Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit warring over conviction in first sentence of lead

So by now everyone knows the article is under consensus required right? I have to ask because so far PvOberstein[1], Objective3000[2], and DocRuby[3] have all violated that sanction reinserting new material[4] that was challenged via revision. Anyhow I don't think it should be in the first sentence like that given we dedicate a whole paragraph to it in the lead and the body of the article does not say he was convicted. Mostly because he was not technically convicted, that happens after sentencing which never happened. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted a one-edit IP who removed text with an incorrect edit summary. On your claim that he was not convicted, WaPo [5], BBC [6], CNBC [7], Forbes [8], NBC [9], and LATimes [10] disagree. On the fact that this isn’t in the body, that can be fixed. On weight for the top, this is heavily covered by RS for good reason and most of us would not have heard much about him without the conviction. When is the last time someone in that position was convicted? O3000 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, already covered in a full paragraph in the lead. Does not need to tacked onto the first sentence as well. Leads are generally not written that way unless it is the most notable thing about a person, I have a hard time believing that is the case here. It also does not help that the case was dismissed. Finally as your LA times article says, the pardon wipes the conviction. Also reverting an IP is not an exemption from DS in this case. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I have not edited this page since last June and was not aware of this restriction. He was convicted. A pardon does not reverse that. Indeed, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. So far it is four editors adding, and you and two one-edit IPs against. Others are welcome to chime in. O3000 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I am just going by the source you mentioned. Also you are ignoring the case was dismissed, with most of the sources coming before the dismissal. To be fair the restriction was in the log since February 2017. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Look, I don't remember what restriction was added ten months ago on a page I haven't edited in six months; you didn't politely ask me to self-rvt on my TP; and I can't self-rvt since you reverted and then it was yet again reverted. If you have a problem with all this, take it to the appropriate venue as repetition is boring. He was convicted. Conviction applies as soon as a judge accepts a verdict or plea. That happened according to a huge number of RS. A pardon does not erase a conviction. Here's what the judge said about the dismissal: [11]. O3000 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The pardon wipes the conviction from his record, so it doesn’t appear on a background check, but it doesn’t wipe the conviction from well-documented history. It happened, and no pardon changes that. That said, I oppose mentioning anything about it in the first sentence of the lead. soibangla (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, your assertion he was technically not "convicted" is incorrect. Guilty plea = convicted. soibangla (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, not sure it is wiped from the record. I don't think there is any mechanism for expunging a federal felony. As for this belonging in the first sentence; I can be convinced either way. I reverted it because the rationale for deletion was incorrect. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A pardon does not remove the conviction, or even remove the record of the conviction, | according to the DOJ. A defendant in custody is convicted as soon as the judge accepts their guilty plea, | according to the Eastern VA Federal Public Defender's office, which Flynn's judge did. Flynn is a convicted felon.
Flynn's entire career is distinguished most by his Federal conviction for his actions that forced him to end his career, around which everything else in his career revolves. It's like arguing Nixon's article summary intro shouldn't include the fact that he resigned facing nearly certain impeachment. Nixon's career was far more distinguished by major developments than Flynn's was, but of course he was defined by his resignation facing impeachment. Likewise Flynn's career is defined by his conviction, regardless of whether he was pardoned. DocRuby (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
On the talk pages of Dinesh D'Souza and Roger Stone and on WP:BLPN are other discussions about putting "convicted felon" in the first sentence of the lead. Summary = don't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Dinesh D'Souza and Roger Stone were not government officials, D'Souza's crime was minor and Stone's is in the second sentence. Flynn was a US Army lieutenant general who was the 25th United States National Security Advisor with serious convictions for crimes while in office in a famous case. WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Stone's conviction is mentioned in some detail in his article's second sentence. D'Souza's Talk discussion is about whether to include the conviction in the article's first sentence; his conviction was a much smaller detail in his life than is Flynn's. The BLPN discussion isn't about this matter. I further note that these examples are all part of the same circle of convicts, which seems like people sympathetic to that circle's members are opposed to these articles telling the truth about these people.
We're talking about this edit and its kin, right? Even if this weren't a situation of slapping a straightforward black-and-white label on what is a gray and messy situation, the descriptor clearly does not belong in the first sentence. (Or, in other words, I agree with PackMecEng.) Possibly there is a case to be made for one sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the form "He plead guilty to [blah] as a result of the Mueller investigation, and was later pardoned by President Trump", accompanied by a significant trimming down of the over-detailed third paragraph. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's the edit. It's not a gray and messy situation in terms of description. Flynn was convicted when his guilty plea was accepted by his judge. He was pardoned, but pardon's don't erase conviction, they just remove some of the consequences of conviction including sentences. He is a pardoned convicted felon. That status is more significant to his life than most of the details included in the three paragraphs (with 26 footnotes) of intro summary. It should be included in the summary since without it a reader doesn't understand these highly distinguishing characteristics of this person.
What is "messy" is the spin being edited into this article to downplay the legal status of its subject. That mess should not be the basis for editing decisions. Indeed, using the mess in the article edits created by Flynn whitewashers as the reason to whitewash the article is perverse logic. DocRuby (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that. Append to the first paragraph “He pleaded guilty to and was thus convicted of making false statements to FBI agents, and was awaiting sentencing when he was pardoned by President Donald Trump in December 2020.” Then drop the entire third paragraph to the body. soibangla (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem with your proposal is that it's not really a summary, because it includes explanation. That's why the summary should include his status of convicted felon, with the main article including some cited details such as you just proposed. DocRuby (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Back in December 2017 when Flynn pleaded guilty, we had a similar discussion and similar edit-warring about categorising Flynn, see: Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 1#Categorization as "People convicted of making false statements". That discussion did not result in consensus of including controversial categories, yet the edit-warring continued even in 2020.
There is much, either direct or indirect, evidence that Flynn was never convicted.
  • "At this point no one has been convicted on any charges arising from the [Mueller] investigation." –CNN, March 2018 – several months after Flynn's guilty plea.
  • "To date, the special counsel has secured seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial" –NPR, April 2019 – "one conviction" refers to Manafort
  • "All that remains in the case is for Judge Sullivan to sentence Flynn on that count and to enter a judgment of conviction against him." –Marty Lederman, Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (justsecurity.org, June 2020)
  • "I don't really care much—and I think you shouldn't either—whether Michael Flynn is ultimately convicted ... can appeal if and when the judge denies the motion [to dismiss] and enters a judgment of conviction against him (something that may well not even happen)" –Lederman, July 2020
  • "Because he was never sentenced, Flynn was never actually convicted so there is no conviction to wipe off the record." –NBC News
Most sources simply say that Flynn pleaded guilty. There are several dozens of sources that list people who pleaded guilty or was convicted in the Mueller investigation (e.g. The Wall Street Journal writes, "Seven people have pleaded guilty or been convicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe"). They make a clear distinction between "pleaded guilty" and "convicted". If the terms are synonymous, why the distinction? Moreover, if they are synonymous, why would anyone say in our article that Flynn was "convicted" when "pleaded guilty" is predominantly used in reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Flynn's Political Affiliation

Trying to avoid any discussion on political opinions, but I think Flynn's Political Affiliation should be updated?

This article says Flynn is a Democrat. While he was registered as one for most of his life, I feel his involvement with President Trump's campaign and administration rather clearly shows he is more associated with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party now. KeeperofDusk (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I doubt he is a Democrat since no democrat supports QAnon or works with Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.131.226 (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving time

The article is getting more attention, so I've changed the archive time to 7 days. Anyone disagrees? Even if everyone agrees, when attention dies down, feel free to extend the archive time. starship.paint (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

Wow, this is almost a year old. The yes's and no's seem to be evenly split (incidentally with equal numbers of sockpuppets voting on both sides). Looking at the arguments, being reliably sourced is not, by itself, sufficient reason to include something, and there's no consensus here that this note about body language is WP:DUE or even meaningful.

The following discussion 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.

~Awilley (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the article include a sentence about how the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they did not spot any physical signs of deception in Flynn's tone and body language?[12] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. It lends credence to the pseudoscience of being able to spot deception from just looking at someone. It's nothing short of mind-reading. It adds nothing of value to the article, except misleads some uninformed readers that there is evidence that Flynn did not lie in his FBI interviews. To summarize, inclusion serves the purpose of propping up a pseudoscience and impairing readers' understanding of the topic. Also, could you imagine adding content to a BLP where we say that law enforcement judged a BLP to be deceptive through body language? Is that some kind of precedent that should be introduced? Of course not – it's absolute BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. (Here is the news article currently cited for this fact, by the way.) Body language of potential suspects is a standard piece of evidence used by law enforcement around the world, I believe - see Body language#Law enforcement, for example. I doubt it's ever enough to convict or acquit on its own, and I'm sure that it can be faked and misinterpreted, but still it's considered useful information. Clearly the FBI agents thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have reported it in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's straight-up pseudoscience (as is the case with all kinds of techniques that law enforcement use), as this[13] 2019 Annual Review of Psychology article makes clear. It's been so debunked that "lively debates about the merits of nonverbal lie detection no longer take place at the scientific conferences that we attend." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This editor has never edited under this identity before popping into this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the relevance of the YouTube videos, posted by the IP, as sources for this discussion. The first one is obviously meant to be humorous (not a reliable source and irrelevant). The second one does not discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of body language in discerning deception (irrelevant). And YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes It is well sourced. ~ HAL333 16:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No. It is irrelevant. Did they spot any signs of lying when he pled guilty? Also irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No - It's trivial detail, and I agree with Snooganssnoogans that it gives credence to pseudoscience. - MrX 🖋 21:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes- It is the testimony of James Comey and reported by reliable sources. Since when did James Comey become someone who promotes "pseudoscience"? I challenge anyone to find a reliable source that say his claim is pseudoscience because "we go by reliable sources".--Rusf10 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No irrelevant and gives credence to pseudoscience [14]. On both counts it is therefore UNDUE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That is WP:ORIGINAL research/ WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a reliable source that actually says Comey's testimony is based on pseudoscience then we can include his attributed testimony.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTH do not apply to talk pages/discussion threads, and reasons for not including something in an article don't need to be justified with reliable sources.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • No - He didn't look like he was lying doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - FBI and law enforecement officials frequently use their judgment, from instinct, experience, and training, when interviewing suspects. Their initial opinion about how they felt after the inteview is important in the context of what was going on. Calling this pseudoscience, while perhaps technically accurate, leaves out that it is a routine part of investigations. That they thought he didn't lie is simply their opinion of how they felt about it, and is a useful thing to note by the ones who interviewed him. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No - I agree with the criticism that body language reading is pseudoscience. We wouldn't say, about a living person, that their body language was shifty, therefore we shouldn't say the opposite either. Loki (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No - It has zero (0) to do with the fact that Flynn pleaded guilty [15] to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign & 2016 transition period. Plus, it is irrelevant and, if anything, it only shows Flynn can lie with a straight face, which is what Flynn was trained to do in the military. FBI agents knew Flynn was lying & equally important, Flynn confessed to his crime of lying to the FBI. In Flynn's guilty plea agreement [16], Flynn admitted to making false statements to the FBI & admitted he omitted key facts to the FBI about his interactions with the Russia. Trump said, “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the vice president and the F.B.I.” [17] BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No We need severely trim down the content size of this article to improve page loading performance. Regice2020 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - of course it should be included, reader's can make their own judgment calls about it being pseudoscience, we include the viewpoints of what reliable sources report about it. It was widely reported on, Comey testified that “the agents … discerned no physical indications of deception. It was also the subject of reporting in varying contexts - it was the subject of a fact check by the Washington Post in relation to Comey and what he said, it was the subject of a fact check by the Associated Press in relation to Trump and his false claims, it was brought up by his lawyers at sentencing and Comey's comments to the NYT, The conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, Mr. Comey said, 'but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception...". It was also cited as a reason by the DOJ for dropping the charges against Flynn – after the interview, FBI agents had "expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr Flynn had lied". Isaidnoway (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Moved my comment to be included in my above vote) BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Translation: It isn't the point that I want to emphasize and therefore everyone should ignore it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I voted on the survey question; I do not give you permission to strike my so do not ever strike my vote again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I could not care less whether you gave me permission to strike it or not. Your second vote was illegitimate. Hence, I did the right thing. I'd have no reason to strike a vote of yours at this time considering the fact that my strike caused you to remove your second vote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I have made myself clear. Do not tamper with my vote ever again & do not tamper with my comments to my votes ever again. And do not personally attack me by telling other editors to "ignore" my comments just because you either do not like, or cannot understand my comment WP:CIVILITY "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I will once again tamper with a vote that you make if that vote ever happens to be an illegitimate second vote like the one that you just made. Also, I did not tell anyone to ignore your comments. Rather, the simpler version of what you had written was to say that you felt people should ignore what the FBI agents said about Flynn because it did not reinforce the single piece of information which you wished to emphasize, that being his conviction. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Do not put words into other editors' mouths. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it's clearly what they meant. By the way, BetsyRMadison, I see you've voted twice in this RfC. No editor has the right to do that. It gives the impression to an editor who is not reading extremely carefully that there are more votes a certain way than there actually are. Therefore, I've decided to strike your second response. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I do not give you permission to strike my votes nor to strike my comments to my votes. If you see that I have accidentally voted more than once, then, you should assume good faith and tell me so that I can make the necessary corrections. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Accidentally? How do you accidentally vote more than once? Anyhow, I did not assume that it was intentional, but I did strike it so that other editors would know not to count it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Not enough coverage to establish noteworthy for something that would normally be considered essentially irrelevant. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes-Standard evidence on potential criminal suspects should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. When a suspect acts guilty, that can be notable. When they don't, it's not notable. It's easy to train oneself to act this way. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, as long as it's properly sourced I'm not sure if that statement is true, but if a trustworthy source says that that is true then it's fine to add. Otherwise it shouldn't be added. Smith0124 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - but only with the proper context I agree with including this but only on strong conditions. As others mentioned, this is an indicator used by law enforcement agencies (but not necessarily evidence). It is irrelevant for the inclusion of this if Mr. Flynn managed to fake/lie or not. However, it is extremely relevant that the full context is included. This detail should not be presented separate from the context if that context is already present - and if not present then it should too be added along this. It is important, if included, to underline that this is just a piece of the puzzle (one among many evidence/indicators) that the FBI put together based on the principle of convergence of evidence. So, unless it is stated by a WP:RS that this was indeed a crucial piece of evidence, it should not be emphasized as such (thus the need for context).Cealicuca (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes' - it happened, it's real, it is cited to a RS, we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
He said he looked like he was lying. The man who killed Ahmaud Arbery said he instinctively knew that he was a bad person. This kind of crap does not belong in an encyclopedia, or anywhere -- unless it is added as evidence of seriously poor reasoning. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
If anything, this just shows Michael Flynn is comfortable lying & lies with a straight face. So far, Flynn has lied to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded to the court that he lied to the court with his two guilty pleas, then said his 1st lawyer's made him lie to the court, and then said the FBI made him lie to them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per Cealicuca. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I initially was okay with including this as some sort of compromise, but have come to recognize that it's wrong. FBI agents may not have "detected deception", but they're historically not good at detecting deception. Here is an FBI agent writing in Psychology Today about how we're no better at detecting deception than we would be if we flipped a coin and say "heads he's lying, tails he's telling the truth". And here's one on the FBI's website that also shows how difficult it is to detect deception. For instance: Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. Flynn lied, and admitted it under oath in court. Whether or not the FBI agents who interviewed him "detected deception" is really a moot point, even though it is reliably sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I don't think it belongs on Flynn's page. However, if we create a new page for U.S. v Flynn, it could be mentioned there, as it's discussed in some of the briefs and exhibits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:RS and WP:DUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Close?

Why is this RfC still open? We need to find someone to close it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that there's now a US v. Flynn page, and a lot of the text about the case still needs to be cut from Flynn's page. The RfC predates the creation of the US v Flynn page, and the existence of that page might affect people's opinions. There is some discussion on the US v. Flynn talk page re: having a section addressing partisan debates about the case, including this issue and a bunch of others (e.g., whether there's a "missing" 302, unmasking). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
See related discussion on this topic, at #Shorten the section on legal case below. Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (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.

Conspiracy theorist

information Administrator note: why is there edit warring over this addition, in contravention of the discretionary sanctions? Do you folks really need for an admin to tell you that you need to launch a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) to settle that question? Obviously, the status quo ante version should be the version that gets displayed until this request is properly closed. That isn't optional. The Consensus required rule is in effect for this page. Anyone else found to be contravening it, should expect to face swift sanctions. Thank you. El_C 02:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty big article. Where beyond the first sentence of the introduction does it talk about his career as a conspiracy theorist? Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, 108.7.160.152 first inserted it in the lead sentence on 16 January 2021. The edit summary ("Fixed description") didn't explain but maybe we can guess that it was due to mention elsewhere in the article: "pledged an oath to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory" (because he added a QAnon hashtag #TakeTheOath on Twitter and said ""Where we go one, we go all"), and "posted links to false articles and conspiracy theories relating to Clinton" (because he tweeted this which had a link to this and because he said Pizzagate hadn't been "proven to be false"). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Update: I removed the Pizzagate clause, that was a different Michael Flynn, but he might have said something.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I now see the stuff you're talking about in the 2016 Presidential election subtopic of the article, but it seems like an awfully thin basis for describing Flynn as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first two lines of his bio. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
At the time that El C added this thread's warning and protected the page the lead sentence did not have "and conspiracy theorist", so I'm believing that it meant: keep the status quo ante (before 108.7.160.152|108.7.160.152's bold edit on January 16). Therefore the later re-insertions of "and conspiracy theorist" by Willform on 23 February, by NonReproBlue on 12 April, by NorthBySouthBaranof on 12 April, by Billmckern on 12 April appear to me to be not fully consistent with the warning. I may be wrong, but ask those editors to pause until the administrator clarifies. (At the moment "and conspiracy theorist" is out again, after the latest change by User:Korny_O'Near). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: References that call Mike Flynn a conspiracy theorist and explain why in great detail do not mean he's a conspiracy theorist?
If that doesn't do it, then what in the hell would?
Flynn sells QAnon merchandise online. So, yeah, he's a conspiracy theorist.
Billmckern (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Willform (diff), NonReproBlue (diff), NorthBySouthBaranof (diff) and Billmckern (diff): please do not add the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor to the opening sentence without securing the consensus to do so, again, preferably as codified by an WP:RFC that is properly closed. I'm reminding participants that WP:ONUS is required here. Those who ignore this second warning will face imminent sanctions. Please alert me to any such violations of the discretionary sanctions, by anyone. I expect everything to be ironed out, not re-adding the contested change haphazardly and sporadically by resuming the edit war. So, I take a dim view of that and am dissapointed that I am forced to repeat myself. To be clear: this is the final warning, there will not be a third one. I am also logging a warning for all four users, who, I note, all seem to meet WP:AWARE requirements. El_C 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I have no idea what the problem is. I noticed earlier today that someone had reverted an edit calling Flynn a conspiracy theorist on the grounds that it was unsourced. I added sources. The edit I made adding sources was reverted. So clearly the problem WASN'T that the description of Flynn as a conspiracy theorist was unsourced. That's the beginning and end of my involvement, except I note here as an absolute fact that Flynn is a conspiracy theorist and there are probably hundreds of references that could be cited as proof. He is, and it's not arguable. What happens with that fact on Wikipedia? I guess I'll wait and see. Billmckern (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is unclear here, Billmckern. Nothing I said above seems ambiguous to me. And I deem you fully WP:AWARE — on your talk page (via AP2 alert), on this talk page (notice at the top) and on the the article itself (edit notice). So, you're responsible for not seeking the necessary clarification, at the very least, prior to contravening the discretionary sanction. Naturally, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the content dimension of the dispute at this time, but I will say this: if it is as obvious as you say it is, getting an RFC to pass should not be an insurmountable problem. El_C 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that this approach caters heavily towards allowing people to use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a justification for removing well sourced material, by allowing them to break 1RR with no consequences and shift the goalposts whenever their purported reason for removing it is rendered invalid (removed as "unsourced", removed again after sources are added with bizarre justifications like "lots of citations that say he believes in conspiracy theories are not evidence that he should be described as a 'conspiracy theorist'"). NonReproBlue (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a bizarre justification. We're talking about the first sentence of the article, generally reserved for key details like people's occupations. There's a reason why no Wikipedia article has a first sentence that includes terms like "jogger", "baseball fan", etc. - these are hobbies, much like Flynn's embrace of conspiracy theories seems to be. (I actually don't think he should be described as a "conspiracy theorist" anywhere in the article, because that means more than someone who happens to believe in one or two conspiracy theories, but that's a grayer area.) Korny O'Near (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
That could be a new thread "RfC: Conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence", with an rfc tag for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, and the question: Should the first sentence of the article contain the words "and conspiracy theorist"? Objections? Alternatives? Forget it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. I am unsure how to correctly format an RFC (probably less complicated than it seems, but my brain is having issues understanding the template page and other instructions) or I would have started one already. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that people often use a straw man argument of "the first sentence is for occupations". It's not for occupations, it is for what they are notable for. Often times people are notable for their occupation, so often times their occupation is placed there. Other times they are notable for other things, and in those cases that information is placed there. If someone had multiple news articles written about their jogging, it would certainly be appropriate to include "jogger" in the initial description of them. To me it is incredibly bizarre to say that someone believing in, and actively promoting, conspiracy theories does not make them a conspiracy theorist. I cannot think of a more simple definition of "conspiracy theorist" than believing in and promoting conspiracy theories. This is not a person who casually "happens to believe in one or two conspiracy theories". We didn't read Flynn's journal as see a passing reference to "chemtrails". This is a prominent person who publicly pledged an oath to a conspiracy theory that personally involves him, in support of a president who he committed crimes to protect and who pardoned him for committing said crimes. Someone who actively and publicly promoted conspiracy theories that culminated in followers of said conspiracy theories literally storming the capital. I would be interested to know what you would find acceptable proof of someone being a conspiracy theorist. Regardless, to remove something as "uncited", and then to remove it again when citations are provided gives the impression that citations were never the concern, that they were simply a pretext for removing information you don't like being included. I do not consider moving goalposts like that to be a good faith effort to engage in collaborative editing with others, it seems more like an attempt to find whatever justification you can to remove information you find distasteful, regardless of how accurate or well sourced it is. NonReproBlue (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I think you mean "weak argument", not "straw man argument" (which is something different). But I'm really aware of very few cases where the first sentence of a biographical article mentions a hobby. Of all the famous people with well-known (and well-discussed) hobbies, the only one I'm aware of is Ernest Hemingway, whose first sentence mentions that he was a "sportsman" - and that, for him, was more than a hobby, it was an integral part of his public persona for his entire life. Contrast that with Michael Flynn, who, after a 40-year-long career, came to believe in a single conspiracy theory, and once videotaped himself making a pledge to it (whatever that means). Does that justify calling him a "conspiracy theorist" - and to saying so in the first sentence? I think the answer to both questions is no.
Your mention of Flynn's supposed crimes is irrelevant to this discussion, though it does seem to suggest that your stance on this issue is driven in part by a personal dislike of Flynn. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
"came to believe in a single conspiracy theory" is incorrect. He has most visibly promoted QAnon (which itself is an amalgam of a multitude of separate conspiracy theories ranging from Blood Libel and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to JFK Jr) but he has also promoted various election related conspiracy theories. Combined with statements you have made such as "these days, everyone believes in conspiracy theories", it seem as though perhaps your stance on this issue is driven in part by a personal dislike of the way conspiracy theories are treated in reliable sources, and in part by a lack of understanding of what reliable sources actually say. The issue at play is about coverage in reliable sources. The vast majority of coverage related to Flynn discusses his conspiracy pushing. The coverage that doesn't, discusses his criminal charges and the pardon he received for them (which ties into his, and his lawyer's, pushing of election conspiracies). There is very little current coverage related to anything about his "40-year-long career". I'm sure that to him his career is the most notable thing about him, but reliable sources do not seem to share that opinion. He was not thrust into the spotlight due to his career as a general, even in 2016 that part of his life was behind him. Honest question: can you find current reliable sources discussing Mike Flynn without mentioning these things? Do you honestly disagree that, on the balance, his promotion of QAanon and election conspiracies is the primary focus of current coverage in reliable sources? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I would also point out that in the time in between this discussion starting and now, in fact just days ago, Flynn has gone on to be a headline speaker at a QAnon conference ("Headlining the conference are two of the country’s best-known “deep state” conspiracy propagators—Michael T. Flynn and Sidney Powell") where he and others "espouse a wave of conspiracy theories to 4,500 attendees". I would be interested to see how this is even up for debate. Him being known as one of the country's "best-known 'deep state' conspiracy propagators" does not gel with your description of him as someone who "happens to believe in one or two conspiracy theories". A failure to recognize this seems like either a case of willful ignorance or severe lack of competency. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I did say that "these days, everyone believes in conspiracy theories", and I stand by that statement, and its relevance. Obviously Flynn believes in conspiracy theories - that's well-documented, and it should be stated in the article. I don't think, though, that rises to the level of calling him a "conspiracy theorist", and certainly not in the first sentence. I'm not entirely sure what "conspiracy theorist" means, but I think it's something more than "someone who believes in conspiracy theories" - or else just about everyone could be described as a "conspiracy theorist".
I don't know why you focus on current coverage; Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a reliable source from 40 years ago is just as relevant to us as one from today. Also, this is somewhat of a minor point, but Flynn's belief in the so-called "deep state" conspiracy theory should be tempered with the fact that he was, literally, the target of a deep state conspiracy - not a shadowy one involving lizard people but one involving three or four high-ranking FBI agents who worked together to try to "prosecute him or get him fired" (in the end, they did both). Korny O'Near (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I am focused on current coverage because there is very little coverage of him other than current coverage. He was barely even notable for the vast majority of his life. There were less than 150 edits to his Wikipedia page between its creation in 2010 and 2016. He is a person who only very recently even got wide press coverage, and the press he gets now evidences how central conspiracy theories are to his current public image, and it seems to be the path he has consciously chosen to follow. NonReproBlue (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:RECENT; almost all of that essay applies here. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The part that applies the most? The part right at the top where it says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". However, even taking its advice into account, are you saying that we should create a separate breakout article titled "Michael Flynn's Promotion of Conspiracy Theories" to cover the recent events as the essay suggests? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
That's just one of the solutions listed; not the right one in this case, of course. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Please be careful when asserting he was, literally, the target of a deep state conspiracy by citing language from a document that was provided directly to Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, rather than to the Sullivan court, by Jeff Jensen, a designate of Bill Barr, whom Powell had written seeking help to exonerate Flynn and he provided it, allowing Powell the ability to selectively leak documents to create a misleading characterization by omitting the full context of what the FBI discussed. And even the parts that were released are not conclusive. soibangla (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
That's one long sentence; I didn't really follow most of that. But I think the facts make clear that this was a set-up. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of anything the FBI may have done, Flynn was prosecuted by the Trump DOJ, which had the option to drop the matter long before Mueller showed up. They didn't. soibangla (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
That's sort of the "deep state" theory in a nutshell, no? Millions of people nominally working for the president, but in reality in some cases actively working to subvert the president. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You mean like Trump's hand-picked AG Jeff Sessions and hand-picked deputy AG Rod Rosenstein? soibangla (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I will grant you that the belief that every single person in government should blindly support the president regardless of the legal implications (and branding anyone who doesn't as an "agent of the deep state") is exactly the type of dictatorial fantasy that many deep state conspiracists share. However, that idea is at odds with both the ideals and realities of our check-and-balances based government. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Rosenstein was misled by the FBI. Anyway, this is not really the place for this kind of in-depth discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, it is the place for it if you are trying to use "He is kinda right" as a reason to not to call him a conspiracy theorist despite the fact that reliable sources do. NonReproBlue (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there evidence Rosenstein was misled by the FBI? Apart from what Sidney Powell might assert, I mean. soibangla (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the names of Flynn's two children. Of these, his son Michael Flynn, Jr. has been in the news since 2017 and does merit at least a brief mention. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence

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's a consensus against labeling Flynn as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence in the article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)



Should the first sentence of the article contain the words "and conspiracy theorist"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging editors who added or removed or commented about "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence since mid-January: 2600:1702:22A0:5DD0:21E3:C809:F60C:6EFD Attic Salt MorganDWright NorthBySouthBaranof 2603:8000:1b00:3c00:6cfd:8a79:26d2:662e 603:9008:1908:14bd:ad53:545b:7c8:2d1 WikiEditor20212021 NapoliRoma Politrukki Willform NonReproBlue Billmckern Korny O'Near -- I added this RfC after giving notice in the thread above this: Conspiracy theorist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is overused and has become meaningless for this reason. He has a theory that things are a conspiracy? Well lots of things are conspiracies, whether in theory or in fact. I have a theory that the post office conspires to deliver my mail every day. Means nothing, and it certainly doesn't belong in the lede of a biography. MorganDWright (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    You clearly have no clue what is meant by conspiracy theorist. For that matter, your postal service quip seems to indicate you don't even know the meaning of the word conspiracy. Knowledge of both those things (but especially the former, as conspiracy theories have very little to do with actual conspiracies) would be prerequisites for engaging in this discussion. (By the way, to be clear: conspiracy "theorists" do not actually believe the garbage they spread; the intent is to sucker mass numbers of gullible people into believing them). Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    He's entitled to his opinion, regardless of accuracy in YOUR opinion. Buffs (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Wholeheartedly agree. An encyclopaedia is no place for labelling people conspiracy theorist or not. The label should be banished from Wikipedia (and be regarded for what it is: vandalism). Guarapiranga (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:LEADSENTENCE MOS:BLPLEAD MOS:OPENPARABIO. And the phrase "Where we go one, we go all" was a ship's motto according to a 1996 movie review (the ship was Eye Of the Wind), and Mr Flynn remarked ""Now that's a great phrase, isn't it? ... And they'll tell you you're a conspiracy [theorist], you're all kinds of crazy. I mean...wow it's incredible." The lawsuit related to the supposed oath is scheduled for 01 June 2021. I'll say no more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a remarkable "coincidence" he tweeted a video of himself and others reciting the motto, with the hashtag #TakeTheOath, as many others had days after Q requested it. soibangla (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Also remarkable that just a few days ago he is slated to he was be a headline speaker at a QAnon conference. But remarkable coincidences don't matter. What reliable sources say matter, and reliable sources say he is a conspiracy theorist. NonReproBlue (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. It's very clear that Flynn is a committed conspiracy theorist. That's a fact, not an opinion. Here's a partial list of the false conspiracies to which Flynn subscribes. Billmckern (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:LEADSENTENCE, etc. It's obvious to me that he subscribes to one or more conspiracy theories; it's equally obvious that this information is not important enough, or central enough to his life and career, to be listed in the lead sentence. This sentence is almost always reserved for basic information like date of birth, nationality and occupation(s); the fact that he has been talking about some conspiracy theories over the last year or two doesn't belong there any more than noting that, say, he likes watching classic films. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Classic films. Really? A person of authority who promotes and perpetuates lies with the specific intent of stirring up furor among the masses and incites them into committing acts of violence, attempts to overthrow the government, and threaten civil war - is no different than 'being a classic movie fan'. That's almost like saying that holocaust denial (which is also a conspiracy theory), and promoting ethnic cleansing is no different than enjoying tea and croquet. It's absurd on its face. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
If you think he's committed treason, encouraged violence, etc., you should argue for including that in the lead sentence, or elsewhere in the article - because "conspiracy theorist" doesn't really cover any of that. It sounds somewhat like you just want to put something negative in the lead sentence in order to punish him for his wrongdoings. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Caveated oppose His recent conspiracy theorizing is not among the most clearly most notable things about him. The reasons for his resignation as NSA, however, are. The theorizing should be mentioned deeper in the lede, where it would fit into what appears to be a chronologically ordered lede. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Reliable sources are pretty much unanimous about this, and they don't mince words. We shouldn't either. NonReproBlue (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Qualified oppose I think the first paragraph of the lede needs to be rewritten so that it provides, as I think is standard, a brief overview of who Flynn is. Right now, the first paragraph is mostly about his military career -- it doesn't really summarise his controversies. Then, in a rewritten first paragraph, the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist should be mentioned, though that does not need to be mentioned in the first sentence. Attic Salt (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Support The fact that he's a conspiracy theorist shouldn't be shy upon.Sea Ane (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:DUE, WP:LEAD, WP:LEADSENTENCE, MOS:BLPLEAD, MOS:OPENPARABIO, WP:RECENTISM and many more of the opposes. While he may subscribe to some conspiracy theories, the bulk of his life has nothing to do with it and neither should the lead of his article. Furthermore, "the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory" is atrociously vague and doesn't even have a blue link (for something so major, I would expect an article that should be linked and more specifics). Buffs (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    I am a little confused about what you mean by "atrociously vague" (it's not vague, it is a specific conspiracy theory) and "doesn't even have a blue link" (QAnon definitely has a blue link, and is in fact linked in the article at first mention). He pledged an oath to a specific conspiracy theory that is "a disproven and discredited American far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles was running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office", how is that vague? What is the confusion? NonReproBlue (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    "Flynn pledged an oath to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory..." There's certainly more than one outlandish conspiracy theory discussed on QAnon. None of this detail you are stating (without a source) is ANYWHERE in the article. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place (properly weighted and reliably sourced), but unless expanded in the body of the article, it doesn't remotely belong in the lead per the multiple guides listed above. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean by "discussed on QAnon", QAnon is not a website or social media platform on which discussion takes place. It is a single conspiracy theory (which incorporates and combines aspects of many other conspiracy theories) that was spread on online image boards like 4Chan 8Chan and 8Kun. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the sentence as written. "the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory" does not mean "as opposed to the other, non-pro Trump QAnon conspiracy theories". It means "the QAnon conspiracy theory, which is pro-Trump".I also don't know what part you are saying I don't have sources for. I have already provided sources saying Flynn is going to headline a QAnon conference, there are numerous sources already in our article discussing his QAnon pledge, and the quote I just provided in my above reply (which describes what QAnon is) is from the first sentence of our QAnon article where it is incredibly well sourced. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    You're picking apart one single point of many I made. QAnon is better described as a large group of people who BELIEVE in a variety of rightist conspiracy theories. Even with that though, the rest of what I pointed out further describes why it doesn't belong in the lead of the article, especially given that there's nothing much in the article itself (less than the lead) + several other points. Respond if you wish; I've made my point and stand by it. I don't disagree that it should be in the article, but the prominence in the lead is completely inappropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    I guess we'll just have to disagree. I completely disagree with your description of QAnon. QAnon is a single conspiracy theory that blends elements from many other conspiracies, and that openness has lead to QAnon followers to have a diverse set of beliefs regarding the various specifics of the conspiracy. However, the base belief of the conspiracy, which is ubiquitous to all followers, is that there is a secret cabal of child eating pedophiles who Trump has been waging a secret war against. Followers may disagree about specifics such as who Q is (for instance whether they believe it is JFK jr, Jim or Ron Watkins, the people behind Cicada, Mike Flynn himself or even Trump), the basics beliefs (deep state eats children, Trump is the one to fight them) are still there. Much like Holocaust deniers may not express their Holocaust denial in exactly they same ways or with exactly the same terms or specifics, but still share the basic belief that actual history is a lie. Regardless, to me, all that matters is that the vast majority of RS say that he is a conspiracy theorist who made a public pledge to QAnon and who continues to actively promote it, and the vast majority of RS provide the same description of QAnon that I related here. NonReproBlue (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. There's no question of its validity, and the spread of conspiracy theories - that he took part in - hath had an impact FAR greater and affecting more people than anything else he's ever done. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've already voted, but I think it's worth noting that I'm not aware of a single reliable source that has ever referred to Michael Flynn as a "conspiracy theorist". There are certainly sources that say he believes in one or more conspiracy theories, but not one, as far as I know, that describes him with that phrase. If anybody knows of one, feel free to point it out here. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:LABEL, we cannot describe him through the label "conspiracy theorist" unless the label is widely used by reliable sources when describing Flynn. Note for whoever closes this, all of the support !votes so far have been original research, essentially saying that "of course he's a conspiracy theorist I know that". To use that label, it needs to be widely used by reliable sources, and I've so far seen zero reliable sources cited above to support the label – the one(!) RS linked to in this whole RfC (this politifact piece) does not even use the label. There have thus far been zero policy based arguments for the inclusion of the label, which is kind of disappointing. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLPSTYLE, MOS:LABEL, and--most importantly--it fails WP:V. I haven't seen any RS that unambiguously refer to him as a "conspiracy theorist." To say that he's a "conspiracy theorist" because he supports certain conspiracy theories would be a form of WP:OR. Sources need to first widely label him as a conspiracy theorist (like they have for Alex Jones) before we can. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose An encyclopaedia is no place to label people "conspiracy theorists", even if reliable sources do so. Reliable sources are a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for inclusion on WP. Guarapiranga (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

Early Life: His brother is a general, not a lieutenant general 2003:E8:E742:6B6C:D918:2EA4:7B2C:EBA1 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 07:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh. I just did it without realizing you'd declined this. It's stated with RS in Charles Flynn's article. (The cited source in this article is from one promotion ago anyways.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What?

Who writes this nonsense? It is utterly ridiculous that Wikipedia articles are becoming increasingly political garbage and has some time ago become a historical record tool for certain groups and not an encyclopedia.


On July 4, 2020, Trump sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in which he was defeated, Flynn suggested the president should suspend the Constitution, silence the press, and hold a new election under military authority. Eck (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you disputing the truth and sourcing of that passage, or are you just red, mad, and nude online that we're telling the truth about Flynn? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Just responding to the "Who writes this nonsense?" question ... without acknowledging it's nonsense, I can say that the bit about QAnon was in an edit by Soibangla on 29 December 2020. In an earlier post I mentioned "The lawsuit related to the supposed oath is scheduled for 01 June 2021." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Mike Flynn is not a party to the suit. It's his brother and sister-in-law and they make no assertions about Mike. soibangla (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
If I knew nothing about Flynn and read that lead I'd think "this cannot be real." But it is. He's a...fascinating man. soibangla (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
From QAnon:

In June 2020, Q exhorted followers in a post on 8chan to take a "digital soldiers oath"; many did, using the Twitter hashtag #TakeTheOath.

Over ensuing days/weeks many people, including Flynn, tweeted videos of themselves reciting the exact same oath Flynn used, and included the #TakeTheOath hashtag as Flynn did. You can't find the #TakeTheOath tweets anymore because Twitter took them down. Flynn recently created a "digital soldiers" website (with those words in the domain name, though I will not provide the link here) that originally contained a mission statement under his signature, but now says only "under construction." He is also promoting QAnon merch and attending QAnon conferences, including one in Dallas days ago during which an audience member asked him "why we can't" have a military coup like Myanmar did in February, to which Flynn replied "no reason," though he maintains he was misquoted, but it's on video. QAnon followers have been suggesting in recent months that a Myanmar-style coup might be a good idea to rectify what they believe was a stolen election, and Flynn is among those who assert it was stolen, along with Sidney Powell and others, and Flynn is scheduled to appear as a headliner at at least one event organized by Clay Clark (who?) that also feature such luminaries as Mike Lindell and Sherri Tenpenny who asserts COVID vaccines magnetize people and connect them to 5G cell towers. soibangla (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

clearly Mr. Flynn is an unwell man and this sort of biography is uncouth rubbish. Wikipedia is a professional encyclopedia, not a left wing hit job. Eck (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no left wing hit job here, it is an extensive collection of well-sourced facts that may make some uncomfortable, but characterizing him as unwell could be construed by some as a BLP violation.soibangla (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Michael Flynn is listed as a Democrat? He is not. Someone changed this? 24.40.234.147 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Some might say he's a DINO, but there's still no evidence he's changed his registration from what was last reported. soibangla (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It might be worth removing from the infobox as his political views are a bit more complicated than the infobox can convey Cannolis (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 Note: I've set this edit request to answered due to request awaiting input from interested users, per the template. —Sirdog (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"an article that doesn't even mention Michael Flynn is poor sourcing"

I disagree with Peter Gulutzan's assessment that this content should be excluded simply because the source doesn't specifically mention Flynn. The source discusses Flynn associate Waldron, and their relationship is explained in some depth in the final paragraph of the section, thus helping to explain the web of Flynn's relationships, influence and activities. I suggest the content be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that indeed there's a lot in this article already about a person named Phil Waldron, and I'm dubious about that too, but here we're only talking about a specific thing that Mr Waldron said. I'm contending that a relationship between these men doesn't mean there's a relationship between the statement and Mr Flynn, that would be a guess, and even BuzzFeed doesn't make one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Mike Flynn?

Currently, the name at the top of the infobox is Mike Flynn. Why isn't it Michael Flynn? —71.105.198.152 (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed good catch soibangla (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Flynn pleads Fifth when asked about peaceful transfer of power - MSNBC

Video of Michael Flynn - He pleaded the Fifth when asked about the morality and legality of the violence on Jan. 6 at the Capitol and the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/flynn-pleads-fifth-when-asked-about-peaceful-transfer-of-power-143012421781 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.181.109 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done soibangla (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Reverted. Article already says "exercised his Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer questions". He says "the fifth" repeatedly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no good reason to remove specific examples of him taking the Fifth, especially when he refuses to say if he believes in peaceful transfer, of all things. I recommend the edit be restored. soibangla (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
So the question is whether, after "... he appeared before the committee in March 2022 but exercised his Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer questions.", it is good to add "He specifically declined to answer whether he believed the January 6 violence was legally or morally justified, or whether he believed in the peaceful transfer of presidential power." All we have is a video clip (which doesn't seem to be of the whole proceeding) provided by Liz Cheney on June 28 (which is yesterday); there is a transcript on CNN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it is notable that he refused to even say whether he believes in peaceful transfer, as well as whether the use of violence to achieve political ends is legally or morally right. What do others think? soibangla (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
It's very significant for any American, especially someone who has enjoyed top security clearance and sworn oaths to defend the Constitution. It shows a mentality reminiscent of Putin's closest allies. For an American, that's a treasonous mindset and justifies mention here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I acknowledge that three editors want it in and I'm the only editor who wants it out. As long as that ratio holds, I will not try to revert or edit a re-insertion of soibangla's contribution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Flynn's connections to the Council for National Policy

Perhaps a small mention of Flynn's ties to the Council for National Policy would be appropriate in the article? The think tank is a secretive, tremendously powerful, invite-only organization; famously Ginni Thomas is affiliated with them.

Here is a source: How the CNP, a Republican Powerhouse, Helped Spawn Trumpism, Disrupted the Transfer of Power, and Stoked the Assault on the Capitol

"Other measures were being set in motion. A familiar figure resurfaced: Trump’s first national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Flynn, too, had a history with the CNP. In July 2016, Flynn appeared on a CNP panel on 'Terrorism and the Condition of the Military.' Academic researcher Allpress found Flynn listed in a Zoominfo database of 'email addresses and direct dials for the Council for National Policy employees' with a CNP phone number (first listed on November 26 and still active as of February 11—throughout the period when he was appearing at the Stop the Steal protests, including in the January 6, 2021, WildProtest rally)."

Thank you! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

These "connections", even if they had better sources, wouldn't look close or significant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's difficult to get the official list of who they've put on payroll.  : )
I will keep looking for better info, or just wait for the next leak haha. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Please change Democratic to Republican under "Political Party". Flynn serves on the executive board of the Republican Party of Sarasota County, Florida. (see: https://www.thedailybeast.com/making-michael-flynn-a-sarasota-poll-watcher-is-lunacy). Per Florida law, party executive committees are party offices that may only be held by registered members of that party. Yohannanx (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
If you want to get technical, his membership on the party's executive committee it itself a direct statement of his party affiliation, even without the supporting citation to state law. Yohannanx (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You Know it's Time to Unlock a Page When ...

... you list Flynn as a "Democrat." Whatever his thoughts during his time with Obama, he clearly through them out the window in favor of Trump and Qanon years ago. This guy is not a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.217.76.52 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It will allow you to edit if you create an account. However, I tried to correct this and my edit was immediately reverted by an admin. Her/his explanation for the revert was that there is no “source” to support that he’s Republican. Brreeves (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please review the article and discussions on this page. There are no sources to substantiate any change in his registration. And I'm not acting as an admin - this is a normal response to an unsourced change. Acroterion (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay…well I was simply what she/he needed to do in order to make an edit on this change AND what would happen if she/he made this edit. Brreeves (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a source that states Flynn acted as Trump's surrogate on the campaign trail - he must be a Republican to do that. https://ballotpedia.org/Michael_Flynn_(National_Security_Advisor) 75.163.128.67 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is another source saying Flynn is a Republican: https://thehill.com/people/michael-flynn/ 75.163.128.67 (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned in my latest edit, Flynn joined the executive board of Sarasota County, Florida's Republican Party in September 2022. Surely that would also count as evidence of him currently being a Republican, no? Jenny Death (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a party office under Florida law. He literally cannot hold the office unless he's a registered Republican. Yohannanx (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
What you are saying here is WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
His membership on the party's executive committee it itself a direct statement of his party affiliation, without needing to know anything about Florida law. Yohannanx (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Republican Patry of Florida document: PARTY RULES OF PROCEDURE REPUBLICAN STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (As Revised by the State Executive Board on January 6, 2018). Rule 9 states: “RULE 9 – Oath of Party Loyalty
A. Form of Party Loyalty Oath
As a condition of membership on a Republican Executive Committee, each County Republican Executive Committee and State Republican Executive Committee member must sign and file an oath of party loyalty in the following form:
I swear or affirm that during my term of party office I will not actively, publicly, or financially support the election of any candidate seeking election against:
(1) The Republican Party’s nominee in a partisan unitary, general, or special election that includes a Republican nominee;or
(2) A registered Republican in a non-partisan election, except that this provision does not apply to judicial races under Chapter 105, Florida Statutes.
I further swear or affirm that, in a contested Republican primary election, I will not support the nomination of one Republican candidate over another in my capacity as a Republican Executive Committee member unless the Executive Committee has voted to endorse that candidate in accordance with RPOF Rule 8. This provision does not preclude me from supporting in any manner my personal Republican candidate of choice in a contested Republican primary election, provided I do not express such support with public reference to my title or office within the Republican Party of Florida.
B. Filing Instructions for Party Loyalty Oath
Each Republican Executive Committee member required by this Rule to sign a party loyalty oath must file the oath with the Chairman of his or her respective State or County Republican Executive Committee (or the Chairman’s designee) no later than 30 days after election to party office. The party loyalty oath shall be witnessed, verified, or notarized.”[18] TheInternetGnome (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is this even in question? It’s clear his party affiliation had changed since the 2016 source. He’s in the Sarasota GOP leadership… Yet another source [19] TheInternetGnome (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Where in that AP article does it say that Flynn is a registered Republican? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
“In the following weeks, dozens of people submitted paperwork to join the executive committee of the Sarasota County Republican Party, including Flynn, several Flynn family members, Hoel and his wife. The Herald-Tribune newspaper was first to report Flynn’s application to the committee.
On Sept. 8, Hoel and Flynn were sworn in to the party’s executive committee. Flynn signed up to be a poll watcher.
A Sarasota Republican Party spokesman, Rod Thomson, would not comment on whether the party endorses the views Flynn espouses. He said the party was just following its rules when it approved Flynn and Hoel to the 270-member executive committee.”
and as I stated above:
“Republican Patry of Florida document: PARTY RULES OF PROCEDURE REPUBLICAN STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (As Revised by the State Executive Board on January 6, 2018). Rule 9 states: “RULE 9 – Oath of Party Loyalty
A. Form of Party Loyalty Oath
As a condition of membership on a Republican Executive Committee, each County Republican Executive Committee and State Republican Executive Committee member must sign and file an oath of party loyalty in the following form:
I swear or affirm that during my term of party office I will not actively, publicly, or financially support the election of any candidate seeking election against:
(1) The Republican Party’s nominee in a partisan unitary, general, or special election that includes a Republican nominee;or
(2) A registered Republican in a non-partisan election, except that this provision does not apply to judicial races under Chapter 105, Florida Statutes.
I further swear or affirm that, in a contested Republican primary election, I will not support the nomination of one Republican candidate over another in my capacity as a Republican Executive Committee member unless the Executive Committee has voted to endorse that candidate in accordance with RPOF Rule 8. This provision does not preclude me from supporting in any manner my personal Republican candidate of choice in a contested Republican primary election, provided I do not express such support with public reference to my title or office within the Republican Party of Florida.
B. Filing Instructions for Party Loyalty Oath
Each Republican Executive Committee member required by this Rule to sign a party loyalty oath must file the oath with the Chairman of his or her respective State or County Republican Executive Committee (or the Chairman’s designee) no later than 30 days after election to party office. The party loyalty oath shall be witnessed, verified, or notarized.””
And I will link the PDF again…
here[20] TheInternetGnome (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Florida voter registration data is also available to the general public and posted to searchable indexes. Here’s Flynn’s: https://voterrecords.com/voter/117377716/michael-flynn Yohannanx (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s what I was looking for last night as another source. TheInternetGnome (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Flynn/Archive_8&oldid=1194776613"