Talk:Mark Finchem

birthdate

can somebody add his birthdate? MrMemer223 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't there any references to his African American heritage? 2402:D000:811C:1D87:A00E:E4ED:CAE1:91D8 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Added birthdate Thewritestuff92 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists category

Why is Finchem listed under "American conspiracy theorists" yet Hillary Clinton (who uttered the words "vast right wing conspiracy") is not? This seems to be yet another case of anti-Republican media bias. 2601:246:C180:79C0:C04E:F22A:733A:3BD4 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Because multiple reliable sources refer to Finchem as a conspiracy theorist. Find one for HRC and you might be able to add it to her bio. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, not a conspiracy theorist but definitely working for the Russians even if he doesn’t realize it. 68.134.216.180 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible illustration

I took this photo of Finchem and his colleagues Sonny Borrelli and Wendy Rogers when they spoke at Mike Lindell's "Cyber Symposium" last summer. Although it's best as a portrait of Rogers, the side view of Finchem in the photo isn't bad and it might make an OK illustration for the section on Finchem's respnse to the 2020 election or his promotion of conspiracy theories. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Far-right in first sentence

There has been an ongoing community wide dispute and discussion regarding the use of far-right in lead sentences. I think it's best for this to be attributed and not used in WP:WIKIVOICE in the first sentence. MOS:LABEL says Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I think it's obvious that he's widely described as far-right in reliable sources, but MOS:LABEL says even still in-text attribution is preferable. I see no reason why we should depart from this guideline in this case. This would also be consistent the decision recently at Donald C. Bolduc to remove far-right from the first sentence and introduce it later in the lead with proper attribution. Additionally, the current lead has a natural place the description could be added with attribution, as I demonstrated in this now reverted edit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Per the concerns raised at the Bolduc page, this decision should not be used, as ValarianB put it, to force similar watered-down attributions to similar articles. We can't use the Bolduc decision as a carte-blanche to change other pages per WP:CONLOCAL. Also, Bolduc and Finchem are two very different cases - if you look at the reasons Finchem is described as this in the various articles, he's quite literally a member of a far-right militia and holds various far-right political positions as are mentioned in the article. As you agree yourself, there's widespread coverage of him being a far-right politician, and I see no need to water this down. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

CONLOCAL assumes that there is an existing broader consensus for this practice, and no such broad consensus exists for these loaded descriptors, unless you consider MOS:LABEL as that consensus. If that would be the case then we definitely need to attribute this, until a local consensus against it can be established. You say they are different, but are they a really? Both are widely described in RS as far-right. It's not a watering down of a claim to attribute it; that's just following a community guideline. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands that we shouldn't be using decisions on one page to try force through similar changes on other pages, particularly where it's two completely different cases. You say they are different, but are they a really? Evidently, yeah. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The only notable difference is he is a member of the Oath Keepers, and it would be SYNTH for us to say that his membership in the Oath Keepers makes him being described as far-right in the first sentence more justifiable than Bolduc, but lets just put Bolduc to the side. Why should the attribution standard from LABEL be ignored in this case? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Of the first 100 google responses to Mark Finchem, exactly one refers to him as far right-this site. So he is obviously not widely described as far right. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:A838:33B7:F39D:73CD (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Because of the sheer abundance of RSs that describe him as being a far-right political candidate, or at worst, his views being far-right. Similar to, though not basing the entire argument off of, the lead of Marjorie Taylor Greene's page. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ser!: since we can not come to an agreement would you consider a RfC? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping more users involved in editing US politics might come here to give their views, but if none are forthcoming then I’d be open to a RfC. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was too, but so far participation has been slim. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it would be fair to characterize the dispute as whether far-right should be in the first setence, as it is now, or attributed later in the lead? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on far-right in first sentence/lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is not enough consensus for a change from status quo . The proposition to change how and where the label "far-right" is presented in the lede hinges on two main points: first, labels should be attributed if there aren't enough reliable sources using it, and that excessive information should be avoided in the first sentence. The first point was refuted by editors showing an abundance of sources presenting the subject under that label, which they also see as justification for keeping it in the first sentence, as one of the more essential facts about the subject. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

---

This RfC concerns how far-right should placed in the lead section.

• Option 1 (status quo): Far-right should be placed in the first sentence with no specific attribution, as it is now.
• Option 2: Far-right should be introduced later in the lead with attribution.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2 per MOS:LABEL and MOS:LEADCLUTTER. LABEL says, Value-laden labels… may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I think the guideline is clear that descriptors like “far-right” are best attributed when being used to describe a person, particularly a BLP, and not placed in WP:WIKIVOICE. I would support placing far-right in the second paragraph with the prose being: Finchem has been characterized as far-right, and is a member of the militia group Oath Keepers. This is a natural setting for his political positions to be described. Furthermore, this practice of describing people by their political positions in the first sentence is relatively uncommon, and constitutes lead packing under MOS:LEADCLUTTER which recommends relevant information to be dispersed throughout the lead instead of bunched in the first sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 Agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Nemov (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 per my arguments in the above section, and similar to other pages such as that of Marjorie Taylor Greene, for which there was also an abundance of evidence of far-right political placement. Abundant amount of evidence available from reliable sources that the subject is on the far-right, and that his views are far right - such as the ones in the lede itself and aside from that, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and many more expressly refer to Finchem as being far-right. Much like the far-right descriptor in MTG's page, this is a fair inclusion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

References

• Sourced undeniably refer to him as far-right, but that doesn’t negate LABEL’s demand for in-text attribution. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  On the talk page for the aforementioned MTG article, you yourself said you had no issue with MOS:LABEL for a similar descriptor being in the lead due to the abundance of sources. I'm taking that position here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I think that’s a little different. Conspiracy theorist is label that describes an action. Like politician, businessman, banker, etc. It’s a bit different from having to pack in a persons broad political stance in the article. I would oppose “far-right” being in MTG’s page, as well. We don’t even call actual far-right people far-right in the first sentence, see Adolf Hitler. It’s an issue of packing and appropriate elaboration. This is comparable to saying George W. Bush is a conservative politician or Joe Biden is a centre-left politician, and we don’t do that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Eh. The Hitler thing has been raised a few times but I feel it's beyond the scope of this. The reason political alignments aren't included here are because Biden/Bush got the majority of their coverage for being politicians, much like Finchem and various other far-right politicians received a lot of the coverage they did for being far-right politicians, and for the fringe viewpoints they held. (Side note, as this is getting as long as it is, could it be moved to the Discussion tab?) ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think so. I was just gonna leave it at that. Best to let others chime in. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 Not so urgent to mention in first sentence. GenuineArt (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Ser! is right; the sources are unequivocal here; this descriptor is used is most in-depth treatments of the subject in the sources. Neutrality^talk 02:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Several of the sources cited don't actually describe Finchem as far-right, but instead, e.g., describe Arizona's "far-right shift." That isn't necessarily describing individual politicians, but rather a broader trend in state politics. Thewritestuff92 (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. Sources are unequivocal and state it as fact. WP:NPOV, a core content policy, trumps the guidelines at MOS:LABEL, and clearly says that we must avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. We cannot downgrade factual statements made by sources to mere opinions simply because editors find them distasteful. --Aquillion (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. In publication, and in civic discourse, politicians are most commonly identified by their political party. I think the order here should reflect that, so as to most helpfully identify the politician in question at the outset of the article. "Far-right" is worthy of inclusion in the lede, but certainly not higher priority than the subject's political party affiliation. Thewritestuff92 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Neither there is no need for attribution AFAI can see as this is very widely sourced and therefore should be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.. But for some reason, whenever WP wants to attach a 'negative' label to a person or org (far-right/left, racist, pseudo-scientific, anti-Semetic etc … ), we feel obliged to put it in the opening sentence, in a way which we wouldn't if the person/org were more moderate. For the more moderate person, we would state the person/orgs 'position' later in the lead, wherever convenient. Therefore I suggest that this person is fairly unequivocally "far-right", but it need not be stated in sentence 1 of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think this would be ok. Better than option 1. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Ser and Aquillion. starship.paint (exalt) 07:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Due to overwhelming amounts of evidence by RS on this, I believe that Option 1 would be the correct way to go. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I've requested for this to be closed at WP:close requests Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 07:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Far-Right?

There’s no such thing as “far-right.” There’s only far-left. -2600:1005:B166:771D:31E0:6D68:BE2E:BF72 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That is almost exactly wrong. See far-right politics and far-left politics. The term "far-right" is extensively discussed and studied in academia and has a clearly-defined definition; it's the term "far-left politics" whose definition is vague and which hasn't had as much academic use. There are people who are very left wing in various ways, but academics are less likely to lump them together in a single field of study. Partially this is because the far-left has been less successful in industrialized western nations, but partially because there's more diversity among what you'd call far-left thought (it encompasses everything from radical communists who want an all-powerful state abolishing all hierarchies everywhere to radical anarchists who want to abolish hierarchy by having no states at all.) In any case, especially when it comes to WP:BLPs, we have to adhere closely to what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: Finchem's family history and ethnic heritage. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can find some information about this in reliable sources, feel free to post them here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Can someone explain why there's a literal blackout of Mr Mark Finchem's African American ancestry? 2402:D000:811C:6F95:7DAB:BD3A:F539:2EB8 (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can find some information about this in reliable sources, feel free to post them here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Labels

Just curious why this guy is tagged as far right but folks like AOC are not tagged as far left? 64.99.104.183 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Possibly because those terms are defined by experts in relation to the actual center of the democratic spectrum worldwide and not in relation to the current median in the US. That one has shifted into a position halfway to Crazytown, caused by the popularity among Republicans of election denial, climate change denial, COVID denial, xenophobia, and so on.

If you can find reliable sources that say he is not far-right, bring them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Cowboy hats

I'd suggest axing the derogatory language about cowboy hats from the Personal Life section. Cowboy hats are a common enough element of Arizona / southwestern US mens' style (see, e.g, the examples of other Arizona politicians wearing them) that for Finchem to wear them is insignificant and unworthy of mention in his Wiki page. See, too, various discussions of western US style. Thewritestuff92 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; phrases like "has been described as", without specifying who's doing the describing, are also poor writing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Far right

This makes Mark Finchem sound extreme, which he is not. He is America First. I would propose to change Far Right to America First. 2600:1700:1C24:C070:67C3:25FE:E3F0:4865 (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

which he is not - he evidently is! Also, America First and far-right aren't exactly mutually exclusive... ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

He seems to like doing the work of Russia. 68.134.216.180 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)