Talk:Pat King (activist)

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 Feb 2022. The result of the discussion was Nominator withdrawal.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Alberta Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I moved this conversation from Talk:Canada convoy protest, see edit summary for attribution. Courtesy ping: CT55555 The Four Deuces Willondon Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that there wasn't separate articles on people like Pat King, Tamara Lich. Both redirect this article. Is that because nobody made the effort to create them yet, or was there some sort of agreement, consensus not to create them? CT55555 (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At present, they are people known for one event, hence included in this article. That may change as they go through the legal process. But right now, there are insufficient sources. TFD (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TFD There arensolid sources reporting on King's activities back in 2019, for example https://globalnews.ca/news/8543281/covid-trucker-convoy-organizers-hate/ or Lich's activities with the Maverick Party prior to the event. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-key-ottawa-blockade-organizer-tamara-lich-denied-bail/ Also they are notable for their activities at the event, and for their bail hearings. Would any of that not meet general notability? I think it would, but maybe I'm missing something? CT55555 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of sourcing is not only verifying facts, but indicating notability. The sources you've given reporting on previous activies were published in 2022, prompted by the protest. A lack of coverage back in 2019 would indicate that they are not notable except for this recent activity. Not to say you couldn't find contemporary coverage of activity before the protest, but somebody would have to take the time to do the research and write up the article. "Not it!" _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Does the activities at the protest and the reporting on the bail hearings still count as one event? CT55555 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to common sense. Can we really write objective biographies of these people based on news coverage? What did they do for the first forty or fifty years of their lives? If we wrote articles about them, would there be anything significant about them that is not already in this article? This is particularly important for people charged with crimes.

There was an article for example about a respected English barrister who was falsely accused of possession of child pornography. But there was almost nothing about him in reliable sources other than this. Do we need an article that reminds people about the false accusations against him as the top of any google search about him?

TFD (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I did find plenty old coverage about Pat King and created an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_King_(activist)

It was promptly nominated for deletion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pat_King_(activist) CT55555 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your article does not mention his occupation, his educational, career or criminal history, or anything about his family. Do you think you can write a balanced and informative article without any of this information? TFD (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation should occur on the talk page of the article or in the AfD. But very briefly, I only included information that was verifiable by reliable secondary sources, which is the mechanism by which I have kept it fair. If you dispute the fairness of the article, the talk page or the AfD is the place, or go ahead and improve it. In BLP I think it's best to keep it light on family and regarding crimes alleged, due to policy, I've deliberately avoided mentioning the pending trial CT55555 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if you don't have sufficient reliable sources to provide this type of information, you cannot create a neutral article. Of course we can discuss it on the AfD, but you brought it up here and apparently intend to create more articles about non-notable people. A lot of your recommendations for creation of biographical articles have been turned down and you need to understand why that has happened before creating more. TFD (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this has now crossed into what seems to me like a conversation about me instead of sticking to the topic, I'm going to pause here. CT55555 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is one 2019 article mentioning Lich as a Wexit organizer, and her stating that it's separate from Yellow Vest, as well as a 2019 donation photo op in which she's quoted as the company's service centre administrator. But no significant coverage of her herself. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice article, "#Wexit Founders Are Far-Right Conspiracy Theorists" which refers to King as one of "[t]wo main organizers behind #Wexit, the campaign calling for Canada’s prairie provinces to secede." Later it says, "King is one of Downing’s main #Wexit co-campaigners and a member of the #Wexit Alberta board of directors." Peter Downing is identifed as the other main organizer and as the founder of the main #Wexit Facebook group and the #Wexit Alberta Facebook page. I notice that the title refers to "founders" (plural), but titles are not considered reliable and the article calls Downing the sole founder.

King's involvement in United We Roll is unclear. He was a contact for the North Alberta section of the group.

The article uses these sources to make the following statements:

• He has led the Wexit movement, the United We Roll movement.
• King served on the board of directors of Wexit Alberta, and as a primary organizer of the Wexit movement that advocated for Canada's prairie provinces to secede.
• King was a co-organizer, and a driver for the United We Roll yellow vest protest in 2019. [He was actually one of the protestors driving a truck.

I noticed that during the AfD discussion, this misinformation may have influenced votes and planned to withdrawn the nomination until it is corrected. The creator asked me to do this before I had done so.

Also, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is probably not a reliable source and should not be used in the article.

TFD (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misunderstanding, so correct me if that is the case. Here's my explanation, focused around the three lines you have concern about:

• He has led the Wexit movement, the United We Roll movement.

This is verified in the opening lines of the article "Two main organizers behind #Wexit, the campaign calling...Peter Downing, an ex-RCMP officer and Patrick King"

• King served on the board of directors of Wexit Alberta, and as a primary organizer of the Wexit movement that advocated for Canada's prairie provinces to secede.

This is verified, quote "King is one of Downing’s main #Wexit co-campaigners and a member of the #Wexit Alberta board of directors."

• King was a co-organizer, and a driver for the United We Roll yellow vest protest in 2019. [He was actually one of the protestors driving a truck.

His organization of United We Roll is confirmed here https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-ndp-ridings-target-1.5283650 quote "Patrick King, who co-organized the United We Roll"

So everything seems well sourced to me. I don't see any "misinformation" and therefore I don't think that swayed the AfD, and it seemed like the unanimous AfD which you chose to close was closed as a keep because you withdrew in the context of people mentioning how clearly the article complied with policy. Am I missing something? CT55555 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he led a hashtag that he helped create. But Wexit as you should know since you linked to it is bigger, including several provincial parties now renamed. You may be thinking of the WexitMovement.org, which is a website founded by Downing to which King contributed.

Wexit Albert was a political party. #WexitAlberta is something different.

The quote that King was an organizer is taken from a caption of the picture and is not stated in the article. I don't know if there is a specific rule against using a caption as a reliable source, but it seems similar to Headlines. In both cases they are not part of the written article. You would think anyway that if had been a co-organizer of United We Roll there would have been some mention of that in the news coverage. Anyway, we can take that to RSN.

This is the problem of creating articles about people who have only received passing mention in reliable sources. See "Context matters": "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." IOW, we would expect greater reliability on King if he were the subject of the article rather than someone mentioned in passing. Furthermore, United We Roll wasn't particularly notable either, which is probably why so little is known about its organization.

The best way to handle this is to include information about King in the Trucker Convoy article. There is nothing in this article that does not belong in that article, except perhaps his comments which probably don't deserve the attention this article gives him.

TFD (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception that he only received passing mentions in the citations was very much a minority view that was refuted by several others in the recent AfD. Your suggestion that this content be included in the convoy article doesn't work, because much of the content was about events before then. You are covering ground that was already debated in the AfD process, where a consensus was already reached. CT55555 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wait to see how the article develops (I wasn't sure why it wasn't put in draft-space first). Having seen the sources, there is definitely enough material about him (pre-convoy even), and the articles are focussing on him, i.e. he is the subject of the article. I agree, at this stage of development, the article looks like a litany of things he did and said, but there's enough there, in my opinion, to develop into a decent article. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that editors accepted the description presented in the article. I suggest you change it, so that we don't have to use noticeboards. TFD (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not hesitate to edit out anything that is not sourced, but what details are you saying are unsourced? I provided the source for each of the three statements you raised concerns about above. WP:DR contains some guidance on how we should try resolve disputes. I think the easy path here is for you to say what is unsourced, but if we can't find consensus on that, perhaps a mediator would be a sensible next step. First, let's try to understand each other and reach consensus as the priority please. CT55555 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there were some comments above, that appear with inconsistent indents, perhaps unsigned, that are making a point that I don't fully understand, perhaps separating separate Wexit entities? Again, please restate exactly what is unsourced, I'm genuinly not clear about what you are disputing. Also feel free to say what edit you want me to make. CT55555 (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating what you said about and I see no point in repeating my replies. I opened a discussion at BLPN. TFD (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please have morals when reporting on so called facts. There is no counter balance to this depiction. Please check Yourself 108.11.195.245 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really hope that everyone here is trying to be as fair as possible. Is there something in the article that is not supported by good sources? If so, I'll edit it out. CT55555 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick is defined as “far right”. Please cite the source and specific criteria. Wikipedia is full of questionable allegations and they usually have a specific political bent behind them. Wikipedia should remain impartial at all times. Such criticisms that lack evidence undermine Wikipedia. My confidence in Wikipedia is low. I would suggest any article that labels someone “far right” instantly requires known credible moderators. If the person making an unfounded allegation is caught then all changes are put under review. Labelling someone “far right” should not be done so flippantly. Yet, Wikipedia labels people such (but rarely “radical left”) with gusto. I do not know Patrick. I side with facts. I question whether Wikipedia sided with fact in this case. 122.148.236.65 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the bit where he is described as far right are citations (numbers 2 and 3) and if you click through them, you'll see the secondary, reliable sources where he is described as far right. CT55555 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the Toronto Star ^[1] _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real life friend of Pat King and he is not a far right activist. The more correct term would human rights activist Nomi more (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is frequently the target of people who mostly are changing the cited statements about the subject's white supremacy towards things like "freedom fighting" and also at least one person who changed descriptors to call him a terrorist. This seems to be done by IP address, recently created accounts, and mobile phone addresses. Swift reverts by User:Andethyst, User:CaffeinAddict, User:Sea_Cow, User:TartarTorte and User:Ivanvector have kept this article consistent with WP:NPOV but the attempts to undermine that seem to be ongoing. I don't have experience with the policy on this, but should there be some sort of protection on the page? CT55555 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can add a request and tag you in it at WP:RPPI. If you want to do so yourself, I would recommend installing a tool like WP:RedWarn, which is what I use to make my WP:RPP requests. TartarTorte 19:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeepFriedOkra came through quickly with a semi-protection for a month, so all should be good now. All the best, CT55555. TartarTorte 19:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was efficient, thanks! :-) CT55555 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat King apparently is missing a leg, and is thus, disabled. I am not aware of any reliable sources that state such information, however. 2601:8C:417E:26A0:60AA:53E6:D348:406 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

edit Remove the page! 96.21.109.39 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We probably won't be removing this page. We remove pages usually if the person is not notable. He is very notable, and therefore should have a page. CT55555 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page he is full of misinformation 96.21.109.39 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Pat King is a source of misinformation. But that is not a reason to delete his page. We should document notable people. CT55555 (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page he is a terrorist in canada 2605:8D80:500:B9BE:F8F3:E7E9:7B66:A766 (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]