January 8 for “source quality.” I added it back as sources are reliable in my opinion. Removed again by SPA stating “promotional. 1 million subs is not notable or special.” Starting discussion as unable to revert due to contentious topic. Should context of his YouTube channel such as this edit be part of the BLP? CNMall41 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I’m being misquoted here. My comment earlier was about WP:DUE\WP:WEIGHT as in the section isn’t notable because there isn’t broad coverage from a multiple reliable secondary sources.
I didn’t say the Indian sources were reliable or unreliable either way.
The quote from WP:NEWSORGINDIA is about notability, not reliability.

…This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of people, companies and entities of borderline notability. … Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel it is a misquote. The literal quote is “Removing for source quality, sources not on WP:RSP and caution should be exercised with WP:NEWSORGINDIA for contentious topics.”. Nothing in there is about DUE or WEIGHT. Do you still object to inclusion and if so please state why so we can get 3O going and then RfC if necessary. —CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fair, my edit summary wasn’t clear and my clarification in the talk page may not have been obvious. To clarify, my concern is about due weight, not source reliability. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically? Not sure how WEIGHT plays into giving background on his YouTube channel since the majority of the career section is in fact about his YouTube channel. —CNMall41 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the concern is the statement about his purpose (“exposing government oversight issues”). This is a self-description presented as fact and lacks independent corroboration and analysis in reliable sources. Under WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:DUE, self-serving claims should not be given weight without broader independent coverage. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it is attributed as such. If that is your only concern, you could have removed that but you removed an entire paragraph and now providing different reasoning for the original removal. I would request you reinstate and we can discuss the single sentence that you have an issue with. Bulk reverting over a single sentence can be considered disruptive. Likely not your intention and I will WP:AGF that is wasn’t, but please bear that in mind when editing contentious topics.
To clarify, you can reinstate and just remove the single sentence you have an issue with. —CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, how’s this?
Original text:

Shirley’s YouTube channel has over 1.1 million subscribers and more than 200 million total views. Shirley’s videos typically feature man-on-the-street interviews in protest locations, migrant shelters, and urban areas. He describes his work as independent journalism aimed at exposing government oversight issues.

To:

Shirley’s YouTube channel has over 1.1 million subscribers. Since returning to the platform in 2023, his videos have taken on a political bent, featuring man-on-the-street style interviews focused on topics including illegal immigration, the 2024 election, President Trump’s deployment of federal troops to blue cities, and the ensuing protests against them.

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/nx-s1-5662600/nick-shirley-minnesota-daycare-fraud ◦ Sibshops (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t remove the line you had an objection with and leave the other content. You basically re-worded the content. I do not see an issue with inclusion of any of it at this point. It is all in context, well-cited, and relevant to his career. If you disagree, we can move on to 3O. —CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your judgement on what to do next. To summarize, I removed the text based on WP:NEWSORGINDIA, explained the resulting WP:ABOUTSELF self-description concern, and proposed a one-sentence BLP-safe alternative. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the trust. I have gone ahead and restored the content. If there is an issue with any portion, feel free to discuss or remove that specific portion for discussion. —CNMall41 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. I wasn’t proposing it should be added back. There are other issues with the current text as well, like missing attribution and missing balance. How’s this? It addresses the about self and includes attribution.

According to The Times of India, Shirley’s videos typically feature man-on-the-street interviews in protest locations, migrant shelters, and urban areas. Other outlets, including CNN and NPR, describe his recent videos as taking on a political bent, focusing on topics such as illegal immigration, the 2024 election, and protests related to federal deployments.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the content as added back. If you have an issue, revert it we can go 3O or RfC but I think this conversation has come to a head. You continue to move the goal posts (third time now) and it is exhausting. —CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I requested a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it should be in text at all when it’s already present in the infobox. High Professor (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state your policy based reason why?–CNMall41 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say how neutral point of view talks about the content of sources and what they choose to mention. High Professor (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lens RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

Okay, @CNMall41 and @Sibshops: I have one issue with the text as-is; the verifiability. The source does not verify that “he describes his work“ as being “aimed at exposing government oversight issues.” I’m seeing synthesis here, no? I’m sure he would describe his work as-such, but, unless I’m missing something, he doesn’t explicitly in that article. Can we get different wording that is supported by a source? I have no issue with the rest of the text. @High Professor‘s objection is precluded by multiple points under MOS:INFOBOX, including MOS:IBP:“The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored.”…and by MOS:INFOBOXCITE:“[…]editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.” …among others. MWFwiki (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, agreed. It’s a synthesis of his description of himself in the article. Since descriptions of his work vary between sources maybe it would better with attribution instead of wikivoice? How is the following?

The Times of India describes Shirley as producing man-on-the-street style videos filmed in public settings. Other outlets, including CNN and NPR, describe his recent content as politically focused, covering topics such as illegal immigration, the 2024 election, and protests related to federal deployments.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that needed removed was that single sentence to be honest. That would have saved everyone’s time. However, now that we are here and looking closer at the NPR source presented, I would just recommend cutting everything in that sentence after “independent journalist.” (I will do that now actually since it is OR). NPR says he described himself as such but everything after would be original research. —CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after removing the OR, also changed “independent journalist” to “he describes himself as an independent YouTube journalist” to match the source. —CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a fair change. I made a followup edit to more clearly attribute Times of India characterization to keep it out of wikivoice. I didn’t add new characterizations from other RS at this point. Happy to hear thoughts. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An ongoing count of his current followers doesn’t belong in the section on his political content unless it’s a specific threshold or accomplishment that got covered in sources. For an example there are no follower or view counts listed here and the section would seem promotional if someone began it with “Brownlee’s Youtube channel has over 20 million subscribers and more than 5 billion views”. It sounds like PR language. Instead, the overall article focuses on specific milestones like Marques Brownlee being described the biggest tech creator in the world. Marques Brownlee is in an entirely different universe in terms of the level of significance compared to Shirley, but that kind of hones the point in that even someone as major as him doesn’t have that kind and his view count is impressive in isolation. I think this tracks well with how neutral point of view talks about sources. In Shirley’s case almost none of them talk about his follower count, most of them omit it (99%?). High Professor (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with the wording “The Times of India describes Shirley as producing man-on-the-street style videos filmed in public settings. Other outlets, including CNN and NPR, describe his recent content as politically focused, covering topics such as illegal immigration, the 2024 election, and protests related to federal deployments.” I would also add that his political bend should be briefly described as it’s present in 15 sources. High Professor (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a note on your talk page about the political descriptor. For your other comments, see WP:OSE. —CNMall41 (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article content is discussed here. I am referring to the section political videos in the body. It makes sense to describe his political views there. High Professor (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will add, after a very easy search, a few OSE pages that go against your contention. This is exactly why other stuff exists arguments should not be used. —CNMall41 (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trisha Hershberger# – “The channel found early success, reaching one million subscribers the following year”
  • Ms. Puiyi – “Ms Puiyi has over 26 million Instagram followers, 1.4 million TikTok followers, and over 800,000 YouTube subscribers”
  • Noah Beck – “Beck has 33.5 million followers on TikTok, 7.8 million on Instagram, and over 1.51 million YouTube subscribers”
  • B. Dylan Hollis – “as well as over two million subscribers on YouTube.”
This is different. Trisha Hershberger reached one million subscribers in one year (it has taken Shirley 6 years), which was described by reliable sources as being exactly the “accomplishment” I pointed out above. Ms. Puiyi and Noah Beck have a factor of ~30x the followers of Nick Shirley. If point out “OSE” and say it doesn’t matter though, then I agree with you. The core of my point there was that in Shirley’s case almost no reputable sources talk about his follower count. 95-99% of them exclude it. Only Hindustan Times does. High Professor (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, please do not move my signature. I placed it where it was for a reason. As far as discussion, no need to beat a dead horse so don’t expect a reply. Discussions like these have a way of working out based on policy arguments so I will leave it at that. —CNMall41 (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support this contention as well. Inclusion of the stats is warranted. It’s not some wildly exceptional claim where multiple, high-quality sources are required. MWFwiki (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following labels should be used to describe Nick Shirley in the lead?

  • A) Right-wing
  • B) Conservative
  • C) Far-right
  • D) None – don’t use any political descriptor

01:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  • D – As stated in the above discussions, he is not know for his politics. He is a YouTuber. This is also why the “journalist” was removed from the lead. MOS:ROLEBIO states he should be described how the sources most commonly describe him which is YouTuber. If he was a political commentator or a politician, then I would be all for it. —CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the standard for inclusion under MOS:ROLEBIO is a common description, not unanimous description.
    ROLEBIO doesn’t require all sources to use the same label, it’s just that the lead should reflect how the person is commonly described. A number of other BLP pages use a list of labels sourced from various places, even when no single source uses all of them in one place.
    Requiring unanimity would be a higher standard than the policy sets and would exclude descriptors which are otherwise used consistently across secondary sources. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. He seems like more of an opportunist to me who goes to stories that he knows will generate lots of likes and clicks. I don’t think he’s motivated by ideology more like motivated by algorithms and outrage bait. This is why he is described as a YouTuber and Influencer rather than a journalist. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A – I’m borrowing the table/source statistics from @Sibshops in the above discussion First bio for Nick Shirley.
Based on the sources in the table:

  • Political descriptor (right-wing / conservative / MAGA-friendly / pro-Trump): 15/20 (75%)
  • Journalist (often self-described): 3/20 (15%)
  • Common-denominator: American right-wing YouTuber and content creator. High Professor (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. Only reply backed up with so many sources here. Assorted-Interests (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — the RfC question is vague, is the label to be used in the lead sentence, or somewhere else in the lead, or in the body of the article. The question should be as specific as possible. And the source analysis table should be moved to the discussion section, or if it remains in the Survey section, it should use the collapsible element, which contains a toggle an editor can use to show or hide the table’s content.— Isaidnoway (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The table is a part of my comment. I suppose if the survey gets a lot of votes I could collapse it. Thanks! High Professor (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    CNMall41 and High Professor, I’ve modified the RfC question to add that this applies to the entire lead (which includes the first sentence) of the article per Isaidnoway‘s question. (pinging you two as you’re the only two respondents so far) Let me know if you prefer that the RfC be specifically about the first sentence only. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong D/weak A – I’m not sure that his politics (to the extent he has shared them or has any at all) are relevant to his notability as a youtuber/content creator, which is the noun most sources use to describe him. If there is a broader consensus to describe him as a political youtuber, then “right-wing” is the most commonly used adjective given the sources listed above and from my own research on the topic. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree with Jcgaylor. I do see some sources describe him as right-wing and conservative but definitely not far right. I believe for now it’s better to avoid assigning any political labels to him until we have more reliable sources available. Per WP:BLP, bios of living persons should be as neutral as possible. Also, per WP:DUE if a label is in a few sources, it is better to leave it out. Frankserafini87 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 15 reliable sources that describe him as right-wing/conservative/etc and even associated with a specific political movement. Can you explain what you mean by “in a few”? High Professor (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This was already addressed in a previous thread. The chart cherry picks 15 sources out of the hundreds that talk about Shirley. So yes, a “few” in comparison to the total number of available sources.–CNMall41 (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15 independent reliable sources saying the same thing is not cherrypicking. It’s the opposite, especially for someone relatively unknown like Shirley. It’s that way because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe him as such. High Professor (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that you stated, “overwhelmingly majority of reliable sources” initially. It would normally be proper to strke the comment instead of deleting. 15 soruces of out hundreds is not overwhemlingly and note even close to “majority.” As with the other thread, you can have the last word. Discussions like these have a way of working out based on policy-based arguments so I will leave my stated contention speak for itself. —CNMall41 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It still says overwhelming majority. There are not hundreds of sources on Nick Shirley, and definitely not hundreds of reliable sources which is why you’ve failed to present even one. Someone went through every major reliable source on this matter and the majority of them (roughly 80%) clearly refer to him as right-wing or something similar. MOS:ROLEBIO says “The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources”. Wikipedia says what the sources say, so there is no policy based argument for excluding this and none has been presented. High Professor (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (procedural) – I think this RfC is happening too early. The article and sources are still adjusting to a breaking and ongoing story. Deciding what the long-term lead description should be at this moment feels like it is asking editors to guess where coverage will end up in the future. Wikipedia is not meant to anticipate future consensus. WP:CRYSTAL WP:RECENTISM. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong D/weak A – Looking over Shirley’s youtube, for about 2 years he was making videos on random topics. Then he took a break, and when he returned he started doing interviews. The videos do not appear to have a political bent until about 4 months ago. It feels too early to label him as a political commentator, but if discussion leans toward choosing one I vote A per review of sources. satkara❈talk 23:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Shirley’s content has been near completely 100% political for the last 2 years which is what he’s known for. But it’s not about that, it’s about how sources describe him. And as shown above they nearly all introduce him in political terms. High Professor (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • D — none in the lead, and A — right-wing in the body of the article. If there is going to be a section in his article about his Political videos, then it is DUE for inclusion to report how reliable sources have described him in relation to those “political” videos, and at this point, it seems to be a significant viewpoint, according to reliable sources, that he is on the right-wing political spectrum.— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • D – This person is a YouTuber first and foremost. Biographies should avoid political labels that come across as POV-pushing. The person’s political views can still be discussed in the article. Nemov (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • D – Per MOS:LABEL. He’s notable for breaking a fraud story, not for political commentary. Sources characterizing his content’s audience doesn’t make political alignment a defining biographical trait for the lead. Bladerunner24 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A – Per the sources given in an earlier comment, it makes the most sense to me. Assorted-Interests (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B (or both, since they don’t contradict), in both the lead and the body; the sources presented above make it clear that coverage does, in fact, treat his politics as important and describes it in those terms. The arguments above saying “well he’s just an apolitical youtuber” contradict the coverage, which makes it clear that he is primarily known for his politics. If people believe he is apolitical or his politics doesn’t matter, then given the sweeping coverage of his politics, it should be easy to find at least a few sources directly contradicting these; the fact that nobody has come up with any suggests that it is, in fact, central to his notability. —Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or possibly B (or both) per the reliable sources set out by High Professor, as nobody disagreeing has provided evidence these are cherry picked. He’s known for a political intervention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@High Professor:, so as not to seem disruptive I did not move the table but it should go here for discussion. I will reiterate what I previously said in that discussion which is “What someone calls the person and what they are known for are exclusive of each other.” We put what they are known for in the lead. It also seems like confirmation bias to list 20 sources out of the hundreds that describe him. Regardless, my contention is not what we call him…it is that he isn’t known for his political leaning so there is no need to put the descriptor. —CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend a self-revert of this since another editor has objected to the specific wording used.–CNMall41 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the current RfC wording captures the actual disagreement as far as I understand it.

It’s “Should Wikipedia describe Shirley the same way reliable sources describe him, or not?”

MOS:ROLEBIO says:

The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources.

In this case, as the table shows, reliable sources commonly describe Shirley as a right-wing YouTuber / content creator (or something with similar wording).

Everyone here already seems to agree that:

  • “Right-wing” is a neutral umbrella term for the political descriptors used in sources
  • “Far-right” is not supported by the sources

So, the remaining question is whether the lead should describe him the same way that reliable sources describe him.◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“the remaining question is whether the lead should describe him the same way that reliable sources describe him” – That is not the case. As stated in my contention, this is about whether he should be given any political descriptor. The RfC is find IMHO as A-C is more of “how to describe him” and D is there for “whether or not it is needed.”–CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Studious Cat You bring up a valid point in your latest revert. The original wording wasn’t true to the source.

Instead of

and subsequent investigations by state officials found no evidence of fraud at the sites Shirley visited.

we could say

and state officials said that, as of late December 2025, investigations had not found evidence of fraud at the sites Shirley visited.

How’s is that? It time-bounds the investigation, mirrors RS phrasing, and avoids implication that it is complete. It can then later be removed and updated with more recent sourcing. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like someone else reverted, but I made the change to address your concern. Any feedback is welcome. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@High Professor regarding to your latest edits, I believe we should keep the Template:As_of template for statements about things which could become potentially out-of-date in the future. Since the investigation is ongoing, the template lets future editors know that the information may need updating an newer reports come out.
If we want to reduce repetition, I could change it to say something like “As of late December 2025”. Would that work for you? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the as of template since the investigation is ongoing. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added the template. Thanks. High Professor (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back to the lead, too. I also made some other edits with the reasoning in the edit summary. Feedback is welcome. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources are outdated so do not mention the fact that since they were published evidence has been found to Shirley’s accusation. Gcjune19 (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

evidence has been found to Shirley’s accusation.
Please provide reliable sources for this evidence. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top