Talk:Anna Paulina Luna

Removing “model” description in bibliography summary
A previous edit of mine where I referred to Anna Paulina as a former model has been removed, although her modeling gigs are documented and verifiable. What is the reason behind the removal? For reference, Chrissy Teigen published 3 NYTimes best-sellers for her cookbooks, but she is still referred to as “an American model and television personality”. Gisele Bündchen has several business endeavors, including in music, but is referred to as a “fashion model”.

Can someone please explain the rationale for Anna Paulina not to be referred to as a model? A2pa (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @RandomUserGuy1738 I would be most grateful if you could explain your reasoning here. Thank you! A2pa (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * model or not she's beautiful. 2600:1004:B11A:83C3:5D49:B458:20B3:1240 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Braddock stalking incident
I wonder if this incident deserves mention in Luna’s article, or if it would be better placed somewhere else (like in the page about the election).

Luna herself was criticized for how she handled it (specifically, her injunction mentioned two other politicians whom her stalker claimed he was conspiring with, but the other parties said they were innocent and accused Luna of defaming them). So it does seem like a controversy for Luna, not just Braddock. I’d say it belongs here; what do you think? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:121B (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI, one of the other politicians mentioned in the above injunction was Matt Tito, who is now in the news for accusing Luna of witchcraft. So the two controversies are actually connected. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist category
I've removed this yet again per WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATDEFINE, A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How is election denial not a defining characteristic of a conspiracy theorist any more than moon-landing deniers or 9/11 truthers are? I'm simply taking Luna at her word, that she does in fact believe what she asserts, and assigning her an appropriate category. I can't help but suspect there are ulterior motives here. Nokota Buck (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What reliable sources call Luna a conspiracy theorist? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This neat little site called Wikipedia. You may have heard of it.
 * === 2020 presidential election ===
 * In June 2022, speaking about the 2020 United States presidential election in an interview with MSNBC, Luna said, "I believe that President Trump won that election, and I do believe that voter fraud occurred." The previous month, Luna attended a red carpet event and screening of 2000 Mules, a film that claims to show evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the 2020 election.
 * Nokota Buck (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Nokota Buck (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't categorize based on single statements of belief of opinion per WP:OPINIONCAT, and attending a screening of a film does not necessarily make one a conspiracy theorist. WP:COPDEF and WP:CATDEF are based on traits that are commonly and consistently used to describe a person, not inferred or mentioned fleetingly. We don't categorize all possible traits of all subjects, and definingness has a higher threshold than mere verifiability - even more so when contentious labels are involved. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and those quotes don't call Luna a conspiracy theorist. Especially for an article about a living person, and a contentious label like "conspiracy theorist", you need to find actual reliable sources which explicitly call Luna a conspiracy theorist if you think she should be categorised as one. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand that if a person denied the moon landing or stated that 9/11 was an inside job, they would not be categorized as a conspiracy theorist unless an outside source explicitly called them that or they held other crazy beliefs? Nokota Buck (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just a reliable source saying that, but that being the common way of referring to them. That's why John Kerry isn't in the category either, despite multiple sources discussing their views on the Kennedy assassination. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. Barack Obama plays basketball, as mentioned in his article based on reliable sources. But we do not put him in Category:American basketball players because he is not commonly or consistently described as a basketball player, and his recreational hobbies are not central to his notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Father incarceration
This paragraph is simply stating the same information twice, I propose it be merged into another paragraph or shortened to remove the redundancies.

The Washington Post contacted the California Department of Corrections, the Orange County Corrections Department and the Santa Ana jail, none of which had any records of incarceration for her father. When she was 10, she found his bag of meth. She claimed that her father was imprisoned multiple times for not paying child support, but The Washington Post found no records of his incarceration. With her father absent, she was raised by her mother in Los Angeles. Bsharkey (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bsharkey See my edits, which accomplish this and help clarify. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Quoted for clarity.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed the father incarceration claim for now. While I don't think we should quote Fox News as a rebuttal to WaPo in our Wikipedia article, this does not mean that WaPo has met the burden of proof for an exceptional claim. All WaPo has reported is the absence of records that would indicate that the father was in jail. Now, what Fox News is reporting is the presence of Lexis-Nexis court records (which WaPo did not mention checking) indicating that the father was indeed in jail at some point. Furthermore, if his charge was ultimately dismissed, this may have led to lack of records about his incarceration. Or, it could be poor record-keeping. I think we should be cautious on this point, unlike the other points about the break-in and Jewish heritage where there was presence of positive testimony (from roommate, police report, relatives and photograph) to dispute the biographical claims.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 06:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

George Santos 2.0
She's not even Mexican-American. Her father is of full German blood and we have no actual proof that her mother with a white sounding name has any Mexican blood. 47.146.170.94 (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And your point is? Everything you state above is either pure speculation ("father is of full German blood") or sounds like racist commentary ("her mother with a white sounding name"). Also, what exactly is "Mexican blood"?  Mexico is a country. Mexico is not a race. More racist-sounding commentary.  I suggest that everyone completely ignore the commentary above by IP editor 47.146.170.94 because it is just an old-fashioned personal attack on the subject of the article and does not add anything of value to the discussion about improving the article. -- 2601:2C6:C080:4070:214C:489:1DB8:C080 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I like her even more for that!!! She matches the rest of the United States this way.Her country of origin is America and she identifies as that! 2600:8804:8C16:F000:9D5:50C7:BC6F:CD30 (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I wanted to document here that I've started a thread on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have the news website The Floridian reviewed to determine if it is sufficiently reliable.


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard - RFC for The Floridian

KD5TVI (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Is her grandfather jewish then?
This article kind of implies that her grandfather on her father's side is jewish. Can this be made more clear? 50.45.50.60 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It clearly states that he is Catholic. Jon698 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

PragerU and primary sources
While several sources are saying Luna has played up her Mexican heritage, the PragerU sentence under "Early life" reads to me like original research. The sentence is about what she says in the documentary, so PragerU is the primary source. I have not found a secondary source that describes what she says here as "falsely".

Looking more at some of the sources, what does the Northwest Florida Daily News citation have to do with Instagram influencer? And is it necessary to have the primary Maxim and Sports Illustrated sources among the cites for her modelling? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What do you propose? Instant Comma (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least, remove "falsely". The Washington Post article has several examples of Luna leaning into her Hispanic heritage, and that she was "largely apolitical" during her time at Whiteman; some are conflicting accounts and I don't care if they're mentioned.
 * Unless someone has a good reason, the primary modeling sources (Sports Illustrated and Maxim) and nwfdailynews.com should go. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I got rid of "falsely." If the primary sources were the only sources for the modelling, I could see a problem. But there are secondary sources there too. Perhaps someone who understands the rules better than I could comment on this. Instant Comma (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Central Florida Post
The Central Florida Post (May 11, 2022) has an attack article that I'm not going to link here, called "Anna Paulina Luna Has Decades Long History of Abusing Court Issued Protective Orders". It makes specific claims that might bear looking into though.

Also, the article lede calls Luna a politician and activist, but the article itself doesn't say much about her activism outside of office.

I hadn't heard of her before seeing her on TV just now, so this is all pretty new to me. 2601:644:8501:4500:0:0:0:B3A9 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it should be mentioned here but not linked to.
 * -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding "significantly misrepresented"
Why did you add links in this BLP article to three other BLP articles characterized as having "significantly misrepresented [their] history"? It appears to me that you want to use the Wikipedia voice to accuse Anna Paulina Luna of significantly misrepresenting her history without having to provide any supporting sources stating that she has done so. That seems like a BLP violation. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The listing is a BLP violation. There's no inline citation for the claim. There would need to be reliable sources that clearly say A, B, and C have "significantly misrepresented [their] history", but the sources would also need to explicitly state that what Luna has said was similar to claims of A, B, and C. The list obviously violates WP:BLPLIST by suggesting bad reputation without sources. WP:BLPSEEALSO is even more explicit, "links ... should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person".
 * Let's assume for a second that reliable sources support the proposed statement and consistently link A, B, and C to Luna. That would mean that discussion about "See also" section would be moot, because the proper course of action would be to include those names with wikilinks in prose and omit the links in the "See also" section per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Politrukki (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Could we have a discussion here instead of in an edit summary? Two concerns that I have with your comments are that I have doubts about the editor's judgment and I thought we were supposed to tske these issues more seriously with BLPs. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Read the linked discussion first. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had read it first. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I hope this can be non-confrontational.
 * Should the main issue here be considered a matter of wording? Or a matter of which sections (like 'See also') normally need their own citations? Both might be important but...
 * I understand Pemilligan may have thought I was being pointed in the phrase I used, but I would say that refutations presented in the 'Disputed biographical claims' section (along with their citations) warrant language along those lines. The fact that the *exact* phrase "significantly misrepresented" doesn't appear shouldn't inherently create an issue, at which point it becomes a matter of opinion as to what phrasing is appropriate.
 * Would it be better to link to the same pages while using wording akin to "also has disputed personal history claims" or similar?
 * Because asserting that these pages/subjects are not similar is suspicious in and of itself. TheHetStopper (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then what was your takeaway? Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My ultimate takeaway is that everyone is choosing to ignore our questions regarding 'wording'. TheHetStopper (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you believe edit-warring is the right way to keep this material in this article (and multiple other BLPs)? I'd recommend self-reverting, because it's pretty clear multiple editors don't agree with the inclusion, and the WP:ONUS is on editors seeking inclusion to find consensus. WP:TRIVIA applies here because the information being sought for inclusion could be considered speculative WP:NOR, which TRIVIA mentions (Research may be necessary to give each fact some context or to add references. Any speculative or factually incorrect entries should be removed), and it also mentions that a "trivia" section is not always named "Trivia". (the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name.) Kcmastrpc (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Would people be OK with just "misrepresented"? I must admit I think "significantly" is a bit too much as far as Cawthorn is concerned, as most of his misrepresentation is confined to his car accident (i.e., he says his friend left him to die (he did not) and that his injuries cost him his admission to the Naval Academy (in fact, by then he had already been rejected)). But I can't find anything in the article that suggests he's lied about anything else in his (admittedly short so far) life.

Luna and Ogles have, by contrast, been found to have lied about more than one thing. Whether that qualifies as significant is a separate debate (if we take George Santos as the standard for what would undeniably be "significant" misrepresentation of one's past). Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have seen this edit warring happen over the last week on my watchlist. The only comment I can make here is that this is clearly a BLP issue and nobody should be reinserting any material on this without a solid consensus to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andy Ogles See Also section has been reinserted twice by this editor as well, and he appears to have made 4 or 5 similar reversions across multiple pages in the past 48–72 hours. I'm not sure if this is enough to take to the admin noticeboard for warring, but it seems pretty close, and the editor doesn't seem too interested in self-reverting to find consensus on whether or not these correlations unsupported by secondary sources are a BLP violation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with deferring to editorial judgement as WP:SEEALSO says. The idea of requiring sources for See Also items, BLP or not, was, as I have already pointed out, quite firmly rejected here, where all the same arguments likely to come up here were already dealt with, as it has been many other times in other fora. If the commentary on a link tries to write a check the article linked can't cash, well then of course we can reword it. Or if the link itself is too much of a synthesis (i.e., as the editor who started that discussion (in very bad faith) kept imagining, adding Donald Trump as a see-also to Adolf Hitler, is there something preventing people from just taking that link out? Certainly no one
 * I don't find any of this incompatible with BLPSEEALSO, either. It's one sentence that says, mostly, "'See also' links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person ...". "Contentious" does not overlap with "negative" here ... contentious in the BLP context has often been understood as referring to negative information that reliable sources aren't completely sure about, not negative information that is pretty much accepted across the board. It is not disputed, really, that Luna and Ogles have misrepresented some aspects of their pasts. I agree we can discuss whether they have significantly done so, but they have indisputably done so. We might be better off being more specific in the annotation, i.e., "Andy Ogles, found to have misrepresented his educational background and employment". Or we could put just one header over all their names: "Other elected officials found to have misrepresented their backgrounds". Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep linking to that 2016 discussion, which was about a dispute about writing MoS/Layout guideline, and as such has very little relevance to this discussion. In that discussion you said the discussion continues at BLPN. In the BLPN discussion there was a clear consensus against your position (about adding links to "See also" section in specific articles). Disappearance of Sky Metalwala had to be fully protected due to edit-warring and the link has not been restored. That seriously undermines your claim that "[w]e have customarily excluded the see also section from sourcing requirements".
 * In the 2016 BLPN discussion you (or anyone wishing to add a link) were told to "pony up a reliable source linking the two" and you still fail to see point. If your position is that RS don't need to make an explicit connection, would you add a link to Joe Biden into "See also" section (it has been "pretty much accepted across the board" that Biden has "misrepresented some aspects of their" past, see for example Glenn Kessler's column for background) before checking reliable sources and why? Or add a link to Vladimir Putin in Biden's "See also" section using the logic that they are both elected officials who have been accused of plagiarism? Politrukki (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to that BLPN ... the editor who linked rather disingenuously to it (starting it after the consensus at MOS:SEEALSO had gone against him failed to deeplink to the discussion, and as such I had forgotten how it turned out.
 * I would not characterize the BLP discussion as in any way having reached a consensus, since it was never closed and archived. Most of the argument
 * I will add sources to any future restorations of these links if that is what the consensus here supports. I have also restored Douglas Stringfellow to the See Also section since, as the article on him should make eminently clear, he's been dead for almost 60 years, far more than enough time to remove him from the protections of not only BLP but BRDP, something it strikes me that all the editors hastening to revert this, for all their concerns about proper sourcing, never seemed to have bothered to check despite the relative ease of doing so. BLP is ill-served by that kind of bot-like editing, which, frankly, is what I found most objectionable in these reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm disappointed that you put any of them back in "See also". You seem to be WP:NOTGETTINGIT especially after I said nobody should be reinserting any material on this without a solid consensus to do so earlier (I meant to say "on this page".) You are comparing Stringfellow's "significantly misrepresented" biography to Luna's, and while yes, Stringfellow is long dead, Luna is quite alive and under BLP protections. You are an admin. You should know better than to engage in this edit warring behavior involving sensitive BLP material. I've never blocked an admin before. Will I have to now? If you add anything like this again, we are definitely going to one of the drama boards to discuss this as a community. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please restore Andy Ogles as well, since last I checked he’s also still alive?
 * Based on Daniel’s history with this issue I’m not surprised we’re here but I don’t want to end up on a drama board for warring with an admin. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted on Ogles, and added the page to my watchlist. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So your position, to be clear, is that See-also links in an article about a living person are subject to BLP even if the subject of the article linked to is not?
 * I am not saying this because I necessarily object to that position; it's defensible. But at the same time nobody's said it out loud; discussions can proceed much more smoothly and good faith work its collegial magic when we begin them with positions clearly stated from the outset rather than implied through bowls of alphabet soup in edit summaries.
 * And likewise, as I frequently find myself reminding people making or responding to reports at ANEW and RFPP (as I'm sure you do too), this discussion should have been started as a discussion here, or at BLPN, not as a series of reverts (Once I became aware of this discussion, per my own advice, I stopped reverting save the one under discussion here, and per your request I will cease all reverting until we sort this out). BLP is an editorial policy, not a license to edit in ways that would otherwise needlessly antagonize other editors without necessarily being incivil.
 * In this specific instance, I had been left with the impression from what minimal explication there had been in the edit summaries reverting me that the reverting editors objected to the inclusion of links to the Luna and Ogles articles in other articles' see-also sections because the annotations explaining the similarity were unsourced BLP violations. Now, we are to understand, we should not add links to the Stringfellow and and Jackson articles to the Luna and Ogles article SA sections because the wording of those links, even though the articles themselves do not come under BLP and BRDP, casts similar insinuations about Luna and Ogles.
 * The logic behind considering this a BLP violation escapes me. The Luna and Ogles articles already source their allegations that their subjects have misrepresented their backgrounds. How, then, could an unsourced link to another article possibly add more opprobrium to that?
 * Now, if this were actually black-letter policy, I would of course follow and uphold it. And if it were to become policy in the wake of this discussion, again I would respect it as the product of the community's process for making these decisions. But when it comes as a product of rulemaking by assumption, it casts BLP into discredit and needlessly alienates some editors. Given the importance we have (rightly) assigned BLP in our policy canon, we have IMO an especial responsibility to make sure that its meanings are absolutely clear to everyone. This unfortunately has not been one of those times. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a number of issues with including a link to other politicians who may have misrepresented their backgrounds, and even with reliable sourcing, these problems don't just go away.
 * 1. By specifically singling out politicians in this manner, it creates an inherent bias that could be perceived as an attempt to discredit or tarnish their reputations. Wikipedia's goal is to present information objectively, relying on reliable sources and avoiding editorializing or taking sides. Including such a section would deviate from this principle and compromise the encyclopedia's credibility.
 * 2. The proposed section could potentially lack relevance and context within the BLPs. While instances of politicians misrepresenting their past may be noteworthy, their inclusion in the "SEE ALSO" section may not directly contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the subject's life, achievements, or impact. BLPs should prioritize information that is directly relevant to the subject's notability, accomplishments, and public perception, rather than focusing on negative aspects that may not be central to their overall biography.
 * 3. The creation of a "See Also" section linking politicians who have misrepresented their past introduces the risk of selective targeting and unbalanced coverage. It may lead to cherry-picking specific individuals or instances, potentially overlooking similar misrepresentations by politicians from different backgrounds or affiliations. This selective approach can create a biased narrative and undermine Wikipedia's commitment to impartiality and fairness.
 * 4. Wikipedia places great emphasis on the use of reliable sources and verifiability in its content. Determining which politicians qualify for inclusion and ensuring that the information provided is accurate and well-sourced would require careful scrutiny. The potential for contentious debates and subjective judgments could arise, leading to disputes over the section's content, and ultimately, it would undermine the encyclopedia's credibility.
 * While the intention behind creating a "See Also" section linking politicians who have misrepresented their past may be to shed light on instances of dishonesty, it is important to consider the potential negative consequences and conflicts with Wikipedia's core principles. Upholding neutrality, relevance, and verifiability should be the primary focus when editing BLPs. Instead of highlighting negative aspects in a separate section, efforts should be directed towards providing balanced and comprehensive information about a politician's life, achievements, and impact, ensuring that it is supported by reliable sources and contributes to a fair and accurate representation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, even if that reads like it was written by an AI.
 * Someone else suggested early on that we might better deal with these issues by having some sort of list article about this to link to from See also sections instead. Your thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL, it was generated, and I was too lazy to do much rewording simply because it made such poignant arguments without much of a prompt (happy to share that if you'd like). Honestly, despite having suggested that alternative originally, I would have the same concerns with an article (albeit, not as severe as I have with inclusion in BLPs). I don't see how an article could go through AfC without significant secondary sources to avoid claims of WP:OR. However, if it was to go through an AfC and was accepted by the community, then so be it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * AfC? I have never used AfC to create an article in over 15 years of doing this (OK, to be fair, for at least some of the earlier portion AfC didn't exist). I still like creating articles in live mainspace (I used to be in journalism, and I contribute to DYK a lot, so I like working with the deadline that imposes), but lately I've been using draftspace a lot. Which is how I would start such a list; perhaps that would allow comments and edits shaping such an article before it goes live.
 * I do understand that it would not be without BLP concerns (although at least in that case they would be local to such a list rather than spread across multiple articles, as it seems one of the concerns here was). My feeling is that before starting, you'd want to limit it to, say, elected officials (since they're notable). And you might want to differentiate between levels of misrepresentation: i.e., Santos the outright fabricator, claiming degrees from two institutions he never even attended and employment at the two most prestigious Wall Street investment banks, neither of which he worked one minute for (in fact, his claim about having worked in Citigroup's asset-management department is not only untrue but impossible, as the company told the Times that they got out of that business in 2008, when Santos was 20, long before he claimed to have worked there), compared to Luna and Ogles having merely embellished or exaggerated employment they did have (and the latter changed the subject of his degree as well). In that department we can, yes, also include Biden claiming to have graduated from the top of his law school class (wasn't he in fact in the middle at most?)
 * But that also leaves, what do you do about what I would call passive exaggeration? Especially when the official might be subtly encouraging it, as Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal has been accused of doing (He has often in speeches recalled that he was a Marine during Vietnam, careful wording that in that literally truthful but technically misleading fashion, suggests he was out there in Southeast Asia humping it through the jungle in fatigues, when in fact he was a reservist Stateside the whole time ... isn't lying outright, but seems designed to make people conclude that he might have been. And when other people say that about him, he hasn't gone to great lengths to correct them or any reporting based on their statements).
 * You'd probably want to divide a list this way. You'd also want to limit statements that might be considered misrepresentative to those made in campaign material, on websites, or by the official themselves on the floor or in some formal capacity ... no secondhand statements unless they're reliably sourced and inconsistent with the official's public statements on the same matter.
 * You might also want to divide such statements by topic: military service (always a hot one for the consequences of misrepresentation ... woe betide the candidate who completely invents a military career), employment, education and attainment, family background. Hell, we might even want a group of lists.
 * This will go on my list of things to do in draftspace, probably somewhere down in the 990s after all the other things I tell myself I'm going to get done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The only reason I suggested AfC is because of the contentious nature and BLP concerns. This would give editors an opportunity to provide feedback on whether it would survive main space. In retrospect, a seasoned editor like yourself would probably know better than most whether or not the article would be met with an AfD and subsequent removal.
 * I'd be interested in how the draft lands in terms of sourcing and substance. Don't hesitate to ping me, as a curious party. Your proposed organization seems interesting, but I'm still skeptical with regards to remaining neutral and unbiased with such an article. Best of luck! Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2016 discussion touched on a lot more than just layout issues. More than one editor involved stated their belief that the very title "see also" indicates that the articles linked are not part of the fact set the rest of the article is presenting and are on that basis exempt from sourcing requirements. That's hardly a layout issue, and I have not seen it addressed here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning that article. I reverted that addition too with a reference to this talk page. If Daniel Case continues reverting, they should be reported to WP:AE. Politrukki (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you feel you need my permission to use the masculine third-person singular in referring to me, you have it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Intro sources
In all the intro paragraphs, there is not a single source. Someone needs to add sources or most of the information will be removed NathanBru (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, per WP:CITELEAD: the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)