Talk:Augustus Sol Invictus

Dead link
https://lpf.org/2015/10/the-libertarian-party-of-florida-condemns-augustus-sol-invictus-for-specific-platform-issues/ doesn't exist anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.240.4.254 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I deleted the sentence referenced by this source. https://lpf.org/2015/10/the-libertarian-party-of-florida-condemns-augustus-sol-invictus-for-specific-platform-issues/ is bogus. It doesn't exist in archive.is, it doesn't exist in archive.org. Searching for 'Augustus Invictus' on lpf.org returns only this: https://lpf.org/2016/06/editors-desk-2-2/ which is from 2016. If the LPF did criticize Invictus, they seem to be over it now. Olivier Diotte (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Name and sourcing
I see that someone has removed the alternate form of the name, "August". The source for that is unacceptable in a biography of a living person, even though it's quoting his own statement, and I intend to remove it. I'd also like to do without the Daily Beast, and since that is the only source we are currently using that calls him "August", I'm going to move the article to "Augustus".

I have found other earlier coverage of him, at least one of which I intend to use to expand the biography a bit. I was considering nominating the article for deletion but that earlier coverage has changed my mind. If anyone can find a reliable source for his law school, that would be a good addition. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So, what's his real name? Where's he from?
I would think that info would be important to include. --David James, Atlanta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCD4:B450:788C:81E6:7B22:DB78 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, so if reliable sources discuss his name and other biographical details, then the article can reflect that. One article from Politico said that "Invictus acknowledged he changed his name and wouldn’t confirm or deny Wyllie's claim that his birth name was Austin Gillespie." Because Wikipedia holds sources to higher standards when they are about living people, his prior name absolutely should not be stated as a fact. It seems too flimsy to bother mentioning at all. Regardless, more sources are needed. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See above, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your issue here. My search of Google news and news.com comes up with over a dozen references to his name as Austin Gillespie, so I was wondering if you Grayfell think 'allegedly' would be a sufficient qualifier here? I subscribe to a number of national and international news sources and for what it's worth the subject of this article has now over 2000 news articles both foreign and domestic (and that eliminates duplicates) so the information would seem significant, esp. since he was a practicing attorney under his original name as well. There are at least a dozen sources that categorically give his previous name and somewhat less who qualify it. Stealthepiscopalian (talk) Stealthepiscopalian 21:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian


 * Okay, cool. If you know of better, reliable sources, we should just use those instead. If this is public knowledge, then it should be included in the article, since that's a fundamental part of a biography. Per WP:BLP, the sources aren't optional, though, and they absolutely need to be WP:RS. It is very unusual to have a practicing lawyer and office-seeker without a clear history, but I'm still not sure we really need to include it unless it's specifically confirmed by reliable sources. I would probably not use "allegedly" for something like this, but explaining the discrepancy could work, per WP:ALLEGED. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Independent speculation.
"He has also said that he is not white supremacist, citing the fact that his four children are Hispanic. However, this does not disprove that he is a white supremacist". This sentence seems to be inappropriate for the wiki, since a source did not report this. This more than likely violates BLP so I'm going to delete it" 174.54.82.180 (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

First linked reference could use some polishing
It appears that a small drive-by change has been made adding one reference. It would help if it had a pretty footnote appearance like the rest of the articles references. I am not aware of how to easily and readily format a link. Thane Eichenauer (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing the phrasing of the first sentence and clarifying his policy on Eugenics.
The first sentence reads "He has been condemned by the Libertarian Party of Florida, *which rejects his advocacy of eugenics and stated aims to start a civil war*."

Technically, the cited source for that paragraph merely condemns him on the *basis* of his *supposed* advocacy of eugenics. Neither the source cited, nor any additional citations, actually provide evidence that he actually advocates eugenics. In fact, he has repeatedly and openly disavowed eugenics as a policy on multiple occasions.

(https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-ruin-argument-eugenics-augustus-sol http://invictusforsenate.com/blog/chat-transcripts/fc02/ https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/05/libertarian-party-of-florida-chair-resig http://wildhunt.org/2015/10/augustus-sol-invictus-and-the-libertarian-party-of-florida.html)

In particular, he says this "To this I reply that while I still believe the legal argument to be valid, I disavow the public policy argument that States should implement eugenics programs" and "Still, I would reiterate that any eugenics program, no matter how modest in its ends or means, would likely be used for evil by the bureaucrats put in charge of it, and this is too likely a danger to justify that risk. This is why I have stated repeatedly and publicly and without qualification that I do not advocate state-sponsored eugenics programs." (https://godsandradicals.org/2016/03/24/fascism-against-time-nationalism-media-blindness-and-the-cult-of-augustus-sol-invictus/)

Even though it is true that the LPF disavowed him on the basis of their *belief* that he advocated eugenics, the phrasing of the sentence in the article implies that his 'advocacy' of eugenics is not in dispute, when it very much is unlikely that he advocates that belief, based on the evidence and sources available.

Thus, I propose to change the wording to better reflect the facts that

1) the LPF did not reject him for his *factual* advocacy of eugenics, but because of his *statements* regarding eugenics that they misinterpreted.

2) That he disavows eugenics and does not advocate for it.

Here is my proposed change:

He has been condemned by the Libertarian Party of Florida, on the basis of a position paper in favor of eugenics and stated aims to start a civil war. Invictus himself claims that he totally disavows eugenics and that the argument was purely theoretical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.205.5 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Y'all removed the section on his crazy-ass email because it came from "someone who dislikes him" when in reality it came from a national newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.17.129 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

personal life section
The only information in this section supported by the source is concerning his name change and his drinking of goat's blood. There's nothing in the sources about his belonging to Ordo..whatever. I will rewrite this section according to what's actually been sourced, if there are no objections. Edaham (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing old campaign stuff
I've removed a big new chunk that was solely based on a dead campaign site from before the Libertarian party disavowed him. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Added back with waybackmachine. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring UNDUE/SYNTH polemic into the article
Two new accounts and an IP are edit-warring UNDUE, SYNTH allegations into the article. Lengthy quotes about an alleged assault are clearly WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Also the following passage is pure SYNTH: The above text is pure SYNTH, since the cited source is an academic paper on the risks of sex workers, not in any way related to the subject of this BLP. Dr.  K.  14:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "new accounts"? I opened my wikipedia account almost 3 years ago. Ridingincar (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection
I have instituted full protection of this article because of the recent edit warring, and specifically because much of the material being edit-warred into the article is inflammatory and is based on sources that Wikipedia does not accept as Reliable Sources. According to our policy on the biographies of living persons, controversial material in biographical articles must be based on strong reliable sources. The material I see being inserted into this article is not based on strong or reliable sources. I caution User:Ridingincar and User:Aletheiashortwave not to add this material again unless you can provide mainstream reliable sources to support it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, how is, for example, Augustus' campaign manager interviewing the woman who broke the entire story of the allegations not a reliable source? Is Vocativ not a reliable source? I provided the actual police report that was filed by the accuser. The SPLC has covered these allegations. At what point would the story be considered reliable?? Please explain what your criteria for a reliable source is.
 * (trying to answer, multiple edit conflicts) It's not my criteria, it's Wikipedia's criteria. See WP:42. We require independent reliable sources. A reliable source for news purposes is one that has editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That does not include blogs, or interviews with the blogger, or police reports (a WP:Primary source). And no, Vocativ is not a reliable source; it is not even a news organization; and the strong bias in the headline ("Goat-Blood-Drinking Rubio Opponent Accused Of Sexual Assault") shows that it is not neutral. None of the sources offered are acceptable as Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed revision to "Personal Life" section
Here is a new proposed edit to the personal life section:

"On August 11th, 2017, the SPLC published a report on Invictus detailing allegations describing "multiple episodes of physical and psychological abuse wherein Invictus allegedly beat, choked and sexually assaulted [his accuser], and held a gun to her head." Currently, charges have not been brought against Invictus, who denies all claims.

--Aletheiashortwave (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your brief summary is more along the lines of what we could have in the article, IF it had been reported in reliable sources such as major newspapers. But it has not been, and without sufficient sourcing we cannot have it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, well, the Huffington Post is working on an article on the topic right now. So I will just wait patiently until that comes out.

--Aletheiashortwave (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Melanie for your excellent analysis of the proposed text and sources, with which I fully agree. Given the trimmed version of the proposed edit by, as well as their subsequent comment about waiting for Huffington Post to produce a reliably-sourced account of the event, I think that Aletheiashortwave is a very competent editor, and a fast learner of our policies. This is a rather rare occurrence with new editors, and I am impressed. I wish Aletheiashortwave all the best and I hope to see them contributing to Wikipedia in the future. Dr.   K.  16:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What happened to the domestic violence allegations against Augustus Invictus which were reported by the Huffington Post? They were in the article for a while; now they are gone. Here is the article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-supremacist-nazi-lawyers_us_5a3d8da8e4b0b0e5a7a2232d

--Aletheiashortwave (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of content from "Views" section
May I ask, Melanie, why would the Jan 2017 interview with Augustus regarding fascism not be relevant to his "Views" section? That interview was conducted by Alexandria Brown, it's readily confirmed as genuine given that Augustus posted the interviews to all his social media pages. There is also audio recording of the interview. Explain why that's not a reliable source.

--Aletheiashortwave (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, interviews with a person can be cited to expound or clarify their views. We can look later at the fascism stuff. The reason I locked the article is because the accusations against him fall under our policy on the biographies of living persons which is very strongly enforced here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

what did the LP say before it unsaid it?

 * On April 7, 2017, the Libertarian Party of Florida, following a successful mediation, issued a full retraction of the 2015 press release ...

Does anyone else think it a bit odd to mention (so prominently) the retraction, but not the thing retracted? —Tamfang (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was the first thing I noticed and very distracting. Andrew B (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still the same. This article is laughably awful and uninformative. Nicmart (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was able to trace it back to this:, by going through the diffs, but the link is dead. The Wayback Machine didn't have that page archived, either. After some Googling, I found a site that gave some general details on it here ; I'll go ahead and add it. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. Right now it says, "...the Libertarian Party of Florida, following a successful mediation..." I think "successful" should be deleted and there should be clarity about who mediated. I guess it was between the LP and ASI, but then it should be say so. Nicmart (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"Debate" with Caleb Maupin
Is there any relevance to the section about Caleb Maupin debating Augustus Sol Invictus one time? The only citations are Vimeo and Twitter, which hardly establish notability, and I'm not sure if taking a video of an event and posting it online counts as being "released as a film", or if one tweet to that link makes it notable. Caleb Maupin doesn't have an article for himself, and this section about this debate was added by an unregistered user 69.203.135.167 which, if you look at their editing history, you will see is almost entirely edits about Caleb Maupin, so I highly suspect it was this Caleb Maupin person himself, or a close friend, who added this section in an attempt at self-promotion. --VolatileChemical (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"The only citations are Vimeo and Twitter" - FALSE! https://www.mintpressnews.com/charlottesville-unite-the-right-organizer-called-for-violence-at-nyc-student-debate/230914/

Interesting that certain wiki accounts are on a crusade to scrub any reference to Caleb Maupin from Wikipedia, but not somebody like Invictus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.113.70 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See listing at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for Mint Press: not considered a generally reliable source based on past discussion. If you feel there is a specific justification based on the author of this piece of some other factor, feel free--specific cases can trump general. Jlevi (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Now registered in California
Too early for this story but if it happens it probably belongs in the article. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Invictus AS.jpg

WP:MUG
Wikipedia has a strict and explicit policy relating to BLP and the prohibition on using mugshots (WP:MUG) >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.

The vandalism of BLP pages on wikipedia is a threat to the website as a whole, you know better.

Conversion to Catholicism
I don't see that this is well sourced. A YouTube video and an article quoting him as saying "I drink human blood now. I'm Catholic."? That's a joke in poor taste about communion, not a credible source for conversion to Catholicism. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)