Talk:Christopher Rufo/Archive 1

Text of executive order
If you can point me to a section of the primary document (The Executive Order itself) that bans "diversity training", I will happily cede my point. But otherwise I don't think "What Jim said David said" supercedes the actual text of what David said.

Have I misunderstood?

I don't have a political ax to grind here, I just think the article should be accurate


 * We don't cherry pick contents from primary sources on Wikipedia. We reflect what reliable sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it was “cherry picked” at all, and my understanding is that outside of medical research, primary sources are acceptable. It’s also my tentative understanding that you bent the rules a bit by reverting me w/o discussion after I requested a move to the talk page, but that’s a minor point.

What your edit does is to replace the literal text of the Executive Order with a secondary source summary of what it says. I suppose I could dig up some conservative secondary sources that summarize it differently than the sources you chose. But maybe the best thing would be to include both what the primary source actually says and the secondary source interpretations of what it meant?

Not trying to be a butthead here. I think your edit was an improvement over the language I edited but still leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy and balance

Please also note that I placed “divisive concepts”, a value judgment by the ex President, in scare quotes.

Thanks.

Discovery Institute
The lede says he’s a fellow at the Discovery Institute, but I can’t find that on their web site. 24.163.84.190 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He's evidently a former fellow: "Christopher Rufo is former director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty." https://www.discovery.org/p/rufo/ --Petzl (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Didnt just stretch the truth
What the WaPo article highlights is misrepresentations of the contents of those diversity training pamphlets and programs. The way that the content is currently structured misleads readers as to what the WaPo article said. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it’s better to stick to the RS’s characterization of events, not insert your own. 2600:1004:B058:CC51:4C1D:F5A7:8F7C:20F0 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This version is NPOV, but User:Snooganssnoogan's version is verging on POV pushing, as it censors the WaPo-quoted part of the document ("virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism.") which is the key element in understanding what exactly WaPo is getting here. "Misrepresentation" becomes inapplicable when you look at this from a fuller context, thus whoever replaced it with the WaPo-quote “stretched beyond the facts” did it right. If anyone disagrees, they should explain it by including further context from the cited source, but in a way the article is looked at in balance without cherry-picking to suit a POV. Yegourt (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Figured I’d jump in since I reverted, but I can’t find anything in the Post story saying he “frequently misrepresents” facts, and the New Yorker content seems relevant. I gather the Post story itself has been a source of controversy, though mostly written up in right-wing media. 24.163.84.190 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Latest edit by Snooganssnoogans is problematic. Citing the New York story, it read, in part: "He also claimed that a document by an Oregon school district called for teachers to turn students against the Marxist "revolution's enemies" and into the "liberated masses"; the document said no such thing, it merely referenced the well-known Marxist educator Paulo Freire's call to treat education as an act of liberation and mutual humanization." This gives the impression that Rufo was fabricating quotes that were not in the document ("revolution's enemies"/"liberated masses"), but both the New York story and the City Journal article from which it quotes indicate that he was paraphrasing; the New York writer disputes the accuracy of the paraphrase, and it's already noted earlier in the section that that publication identifies Rufo as misrepresenting sources. I've tweaked the language a bit to reflect that. 2603:7000:A903:B63E:45F2:8A05:15B4:C395 (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just happened to notice that Snooganssnoogans made an edit with no diff summary here that, while at the surface seemed like changed the lede and added the Oregon school district report ... if you squint hard you will notice that they removed the though the document referred only to a writer who “asserts virtually all White people, regardless of how 'woke’ they are, contribute to racism.” phrase from the WaPo description. I reverted it here (though my edit summary is inaccurate, as it referred to the previous diff). Snooganssnoogans is also engaging in a prolonged edit war, instead of making arguments here, being persistent in removing this particular phrase for unknown reason. Yegourt (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the consistent POV-pushing in this article — failure to use wikivoice, mischaracterization of RS via editorializing — comes from a user who describes themselves thus: “Snooganssnoogans considers it one of his objectives in life to expose conservative politicians and influencers for the bigoted, racist frauds they are.” I would say it seems he’s NOTHERE to work toward a constructive, well-edited page. Note that he’s reinserted the mischaracterization of the Paulo Freire bit and his editorializing of the Oregon story. https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/User:Snooganssnoogans
 * You would have a point if I, rather than one of my creepy obsessive stalkers, had created a profile on "Wikifur". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree on the point about POV pushing. Particularly notable is the endless list of "Rufo claims" remarks The use of the word "claims" (MOS:CLAIM) appears 5 times in the short section describing Rufo's views. The value neutral verb "said" not once.

Extensive quotes from Snopes which found certain of Rufo's statements incorrect are included, but findings by Newsweek that his statements about what is being taught in Buffalo schools is true are not included. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-buffalo-schools-teaching-students-that-all-whites-perpetuate-racism-1572523. There is a relentless focus on what Rufo got wrong, and no mention of the stories he got right, as confirmed in the National Review and Newsweek among other sources.

https://www.newsweek.com/disney-corp-asks-employees-complete-white-privilege-checklist-pivot-away-white-dominant-1589775 https://www.nationalreview.com/news/raytheon-held-anti-racism-program-encouraging-employees-to-develop-intersectional-allyship-report/

But last time I tried to correct this article where it misstates the contents of Trump's Executive Order, I got the run around from folks who need to ensure that Wikipedia reflects their political stance. So screw you all, nobody takes this site seriously with respect to any topic that has political connotations anyway. 2603:8080:E803:2327:C982:FBFB:F915:7659 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Maybe will explain why his being a director of films (cited to IMDB) is worthy for the lead? Or, his writing for the magazine of an employer, is? Or, his being the director of some little-known foundation (cited to the corp-website) is? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Three quotes in lead? No mention of the reception? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If the issue is with deceitful, I had thought that WaPo, NewYorker, Snopes, NYMag, and countless other sources were sufficient. Regrettably, Snooganssnoogans thinks otherwise. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of what you removed has been discussed here before. For example, the description of CRT in the lede alongside Rufo’s statement that he intends to exaggerate what CRT is and its presence in US education/business training/etc systems and culture writ large. I do agree that the IMDB sources should be removed there. The source shouldn’t be used per WP:Sources, and His work at manhattan institute provides the reader enough information about his past and current work. As far as “deceitful,” I’d think that would have to be quoted from a source. If many sources show that, one might say, For ex: “the veracity of Rufo’s claims have been called into question by numerous reporters and experts.” (Trail of sources).Hobomok (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But yes I think it does make sense to add a sentence or two in the lede in relation to the general reception and veracity of Rufo’s claims, as evidenced by the final section of the page—that experts in the fields he critiques (Crenshaw, for example) explain his reading of CRT is wrong, and usually when his claims are looked into, they’re found to have been dishonestly exaggerated or outright fabricated. That should be added. -Hobomok (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , Much of what you removed has been discussed. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m trying to work with you to build consensus here and help you make the revisions you want to see (critical reception of Rufo’s writing in the lede, removal of IMDB sources from the page, etc.). If you want to do that, I’m willing to help. If you want to be impudent and stifle discussion by not responding to constructive suggestions in a productive manner, then I’ll see myself out. -Hobomok (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you revert my edit, vaguely handwave at an existing consensus for the current version, and are now refusing to provide links to such discussions? However, I do appreciate that you are aiming to be constructive. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the second editor who reverted you, and I am also the only person who bothered to respond to you on the talk page. Again, if you want to engage with my suggestions r/t the edits that you suggested, by all means go ahead and I will have a discussion with you. If you do not, I’m done here. -Hobomok (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy dictates that you engage at the talk page: you are not extending me any courtesy. For the last time, where are the discussions on what I had removed?
 * Once you provide a pointer, we will certainly discuss the specifics. I assume the previous discussants had something important to say on these matters and it won't do harm to read them. It is puzzling why you keep stonewalling. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Once you provide a pointer, we will certainly discuss the specifics. I assume the previous discussants had something important to say on these matters and it won't do harm to read them. It is puzzling why you keep stonewalling. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked the talk page before removing the redundant (and misleading/biased) CRT quotes in the lead but I didn't see the lead section here at the bottom where this has already been debated. I apologize for not seeing that and removing that redundant content before discussing it. As I read the lead, it seemed to me that copying those details from the CRT area up into the lead was an attempt to bias the lead with that misleading information. The lead is read by automated systems like Alexa and people know that many people won't look past the lead to get a general idea about a topic or a person. So there's motivation to get information into the lead that supports a person's POV on the topic or person. I think that's what's happening here. I dug into the details of that CRT-related content all the way down to the original Tweets and quotes and it's misleading. The sources cited in the Wikipedia article twist the original quotes and intent and then the Wikipedia article repeats that misleading information in the CRT section. And then the misleading information is redundantly copied into the lead. What suggestions do you all have to fix this? It looks like some discussion was had here in the past that was subsequently deleted and people have become silent on what those discussions were. I just want the truth on here, not anyone's specific POV inserted because they are able to by "following the Wikipedia rules to the letter." Rcronk (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Rcronk, per WP:Lead, this section should summarize the page and let readers know why the subject is notable. I'm not sure how/why this rundown would be misleading or biased, because it contains reputable information from reputable sources which summarize the largest section of the page, and provide an overview of what the page says about the subject from those reputable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is, it details what the reliable sources have said. That you think the reliable sources are biased, or the manner in which automated systems read pages, is not the job of an encyclopedia to remedy. The "truth" that you may want this page to reflect is relative to you, for an example of the opposite opinion, see the discussion above where another user did not think the lead needed to include subject's employer, and wanted to call the subject "deceitful" in the lead. The page reflects a medium between both of these opinions, as an encyclopedia reflects what relevant and reliable sources dictate.--Hobomok (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hobomok, Thanks. Would it be better to cite his posts on Twitter (for example) directly to remove the middle-man and any bias that middle-man might have injected?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcronk (talk • contribs) 04:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia content is based on WP:RS. Sourcing content to twitter posts and other primary sources is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. So I'd need to find another acceptable source that interpreted the source documents more accurately.  Thanks.  Rcronk (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * where another user did not think the lead needed to include subject's employer - Diffs or retraction. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead fails verification
The last sentence of the lead: Education experts have argued that Rufo makes such claims in order to "foster so much anger against public schools that it drives a nationwide popular movement to privatize education" utterly fails verification. This is not a quotation, direct or indirect, from "educational experts" but by the author of the source article. The only other person mentioned who says something similar is some local board of education member. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on framing re: "Education experts"; however, that does not necessitate deleting parts of the lead that summarize the new content in the body of the article per WP: Lead. For example, if the issue is with "education experts," no reason to also delete "Rufo is also known for his opposition to LGBTQ education in schools, often claiming that public school teachers are pedophiles," as that is what the body of the article now says.
 * Instead of wholesale deleting (especially after less than 24 hours of opening discussion on the talk page), it's important stick to WP: Lead conventions regarding body summary. I will make an effort to do so and fix paraphrasing to be more accurate by removing "education experts" and providing more sources on the issue that appear in the body of the lead.--Hobomok (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead again
As I said in my recent edit to the lead, the source does not say that Rufo has made any such blanket statement as "public school teachers are pedophiles". "Too many public schools are hunting grounds for sexual predators" is simply not the same thing. One public school "hunting ground" could be considered "too many". The statements are not logically equivalent. Trying to weave this and other things Rufo has said to come up with "public school teachers are pedophiles" is synthesis, a form of original research. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Hunting grounds" for whom?
To Hobomok I apologize for assuming that you were the one who misquoted Rufo. I incorrectly assumed that New York Times writer Gabriel Trip would quote Rufo accurately. Trip was undoubtedly referring to this Rufo column City Journal which appeared twelve days before Trip' story on Rufo. The quote in question is found in the second paragraph of Rufo's piece: "...too many American public schools have been hunting grounds for sexual predators." That is a far cry from saying that "schools are hunting grounds for teachers" which implies that this is standard behavior for teachers in general, rather than for those particular teachers and other school employees who do prey on children. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem—I just do not want to see a narrative created wherein editors are actively trying to discredit or misrepresent the page’s subject. Simply representing what the relevant secondary literature says.
 * That said, and on the related subject of the NYT article, as an encyclopedia, we go by what the highest-level secondary sources say, and in this case the secondary is represented accurately. What editors think may or may not be being interpreted doesn’t matter. —Hobomok (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. We use what we regard as reliable sources and the New York Times is certainly one of these, BUT, and this is a really, really big but, we are NOT obliged to print everything and anything a Wikipedia editor wants to print simply because it comes from a reliable source. Our job as editors is to SELECT what information coming from a reliable will improve the veracity of the article. It's misleading but we have to print it anyway because it comes from a reliable source is not Wikipedia policy.Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the issue here arises from your interpretation of what the subject says vs what the secondary source says about the subject. Your interpretation does not matter, the second source is what matters. —Hobomok (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again. no. The issue is which particular nuggets from secondary sources we editors choose to place in the article. I've already shown what's wrong with Trip's "interpretation" of Rufo's remarks. If you want to place Trip's version in the article anyway, fine, but there's absolutely no obligation on the part of other editors to acquiesce to your wishes. Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what you think you’ve shown, but you haven’t disproven a secondary source’s interpretation. I’ve already pointed you, in diffs, to another editor’s discussion of Rufo’s style on this talk page.
 * Further, rather than vaguely hand waving at how things are done here, it’s always helpful to point to specific Wikipedia policy, which I’ve done in previous conversations about the lead. I recommend WP:conflicting sources (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources)at best, although after giving you the benefit of the doubt previously, I’m thinking more and more that you’re not approaching this in good faith.
 * Regardless, I think it would be helpful here to do one of two things:
 * A. We reach a medium through collaboration, although I’ve tried to do with you on the lead previously, and I was the one that had to make edits taking both parties’ ideas in mind. You’ve only gone further by editing the page to your liking. Obviously there’s no reason for other editors to “acquiesce to [my] wishes,” but there are methods laid out to collaboratively edit and discuss if there’s disagreement (see: WP:BRD (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle)). I’d appreciate it if you’d follow them.
 * OR B. Pursue dispute resolution rather than reverting from stable text back to your original edits if I don’t respond within hours, as this is very much an ongoing conversation. —Hobomok (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why "another editor's discussion of 'Rufo's style' would be relevant to the specific discussion here which concerns how we frame Rufo's 'City Journal' claim that "too many American public schools have been hunting grounds for sexual predators". We have the New York Magazine/Jonathan Chait source which quotes Rufo directly from his article, saying "too many American public schools have been hunting for sexual predators" and we have the New York Times/Gabriel Trip source referencing the same Rufo City Journal article to say "Mr. Rufo claimed that American schools 'hunting grounds' for teachers". For some reason Hobomok seems to prefer the "interpretive" Gabriel Trip version and I'm wondering why. Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this issue that you're bringing up (Rufo's words/Rufo's claims/discussion of said words/claims in secondary sources) has already been discussed by Snooganssnoogans above. Thus, this issue has already discussed on this very talk page, albeit about different claims from Rufo, thus, there's precedent here that you're ignoring. What I "prefer" is what verifiable, high-level secondary sources say, because this is an encyclopedia. Your interpretation does not matter. The secondary sources matter. I've directed you more than once now to relevant Wikipedia policy. You, on the other hand, continue to ignore precedent on this page, you do not point to any Wikipedia policy, and you're making vague accusations about what I "prefer" here and the "efforts" and "polemics" of other editors in your edit summaries.
 * Engage with and follow Wikipedia policy, and do the same with previous relevant discussion around these subjects on this talk page. Further, stop with the vague accusations against other editors. We represent what the relevant secondary sources say, regardless of whether or not you happen to agree with them. If you have further issue, go to dispute resolution, as the accusations and lack of concrete use of Wikipedia protocol is ultimately unhelpful.--Hobomok (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not interpreting at all. I'm stating the obvious. One "verifiable, high level source" quotes Rufo's words directly. The other "verifiable, high level source" changes Rufo's words to say something other than what he actually says. You prefer the source that distorts his words a bit. Goodtablemanners (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"Rufo described his strategy to oppose critical race theory as intentionally misusing the term to conflate various left-wing race-related ideas in order to create a negative association"
But Rufo never phrased his strategy like that. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else you could make of this tweet from this time last year. He didn't use those specific words, but he certainly communicated that message. → Twentydragon 02:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's honestly contestable. For example, he never mentions 'misuse' or conflation or such, simply that he brings the term to light in turn making it toxic (through the perception of people) ★Ama   TALK   CONTRIBS  02:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not contestable. The paraphrase is reflective of what Rufo said and continues to say.--Hobomok (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I have no party in the matter and I certainly fail to see how it's reflective of what he said but okay... ★Ama   TALK   CONTRIBS  02:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources say that is what he said? Yes? Then that is what he said and there's nothing left to discuss. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, this is not what reliable sources say. It is what one or more editors here say he said. At least one reliable source says that Rufo conflates "critical race theory" with other unpopular things (the kind of thing that is done regularly in politics on both the left and the right, incidentally) but it doesn't say that he "intentionally misuses" the term, much less that he, himself, admits to misusing the term which is what the phrasing in question suggests. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at his own words, and how reliable sources describe them, I don't think intent is really up for debate. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Poor writing
There's a lot of unencyclopedic overstatement in this article, starting with the lead. For example, the lead says that "Rufo described his strategy to oppose critical race theory as intentionally misusing the term to conflate various left-wing race-related ideas in order to create a negative association". The problem here is that neither Rufo himself, nor the New York Magazine source, "describe his strategy...as intentionally misusing" the term. This is, rather, a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of what Rufo is doing. It's fine to feel that way. I often hear folks improperly conflating one thing with something slightly or not so slightly different, but we are supposed to go with what reliable sources say, not what we would like them to say. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed on the talk page and consensus was never reached, so it remains.--Hobomok (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to the very short discussion with the very long title a few sections above. I think further discussion is in order. Perhaps one involving semantical rules . It doesn't matter how many practices Rufo deliberately and incorrectly labels as "critical race theory", if Rufo doesn't admit to "intentionally misusing" the term then we shouldn't phrase the sentence in question as if he had. We can still make the point that Rufo deliberately loads the term with as much extraneous and negative (to him) baggage as he can. Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so he isn't intentionally misusing the term, he "deliberately loads the term with as much extraneous and negative (to him) baggage as he can". Do we dig holes with a "manual tactical entrenchment excavator" or do we just use a WP:SPADE? 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SPADE is a short essay having more to do with how editors write about each other than with how they how they write Wikipedia articles. The idea of making our language in biographies more pointed than what we find in our sources is a bad one. Instead of what we now have I think something like this would be fine: Contending that critical race theory is widely unpopular with the public, Rufo has advanced a political strategy of labeling other left-leaning, race-related ideas as "critical race theory" in order to drive up negative associations. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with User:Goodtablemanners. I checked the source, and I couldn't find anything about "strategy" there. Can we have a quotation from the alleged source upon which the statement is based? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

April 24 2022 New York Times article
The NY Times article is being used as a source to make claims about Rufo which aren't explicitly in it or are refuted by him. WP:BLP needs to be followed here. Phrases that don't appear in the article like "rife with abuse" and "linked" shouldn't be included. Per the article, Rufo expressly denied that he was accusing supporters of the Florida law with grooming. That needs to be included and I have. --Tridacninae (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say the original text better outlines Rufo's claims and the article's discussion of them. For example, "Rife with abuse" is, in my mind, appropriate paraphrasing considering Rufo has called public schools, among other things, "hunting grounds" for pedophiles.--Hobomok (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a section dealing with the florida law. And the phrase "rife with abuse" was referring to Disney.  Also the talk page is explicitly not the right place when dealing with bios with inaccurate information. per WP:BLP. It's going to be restored to what the article actually says. Tridacninae (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the right place for what? No one has said anything libelous or negative about Rufo here. Two editors have now disagreed with your edit regarding language used to summarize the article that is cited. You have reverted back to your original edit, now going against [|WP: BRD]. Stop reverting to what you believe the article should say in relation to its citation until this discussion reaches its conclusion. Per BRD, I am going to revert your original revisions to stable text until consensus (which you're currently on the wrong side of) is reached.--Hobomok (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why you are stuck to language posted just the other day by an unnamed ip account which does not appear in the source? What's the problem here? Are you doing NPOV, or not?  Because for some reason, instead of improving the language to be more accurate to what the source says, you want it editorialized.
 * Can you please defend this position? Especially when we've got a very clear source to work from? Is this a personal issue with Rufo, or what? Tridacninae (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. The wording in question was added by the registered user that you engage with below, who also disagrees with you.
 * 2. That user paraphrased 14+ paragraphs of information related to the Times’ discussion of Rufo suggesting that Disney employs many pedophiles and grooms children. The article also provides context for Rufo’s claims and around Rufo releasing mugshots. Simply stating that Rufo released mugshots, like your edit does, removes that context. The context is part of what the cited article says. The current wording summarizes and explains what the cited article says more robustly than your revisions did. The cited article needs to be represented fully if it is cited. If you’re simply going to state that Rufo released mugshots, then you should simply be citing the webpage where he did so, and not the NYT article with provided context. See the difference?
 * 3. The user who added this information has already explained this to you below, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me when your questions have already been answered and you’ve gone ahead and added an unnecessary NPOV tag. This is a nonissue, and I’m not going to keep discussing it—I have better things to do.
 * —Hobomok (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Rufo's type of discourse is heavy on the Motte-and-bailey fallacy: push extreme claims and then insist that you are not actually advancing the extreme claims with a wink to the audience. The NYT piece makes clear that he's alluding to and promoting the view that Disney is tied to child sexual abuse and that schools are rife with grooming, and tying those things to LGBT-issue instruction in schools. The text should reflect what the NYT piece is saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is the NY times piece isn't being covered accurately in the article. He didn't say anything like Disney is "rife with abuse" and especially as a bio article about a controversial figure, things should be very NPOV and accurate, including the fact that he is specific when he uses that term. Tridacninae (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia text did not say that he literally said Disney was "rife with abuse". The Wikipedia text reflected the NYT article's framing of his remarks, which was that he was suggesting that Disney is rife with child sexual abuse after Disney opposed Florida's anti-LGBT law. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I know Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources and this thread is sort of more about the NYT than about Rufo, but I still think it is relevant to read what the man says himself. "Doing further research into Disney's track record regarding children and sexual predators..., I discovered that the company has a notorious pattern... of having a significant number of its employees arrested for child sex crimes such as child pornography, child exploitation, and child rape. And although a company can't be held responsible for everything its employees do on their own time, I was able to find two cases of Disney complicity." He then goes on to present the two cases.  The quotation is from "Laying Siege to the Institutions," by Rufo, Imprimis April/May 2022 Vol. 54 (4/5):4.  It is adapted from a speech given at Hillsdale College. Kdammers (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing Stale Maintenance Tags
On 3 May, User:Goodtablemanners added with the edit summary “This article still has problems with bias. See talk.” The 3 May comment on Talk from User:Goodtablemanners mentions an edit they made to the lead, but there is no WP:NPOV-related issue mentioned, and it doesn’t seem as though User:Goodtablemanners ever mentioned an WP:NPOV issue subsequent to that date. One note: It’s not clear that User:Goodtablemanners‘s issue on 3 May was actually an WP:NPOV problem, given (i) the Talk comment and (ii) the edit summary. While editors do sometimes carelessly use the words “bias” and “POV” interchangeably, issues of bias are not on their own violations of WP:NPOV. If we are faithfully summarizing all relevant WP:RS in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, then any bias present in sources will be present in our article. We should be careful not to confuse bias with a WP:NPOV violation.

On 14 May, User:Goodtablemanners added (no edit summary). On Talk, User:Goodtablemanners mentioned “Poor writing” on 14 May, and the issue seems to have been resolved.

Since there is no ongoing discussion about issues related to either tag, I have removed both, per WP:WTRMT. If there are new issues that need to be addressed, we can do that here prior to needing to re-insert maintenance tags. ThanksForHelping (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I placed the WP:NPOV tag and the issue still remains. The whole article is replete with POV pushing much due to one editor here.  Phrases like "Rufo suggested that Disney was involved in sexualizing children and that the company was rife with child sexual abuse."  "Rife with sexual abuse" is mentioned nowhere in the source article and there is plenty of other language to describe it.  So I'm confused as to the deletion of the NPOV when it's not yet resolved. The other issues User:Goodtablemanners mentioned are still there as well.
 * Ultimately, WP:WEIGHT is an NPOV violation, no? It doesn't matter to me which the article is tagged with but lets be fair, this isn't a well-written article in the proper voice. It's a criticism which isn't following the Biographies of living persons standard.
 * Tridacninae (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Harvard Master's degree
I've added to the mention of a Master's Degree from Harvard. Are there independent sources confirming this claim? Court Liberty (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Court Liberty, I saw that you changed it to Extension Studies — what was your source for that? Schazjmd   (talk)  00:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schazjmd Source added. Court Liberty (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Court Liberty, thanks for adding a source. Interesting that it was just published today; what was your source at the time that you made the edit? Schazjmd   (talk)  16:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schazjmd At the time, I didn't have a source any better than the sources (all from Rufo's own publicity) that were making the inaccurate claim that he had a Master's from Harvard. I suppose what I should have done then was to delete all reference to the credential, as there was no independent source confirming it. What do you think? Court Liberty (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that replacing information that was based on a primary source (WP:ABOUTSELF) with information lacking any source at all is poor editing behavior. Please take more care with WP:BLPs. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seemed a clear case of WP:ECREE Court Liberty (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a reasonable explanation for removing the claim, not for replacing it with an unsourced claim. In the future, wait until you have a source. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks @Schazjmd Court Liberty (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schazjmd re your edit: the page I cited clearly states "Open enrollment: No application required" Court Liberty (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the independent source, Access to the school is not entirely a given. According to a Business Insider article, “students are required to achieve a B minimum grade in two prerequisite courses before they’re officially enrolled in a program.” That same source contrasts the program with the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business School which only requires a fee. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Rufo's support for Trump
Rufo's support for Trump clearly belongs in the article. It's covered by reliable sources and it fleshes out the political views of this public intellectual. I fail to understand why this particular reliably sourced political view should be scrubbed from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this—it should be in the article for the reasons above. I do, though, question categorizing Rufo as a “public intellectual.” He has no advanced degrees and, as the article shows here, most of the theories and ideas he has advanced are based in dishonest reporting. In my opinion (which is all this is), an intellectual is someone who has at least completed some form of advanced study and is pursuing some form of “truth” in a public medium. Hobomok (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Credentials have nothing to do with intellectualism. And "no" there is no possible reason to mention Rufo's political beliefs or who he supports. It's a bit like saying I am bad if I wear a red hat. You are stretching way too far to discredit Rufo. 68.134.252.74 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * thre might be cause for someone to be dubbed a 'public intellectual," but Rufo has instead been promoted by conservative think tanks and organizations rather than demonstrating intellectual talents. Rather,  as described, he seeks to propagandistically manipulate language—notably "critical race theory" so as to render it toxic without showing that the label applies to actually existing pedagogical procedures. He has created a bogeyman, put into use by politicians and local activists on the far right who wish to upend public education and delegitimize other social institutions. Actio (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Seattle City Council campaign
The subject's run for Seattle City Council in 2018 could be added to the article. Here is one source from the local NPR affiliate. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ – a user seems to have done this. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Changes
you have recently done some deletions. Just FYI, Salon is fine to use if it is attributed, which it was. You could go back and restore that. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

politico article
RUfo did not brag about getting a conservative movement to remove C Gay from Harvard and the Politico article by title alone is extremely biased// 2601:582:8401:2B40:20EC:D357:EE6F:41E0 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article does not say he "bragged", it quotes him directly. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added fuller text[Rufo&diff=prev&oldid=1195708347] from the Politico article, which makes for a more neutral representation of the article overall: since this sentence in isolation was open to interpretations of something sinister  "was the result of a coordinated and highly organized conservative campaign".  CanterburyUK (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding this revert: the Politico source doesn't mention the Crimson at all, and only mentions CNN in a quote from Rufo, which reads as self-aggrandizing. The BBC doesn't mention either outlet, but it does, very clearly, characterize Rufo's actions as tactical. If readers interpret his actions as tactical, that means we have done a good job of summarize sources.
 * Info about Claudine Gay belongs at that article, but only if it's directly supported by reliable sources.
 * Rufo's PR-like platitudes about "truth defeating lies" were not given any special attention by reliable sources, so this also seems entirely undue. I could just as easily quote him positively citing Machiavelli's Prince and bragging about "demoralizing and deranging my enemies" as well. That would be editorializing, though, wouldn't it?
 * To put it simply, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)