Talk:Nathan Rich

The sources are certainly terrible. I would recommend AFD, as was suggested previously. Beach drifter (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

:The article has sources from CNN, Huffington Post, Rolling Stones, Hollywood Reporter, CGTN and the Associated Press, among others. Which of these are terrible and why? Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In an effort to focus on content, what are the disputed items for the last full revision? Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Trufeseeker, as you've tried to delete and speedy delete, as well as removed much of the article, I've mentioned you here. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected|Nathan Rich|answered=yes}}

Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich to the top of the page. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

:Done. Sasquatch t|c 19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected|answered=yes}}

I found reliable sources during a Google search and would like to modify the article. Because the article is fully protected, I am unable to to do that. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This article gets high levels of abuse from IP editors (who escape the DS warnings on this TP). There are some very inappropriate things on this BLP. He is clearly a controversial figure, and also it seems has enemies. I also get the feeling that his own supporters also edit here. They only way to resolve this is ECP. It has already been to AfD twice in 3 months. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Per the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich (2nd nomination), this article was reverted to the July 31, 2019 version due vandalism and numerous edits referencing non-notable sources. DrIdiot (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

: {{ping|DrIdiot}} Fully agree with this. Will be watching this page. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

:: {{ping|DrIdiot}} The deletion of the Youtube section is not justified by your claimed reasons. The section was following the common form of describing the social media activity of an individual. Please deliver an explanation or this will be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:810a:82c0:eea:19ee:e147:a118:ae9b (talk • contribs)

::: IP-user, youtube is not in general WP:RS on Wikipedia - particularly when primary. Material about the subject speaking on youtube will be removed from this BLP. If you have independent reliable RS discussing his work on youtube, use that. This BLP is not a platform for broadcasting the subject's youtube videos. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|Britishfinance}} The degree of WP:Notability of the removed section far exceeds that of any other content of the current page, particularly when considering the WP:RS of MOS:QUOTATIONS. This is substantiated by the fact that most sources of the remaining content of lesser notability are based on WP:PRIMARY as described in WP:Interviews. Consequentially, the claims made for the reversion would in fact require a deletion of the remaining article content contrary to the deleted section 'Youtube Career'.

::::: I don't follow that logic - the material there now, which was from 31 July, successfully went through a WP:AfD, so its WP:GNG is stable. If you have content, or references, post them here on the talk page, and I will check them for you and point out if I don't think it passes WP:PAG. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

:::::: {{ping|Britishfinance}} The result of the second WP:AfD was: "speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn.", with votes particularly emphasizing the higher notability of the 'Youtube career' section. The result of the first WP:AfD does not provide an argument against a section that was created later.

: {{ping|DrIdiot}} I agree with you that the Scientology content is almost exclusively based on WP:PRIMARY as described in WP:Interviews, which warrants for deletion. However, there is empirical evidence (YT subscriber numbers, etc.) that the 'Youtube Career' content has a higher notability than the other (current) content, which is further substantiated by the sections reliance on MOS:QUOTATIONS which are considered superior content over statements based on WP:PRIMARY. Additionally, the votes of the second WP:AfD do not warrant as a reason for the deletion of the section.

:: I disagree, and you mischaracterize my position. I was on the fence about the Scientology stuff, but since it passed the first AfD, I agree with User:Britishfinance that it should stay. I withdrew the nomination because I believe I made it in error for that reason. I see no basis for inclusion of the YouTube content; it has not been discussed in any RS (this excludes Chinese state media, since Nathan promotes their point of view, see Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources) as far as I can see. The votes in the 2nd AfD in favor of keeping the YouTube section all failed to cite RS for reasons I mentioned in that discussion. Again, please refer to the discussion there and point out specifically what you believe are RS. Like User:Britishfinance I do not follow your current logic. DrIdiot (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

:::Comment placed in wrong area.75.145.223.225 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Other pages on personalities have links to their YouTube channel. How is this information NOT something that should be on this Wiki Page??

Wikipedia once was THE goto source for raw information. It now seems to have certain political agendas as well.

I had tried several edits to link the YouTube channel and each time it was deleted without reason given. The last edit I tried was simply a "here's his YouTube channel" and that was deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianAnarchist (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

: Nathan Rich is not notable for his YouTube channel. He is notable for his work on Scientology, which has been covered by reliable sources. His YouTube content, on the other hand, has not. If a personality is known for their YouTube channels, then they will be linked. If you can find RS for Nathan's YouTube channel that is independent (this excludes state run media) then we can add it. Otherwise, it's a form of promotion. There is already a reference on the page to his work in China, and readers interested in Nathan can google his name and his YouTube channel is the first result that appears. DrIdiot (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect: "Nathan Rich is not notable for his YouTube channel.: His YouTube channel has over 400,000 subscribers. Very few people know of or have read his Scientology book. I think this Wiki page needs some data on his pro-Chinese Communist Party YouTube entries. Bonhomem (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

:: +1 with {{u|DrIdiot}}. This has been a prombelatic BLP that has been abused as a WP:COATRACK to platform non-notable aspects and views of the subject. The case for this BLP, per the past AfDs, is borderline (and I !voted Keep), but if it reverts to past problems, and no stronger RS emerges on the subject, it will end up merged. Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

::: His YouTube channel is definitely something he's "noted for". He's becoming "notable" as a pro-CCP puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.223.225 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:::: Need reliable sources covering it. Lots of "notable" people in my professional field are not on Wiki because they have not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Because notable to you doesn't mean notable enough for Wiki. DrIdiot (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::Here's a Chinese news site that links to his YouTube "pro-Beijing" commentaries. It's an article about the trade war. This was a quick search and I'm sure you can find many news stories like it. Especially in Hong Kong where the fight against tyranny is in the front of most of the citizens minds. Is this the kind of thing you need to make it "notable"?? https://progressive.org/dispatches/foreign-correspondent-u-s-trade-war-with-china-erlich-190808/ ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::Here's another from the pro-Beijing mouthpiece... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201910/09/WS5d9d2657a310cf3e3556f45e.html ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::Oh and another about how Rich and others have taken their propaganda to PornHub in order to get around YouTube restrictions... https://qz.com/1747617/chinese-users-go-to-pornhub-to-spread-hong-kong-propaganda/ ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::Another quick one just to make sure the point is clear. Nathan Rich uses his YouTube presence to promote the CCP of Beijing... http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1162818.shtml ChristianAnarchist (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::: See the two AfD discussions. State run media is not RS when they have clear conflict of interest. The Quartz article is borderline. Progressive article doesn't quite seem neutral, but maybe that doesn't matter. {{reply to|Britishfinance}} thoughts? DrIdiot (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::: {{u|DrIdiot}}, and {{u|ChristianAnarchist}}. The issue at AfD was regarding use of the BLP to promote the subject's non-notable (at thT time) blogging in China (which was also promotional for the subject). This material above is different. While none of the four sources above make the WP:RS/P list, all four RS are at least sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article (e.g. they are not blogs per the AfD sources), Global Times, China Daily, Quartz (magazine), and The Progressive. Quartz is very close to an RS, however, I can't rule on the others. Perhaps we should have a separate section on "Blogging", with a sentence saying "Since moving to China, Rich has become known his blogging activities, which have been criticized by some sources as being overtly pro-China." (and then add in the 4 above sources; we can always bring to the RS noticeboard too)? Britishfinance (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: {{u|Britishfinance}} Global Times and China Daily are state-run media (a potentially unreliable source). I would hesitate to cite them since there are sources without the same conflict of interest. The article in The Progressive reads like an opinion piece, and I have hard time as seeing it as neutral -- further, the author seems to cite Nathan rather than talk about him. The Quartz article seems the most reliable, the author is a reporter for South China Morning Post and it also features Nathan in the most direct way (i.e. the article talks about him, and doesn't just name him as a source). Maybe the following: "Since moving to China, Rich has started a video blog which often takes a political stance defending the Chinese government. (cite Quartz)" DrIdiot (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: {{u|DrIdiot}}, thanks for clarifying that; I would support your proposal which seems sensible. Thanks again, Britishfinance (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::I included sources that are both pro and anti China. All sources are "Chinese" in nature as that is where he's most notable. At this point it's clear that you don't care about what is submitted here. You have an agenda and you are not going to yield... 75.145.223.225 (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::: Chinese state media is explicitly listed as a potentially unreliable source. It's not the role of Wikipedia to link to propaganda outlets. Also, we've agreed to include a reference to his video blogging activities, so it's a little unclear to me why you are insistent that we cite those specific sources when there are clearly guidelines against doing so? DrIdiot (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Rich recognized internationally much more as a blogger about China-related issues than he is about Scientology. THERE SHOULD BE A PARAGRAPH ABOUT HIS PRO-CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY STANCE HERE. He believes the corona virus was transmitted from US athletes to Wuhan in 2019. His blog has tens of thousands of followers. In contrast, how many copies of his Scientology book have been sold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhomem (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

: This has been discussed ad nauseum. Number of subscribers is not notability. I subscribe to a dozen of Minecraft YouTubers and all of them have over 400k subscribers are NONE of them are on Wikipedia. As far as I know Nathan is only well-known in Western pro-CCP circles and being very notable in fringe groups does not imply notability. DrIdiot (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

: The point is, if Nathan were not covered in Rolling Stone for his Scientology work, he would not even have a Wikipedia page. There are no virtually no RS that go into detail on his pro-CCP stance. DrIdiot (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

: I am well aware of his pro-CCP views. The problem with including them on the page is you have to watch his videos and extract them yourself. That would be original research. DrIdiot (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability DrIdiot (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

: I think the following page gives the closest guideline to Wiki policy on the matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Treatment_of_living_persons

"Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise."

My interpretation of this is that we do not suppress the fact that Nathan is doing pro-CCP advocacy but to cover the nature of said advocacy, we have to find RS to avoid giving them undue prominence. I think the page is fine as is now, but if you want to include a subscriber count I think that is fine. DrIdiot (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have posted some of my "original research" on Mr. Rich. He may be known more for his Scientology history in the west, but WORLDWIDE he is know much more for his vlog in China of more than 400K subscribers. I am not a supporter of Scientology in any way or form and have not added China-related material here in order to distract attention from Scientology. I would merely suggest that Rich is now renowned as a CCP supporter, dwarfing his Scientology history. Bonhomem (talk) Bonhomem —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Original research is *not* permitted by Wikipedia (the link above is to a page titled "No original research": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). I am not accusing you of supporting or opposing any organization. The point is that the claim that he is "more well known" for something needs to be backed up by reliable sources (RS), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -- and as far as I can tell very few RS have covered his China content (a few exceptions mention him in passing and are cited in the article). DrIdiot (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, the level of self-righteous prejudice in this thread is horrifyingly revealing about Wikipedia's innate bias and the bullshit claims of 'neutrality'. 119.236.47.178 (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This keeps coming up and I want to summarize the main points here.

• This page had been nominated for deletion. The decisions were to keep it because his work on Scientology had received coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
• Evidently, after his work on scientology, the subject has moved on to other endeavors, specifically a YouTube channel on China. This channel has received some minor coverage in reliable sources which are cited on the page. However, the content of the videos has not received any coverage in reliable sources as of this writing.
• Number of subscribers is not a measure of notability. See Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. State-run media from China is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources.
• Watching the subject's content and writing based on that would be original research, which is prohibited (see Wikipedia:No original research). It is not up to us to interpret the meaning of a YouTuber's content, nor should we produce a laundry list of positions. See also Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.
• In Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Treatment_of_living_persons, it is written: "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise." Because of this, I believe it is proper to make mention of his current activity, but to only comment on the nature of that activity when backed up by reliable sources.
• If the subject receives further coverage in reliable sources, those can be used to add content to this page.

DrIdiot (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no "original research" on my part here. I merely summarized some of his blog posts and quoted him directly ("_"). He is much more well-known international as a commentator on China and China-related matters than he is on the Scientology issue. I believe that this Wikipedia page needs to reflect this fact. I notice that most of your Wiki entries are "China-related. But for some reason you think that China commentary does not merit reflection here. I don't understand your logic. Bonhomem (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Bonhomem

"If the subject receives further coverage in reliable sources, those can be used to add content to this page." What could possibly be a more "reliable source" than the subject's writing itself for material? Bonhomem (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Bonhomem

: The subject himself is NOT a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and see what it means in the context of Wikipedia. Further, you ARE doing original research by using a primary source, see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources -- note that primary sources are generally not allowed unless published in a reputable source (which YouTube is not). It's extremely explicit about this: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Finally, it must be demonstrated that his views on the subject are notable enough to warrant writing up on Wikipedia, which is usually demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Too much detail. The problem here is you *believe* the subject is notable, but it doesn't matter what you or I believe. Wikipedia has procedures for establishing notability and you're straight up ignoring them. DrIdiot (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I too questioned this label when I first saw it, but after I took a look at the guy’s youtube page [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaSlyjhR4WC7QhYuaivxb6g/videos] he does seem be producing what a reasonable person would consider to be Propaganda. He is also used extensively by unambiguously propaganda sources such as China Daily [https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201910/09/WS5d9d2657a310cf3e3556f45e.html] and the Global Times calls him “pro-China” and also heavily features his work[https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1162818.shtml]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Global Times is a CCP propaganda paper, not reliable.

: This is a BLP, and our standards on per WP:BLP are very high on what sources can be used. If it is not from a high-quality independent WP:RS, than we can't use it (regardless of whether it may be correct or not). Britishfinance (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

::The source here is Taiwan News [https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3924490] which while not impeccable is considered appropriate for most BLPs. However I will agree that this is not most BLPs and the statement is a particularly contentious one, thats why I think its important for us to closely criticize the article using any sources available. In this context we can use the subject’s youtube page to evaluate the veracity of the article’s claim's. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

::: When we get into the relm of {{tq|we can use the subject’s youtube page to evaluate the veracity of the article’s claim's}}, then we have left WP:BLP. We can't make any judgements or own opinions, especially given the controversial nature of the material, outside of what high quality independent RS says (which Taiwan News is not appropriate). We can use WP:PRIMARY sources for very basis things in a BLP (e.g. confirmation of age in some cases), but this is just to controversial and broad an issue. The core issue with this BLP (the more I think of it), is that the subject is only borderline notable (per WP:GNG, and the last two AfDs), and thus we have very little high-quality independent RS on him. Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

:::: Thats an odd argument to make given that Taiwan News is more reliable than all but a single source, Quartz, currently used on the page. Whether or not we use the Taiwan News article as a source isn't under question here, whats under question is can we use the phrase propagandist/propaganda from the Taiwan News article. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

::::: Rolling Stone is a WP:RS/P (one of the most important RS in the AfD of this BLP), Taiwan News is not. Britishfinance (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::: It does not appear to be among the sources currently used on the page, am I missing something? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

::::::: Reference [3] [https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/scientology-children-second-generation-846732/ Rolling Stone]; without this reference, I don't think that his BLP would have survived AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: Gotcha, so the argument is that Taiwan News is better than all but two of the current sources but also not appropriate for use? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: It's also worth noting that the particular linked Taiwan News piece is essentially an op-ed by their chief editor. It may be OK to say establish a very basic fact (e.g. I believe the Global Times source is only used to establish the date when he started living in China) but to say a person is a propagandist requires some judgement and I think Taiwan News might not be sufficient for that. Much of the language used in the article regarding his YouTube content is written to carefully conform with the very brief mentions in the Quartz article. DrIdiot (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To add to this article: his repeated YouTube videos covering the topic of the Xinjiang re-education camps. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(1 year later) To add to this article: his repeated YouTube videos covering the topic of the Xinjiang re-education camps. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected|Nathan Rich|answered=yes}}

The last [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Rich&oldid=1005573740 edit]‎ by the vandal 83.44.49.206 has been missed and needs to be undone. Thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

:Also, what happened wasn't edit warring, but reversion of vandalism, so the protection should be removed, or at least downgraded to semi-protection. And a trout for Stwalkerster as well. :) pandakekok9 (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

::Protection downgraded to semi, extended to one month. As you were! El_C 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

:::Just noting that, upon reflection, I have set the protection not to expire (logged WP:ACDS action). El_C 15:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Nathan Rich is a bilingual American living in China. His grasp of Chinese language and culture along with his blog posts have brought him millions of viewers on YouTube. His perspective on Chinese culture and history has created controversy among westerner intelligencia but his message is one of peace and progress. He is not a political person according to his own reflections. 2607:FB91:2D18:9495:2DDC:DBCC:EB2F:59B6 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Didn't Rich announce on his YouTube channel in March 2022 that he was discontinuing making videos on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

: Find WP:RS for it or it's WP:OR. DrIdiot (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)