Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gatoclass (talk | contribs) at 10:17, 20 December 2024 (→Discussion: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 15, 2024 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 9, 2024.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Thomas Sewell attempted to recruit Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, into the Lads Society?

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 2 March 2021 by reviewer Girth Summit (talk · contribs). Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Australia: Victoria / Melbourne / Crime / Politics Low‑importance Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Section sizes Section size for Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) (9 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,462 9,462 Personal life and education 4,583 4,583 Activities 17 6,736 Early 4,100 4,100 Founding of the National Socialist Network and attacks 2,467 2,467 Later 152 152 Views 5,940 5,940 Footnotes 30 30 References 864 864 Total 27,615 27,615

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment or view
• Article history

• ... that Thomas Sewell attempted to recruit Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, into the Lads Society?

• Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/08/christchurch-shooter-was-active-with-australian-far-right-groups-online-but-escaped-police-attention

• Reviewed:

TarnishedPath 12:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC).

• I'll review. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• The article is new enough and long enough, well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, copyvio-compliant, and presentable. The hook is cited by a reliable source, <200 characters, and is interesting. QPQ is not required.

A potential problem with the hook is that it may unduly focus on negative aspects of a living person. I personally think it is fine but I have gotten it wrong in the past so I will request a second opinion from a user better versed in DYK. Note that in this source the subject of the article is personally admitting to what is stated in the hook. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer: I would not believe it to unduly focus on the negative aspects of Sewell, given my understanding of the word, given what he does and what he is notable for. It's not like he is a well regarded person who happened to do one bad thing and we're making it the hook. It's not a crime or something that he denied doing, in any case. Just my thoughts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, good justification. I'm happy to tick it off. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Guard and Motivation Details

TarnishedPath, removing my edits under the guise of WP:UNDUE is not only baseless but increasingly tiresome. The details I added—stating that the guard placed his hand on the camera lens and touched Hersant’s shoulder- are backed by video evidence, Sewell’s corroboration in court, and multiple reliable sources. These are observable facts, not Sewell’s “claims,” as you’ve repeatedly tried to frame them.

The inclusion of Sewell’s statement that the attack was not racially motivated is also fully justified. It was part of his court testimony and widely reported. Whether you like it or not, presenting his position alongside the court’s findings is required for compliance with WP:NPOV.

To clarify what I’m proposing to add: The guard’s actions leading to the incident: "The guard placed his hand on the camera lens Hersant was using to record them and later touched Hersant’s shoulder.” Sourced from Nine News video footage.

Sewell’s position and court findings: "Sewell later claimed the attack was not racially motivated, stating that he would have acted the same way regardless of the guard’s race. Magistrate Ballek noted that the man ‘had no time to defend himself’ but ruled there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. Sewell also claimed he acted in self-defence, a claim rejected by the court.” Sourced from ABC News reporting.

Removing this information fails to meet Misplaced Pages’s standards for neutrality and completeness. If you have policy-based concerns about these specific additions, present them clearly - otherwise, the edits should remain. Evoren (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sewell's testimony in court means jackshit. Of course he would say it wasn't racially motivated and that he was acting in self-defence. The fact that he is a neo-Nazi and has done nazi salutes outside of court demonstrates that he is absolutely full of shit about his attack on a black man, who is accomplice had moments before told to "Dance, monkey dance", not being racially motivated. Sewell has absolutely no creditability and allowing your edit to stay in the article would have been violating WP:NPOV as it is WP:FRINGE.

Introduce the material again without obtaining consensus and you will be reverted. TarnishedPath 07:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, dismissing Sewell’s testimony outright because of his neo-Nazi affiliation and other actions, while understandable emotionally, does not align with Misplaced Pages’s policies. This is a Misplaced Pages page specifically about Thomas Sewell, and including his statements—as reported in reliable sources like ABC News—is directly relevant. The testimony is not presented as fact but as part of the documented court proceedings. Ignoring it violates WP:NPOV by cherry-picking what to include and presenting an incomplete account.

Additionally, the court addressed these claims directly. Magistrate Ballek ruled there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated, while also rejecting Sewell’s self-defence argument. Including both Sewell’s statements and the court’s findings ensures neutrality and balance, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.

Here’s what I propose again, with proper attribution:

"Sewell later claimed the attack was not racially motivated, stating that he would have acted the same way regardless of the guard’s race. Magistrate Ballek noted that the man ‘had no time to defend himself’ but ruled there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. Sewell also claimed he acted in self-defence, a claim rejected by the court.”

This addition adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:V by presenting Sewell’s position alongside the court’s conclusions. Omitting this context while keeping only condemning details skews the article, which goes against Misplaced Pages’s purpose of providing a balanced, accurate account.

If you disagree, I welcome a policy-based argument. Otherwise, removing sourced, directly relevant material on a page specifically about Sewell is unjustified. Evoren (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Take your WP:WIKILAWYERING elsewhere. Add the material without consensus and you will be reverted. TarnishedPath 08:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened regarding the above disputed material. All input is welcome. Evoren (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the article include the guard’s actions (grabbing the camera lens and touching Hersant’s shoulder) and the court’s findings regarding Sewell’s claims on racial motivation and self-defence?

Evoren (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Discussion

The proposed additions aim to provide balanced and complete context for the altercation involving Thomas Sewell:

1. The guard’s actions: "The guard placed his hand on the camera lens Hersant was using to record them and later touched Hersant’s shoulder."
   • Supported by Nine News video footage and reliable sources.
2. Sewell’s claims and court findings: "Sewell later claimed the attack was not racially motivated, stating that he would have acted the same way regardless of the guard’s race. Magistrate Ballek ruled that the man ‘had no time to defend himself’ but noted there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. Sewell also claimed he acted in self-defence, a claim rejected by the court."
   • Reported by ABC News and directly tied to the documented court proceedings.

The additions provide critical context for the incident by accurately reporting the guard’s actions and the court’s findings. Including Sewell’s statements—alongside the court’s conclusions—ensures compliance with WP:NPOV and avoids cherry-picking facts that could create bias in an article about Thomas Sewell. Omitting this information risks presenting an incomplete account.

TarnishedPath argues that Sewell’s statements are not credible due to his neo-Nazi affiliation and subsequent behavior (e.g., Nazi salutes outside court). They believe including Sewell’s claims gives undue weight to unreliable testimony and violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

The question for this RfC is whether the inclusion of these verified details sourced from reliable outlets and supported by video evidence—adds necessary context and balance to the article. Evoren (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No to both suggested changes per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

In regards to the guard placing their hands on Jacob Hersant (a neo-nazi associate of Thomas Sewell). The footage does not demonstrate that occurred and we only have claims by Sewell that it did. Notably moments before Sewell's unprovoked assault on the black man, Hersant had said to the guard "Dance, monkey dance" (heard in the footage). Now even if the footage did show what is claimed in the comment above by Evoren, which it doesn't, we shouldn't rely on it by itself as the footage itself is a primary source and WP:BLPPRIMARY counsels us to "xercise extreme caution in using primary sources". Notably Sewell's claims of self-defence were rejected by the court hearing the charges against him and he was found guilty.

In relation to Sewell's claim that the attack on the black man wasn't racially motivated. The article in it's present state doesn't state that it was, so including Sewell's statement that it wasn't doesn't make sense at all. Additionally it would be a WP:NPOV violation as it is offering WP:FRINGE claims by a neo-nazi, that an attack on a black man moments after their accomplice had said to them "Dance, monkey dance" wasn't racially motivated. Notably Sewell did a nazi salute outside of court after he was sentenced for the assault. TarnishedPath 01:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a Misplaced Pages article about Thomas Sewell, so including his documented statements and the full context of events is directly relevant. The guard’s actions—touching the camera lens and Hersant’s shoulder -are supported not only by footage but also by multiple reliable sources, including the ABC. WP:BLPPRIMARY allows primary sources when corroborated by secondary sources, which is the case here.

On the racial motivation claim, presenting Sewell’s statement alongside the court’s findings—both rejecting self-defence and ruling no evidence beyond reasonable doubt of racial motivation - ensures WP:NPOV. Omitting these details while retaining only condemning ones creates a skewed narrative that does not reflect Misplaced Pages’s commitment to neutrality and completeness. Evoren (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, this article does not exist to document every last lie and deception that comes out of that neo-Nazis mouth. WP:ONUS makes that perfectly clear. Additionally WP:NPOV does not require that we cover their blatant bullshit either. Quoting from WP:WEIGHT (the most pertinent part of the NPOV policy), "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". The claims and views of neo-Nazis are not a significant viewpoint, in fact they are well and truly WP:FRINGE, therefore being neutral requires we not put them up as being on equal footing from mainstream claims and views. If we did cover Sewell's claims as being on equal footing that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE and therefore a policy violation. The fact that this article doesn't state that the attack was racially motivated, which it clearly was in any case, should give a strong indication that we should never consider covering the opposing view that it wasn't. TarnishedPath 06:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, while I appreciate your concerns about WP:ONUS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE, I believe your interpretation misses the nuance of the policies in question.

Firstly, this is a biographical article specifically about Thomas Sewell, and WP:ONUS does not mean excluding relevant, reliably sourced information. The fact that Sewell's statement was made in court, reported by reputable outlets like ABC News, and directly addressed by the presiding magistrate gives it enough weight to warrant inclusion—not as truth but as part of the record. Neutrality in this context means presenting the full picture, including Sewell's claims alongside the court’s rejection of those claims. WP:WEIGHT does not call for outright exclusion of minority or fringe views when they are part of the subject's documented history. Instead, it requires presenting those views proportionally. The article can include Sewell’s claims while clearly contextualising them with the court’s findings and broader criticisms, thus avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE.

The argument that “this article does not exist to document every last lie” seems more emotional than policy-based. This is not about amplifying Sewell’s viewpoint; it’s about documenting notable aspects of his biography as reported by reliable sources. Refusing to include this information risks making the article appear incomplete or biased, contrary to the intent of WP:NPOV. Evoren (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Per WP:ONUS, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. My interpretation doesn't miss the meaning of the WP:PAG that I quote, as evidenced by every other editor stating that I sum up why we shouldn't go with your suggestions. I suggest you go and actually read the policies, as it is clear that you haven't, and stop engaging in WP:POVPUSH. TarnishedPath 07:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Please specify how including verified, directly relevant context does not “improve the article.” Evoren (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not going to repeat myself. TarnishedPath 09:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The article in its current state is an incomplete telling of events. You can consult the video evidence aired on innumerable news channels to see that the current description is misleading - it suggests that Hersant made the dance monkey comments and then Sewell just immediately violently attacked the guard. It also doesn't help that such a telling doesn't give insight into the later proceedings and charges laid, where the judge decides that it was not self defence and charges Sewell - the current description would leave readers confused as to how there was ever a self defence claim. Evoren (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're wrong. TarnishedPath 10:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's objectively an incomplete telling… Evoren (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're repeating yourself. TarnishedPath 11:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You've made zero substantive arguments as to why the events - which are already included - shouldn't be reported accurately. You've tried to attack the sources, tried to attack the reasoning, even the policy, yet all have fallen short as to conclusively explaining why key and verifiably true details of the event should not be included in an article about the person whom the events surround. Evoren (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong again and I suggest you address the topic of the RFC and not me. TarnishedPath 12:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a compendium for every quantum of information, and it is not intended to be a courtroom play-by-play. That it is "biographical information" is irrelevant because of those reasons. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• No to both suggested changes per TarnishedPath, I don't think there's much for me to add here. It's most definitely a fringe opinion to add his claim that his action wasn't racially motivated; as if a neo-nazi attacking a black man and doing salutes outside court could be considered nothing to do with racism. GraziePrego (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. TarnishedPath sums it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FropFrop (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes As long as this is reliably sourced and is written in the context that these were Sewell claims. I don't understand how that violates NPOV or "per BLP" either. Much of the opposition reads like "Sewell is horrible, here's the horrible things he said, so it's okay to leave this out reliably sourced information out." Is it really necessary to quote that racist stuff twice in one survey response? This is really a question of sourcing. If the sourcing is good then there's no policy basis for leaving it out. If we have sources we can say what happened in the court case and we can say what the defendant claimed. Nemov (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• No, because there's no point rebutting something we don't even say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. The later Guardian article describes the confrontation in greater detail: After ACA staff declined to meet with Sewell, his cameraman Jacob Hersant began filming Sewell inside the foyer. A security guard walked over, placed his hand over the camera lens and told the pair to stop filming, directing them to an area out the front of the building. The pair eventually agreed to go outside, but the guard followed them after they started filming near the door. They finally listened to the man’s directions and moved further away. The guard then began making a dancing-type motion to the camera. Hersant taunted and mocked the guard, saying: “Dance monkey, dance.” The guard told him “watch yourself, bro, I’m not a dance monkey” and touched Hersant on his shoulder, in an effort to push him backwards, before Sewell leapt in and began attacking the guard.

So it seems to me that in the interest of NPOV a little more detail would be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, there is a second part to the RFC question, asking if we should include Sewell's claims that the attack wasn't racially motivated. What are your thoughts on that? TarnishedPath 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well I don't see that it would hurt to include the claim - readers can still look at the evidence and draw their own conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• No, mainly because there's no point rebutting something we don't even say. per PARAKANYAA, and the claim itself seems to boil down to 'I would have reacted just as badly if the person had been white' , which ain't a great defence anyway. On a general point, Brenton Tarrant seems over-mentioned for someone whose only connection to the subject appears to be the subject's own claims that Tarrant 'almost joined them'. This seems like a blatant attempt by Sewell at whatever the opposite of 'guilt by association' is - gaining some kind of kudos by claiming association with the guilty? Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:National Socialist Network

There is a RFC at Talk:National Socialist Network#RfC on Including the Riverina Chapter in the NSN Infobox. TarnishedPath 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Activist

Activist is not a positive term. Activist is merely advocating for a cause, no matter how abhorrent that is. Agitator is NPOV and is not well attested and editorializing. This change is without consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. In fact I've been in discussions on other articles where other editors have argued in a direction that it is a negative term (which isn't the case either). TarnishedPath 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for kicking off the discussion. "Activist" conveys a flavour of legitimacy within its spectrum of meanings. It is clearly not a descriptor of mere advocacy, which is why it would never be used for advocates and perpetrators of baby-eating. It is not commonly used for violent criminal supporters of anti-semitic genocide & similar horrors (like the subject of this article) but we do commonly use it for active supporters of legitimate causes like free speech or civil rights. Any claim that "activist" can be appropriately applied in this encyclopedia to agitators for monstrous causes (like genocide, mass-murder, the sexual exploitation and/or harm of children, etc.) is clearly ludicrous & a seriously inappropriate & WP:UNDUE prescription for Misplaced Pages.

Therefore, it is a violation of WP:NPOV neutrality to keep "activist" as a descriptor of Sewell, especially in the first sentence of the article's lead. For neutrality & accuracy we need to change it to something slightly more appropriate that describes the subject's behavior documented in the article, like "agitator" (since Sewell has been deliberately engaging in agitprop provocations) or similar. What do other editors think? Bluevista99 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluevista99 That is not true, activist is a neutral term. Pedophile advocates are routinely labeled just that, pro-pedophile advocates or activists. Activist is not a positive term and I have no idea why you would think it would be. See for example, Ian Dunn (activist), Frits Bernard, Peter Hayman (diplomat), Tom O'Carroll, plus tons and tons more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluevista99, in two RFCs about the first sentence of the lead at Andy Ngo (that I've been involved in, but there has been many more) I've had editors arguing in the opposite direction from you that use of the term "right-wing activist" would be a pejorative in relation to Mr Ngo. I don't buy either argument, that it lends legitimacy or that it is a pejorative.

Here's some definitions:

1. Google describes activist as a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change. Notably any instance of political or social change can be both negative and positive (depending on your persective).
2. Cambridge dictions says that an activist is a person who believes strongly in political or social change and takes part in activities such as public protests to try to make this happen. Again no connotations about whether the term is positive or negative, because as above political or social change can be positive or negative. Political and social change is rarely linear.
3. Merriam Webster says they are one who advocates or practices activism : a person who uses or supports strong actions (such as public protests) in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.
4. Collins says that n activist is a person who works to bring about political or social changes by campaigning in public or working for an organization.

Following on from PARAKANUAA's examples, I've seen clearly far-right WP:SPAs attempt to introduce the terms trans rights activists and LGTB activists into articles numerous times (one example is at Moira Deeming) because they see the conjunction of the word activists with other terms that they deem to be left-wing as being a pejorative. TarnishedPath 03:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"Activist" is not neutral, especially in Sewell's case. If it was neutral, this discussion would not be taking place. It has the sense of an accolade that implies legitimacy. Clearly, as the "baby-eating advocacy" example amply demonstrates, in such egregious cases the description "activist" is self-evidently non-neutral & WP:UNDUE because it has shades of meaning & common usage that convey acceptability of opinions & actions. Apparently, promoting baby-eating is still not legitimate, which is why "activist" would never be appropriate usage in such a horrific case. You might use it in satire to good effect, but in a serious attempt to build an encyclopedia, never. Similarly, Sewell is another egregious case & "activist" conveys legitimacy where there is none, therefore it is a non-neutral violation of WP:NPOV as well as a misleading & deceptive description which needs to be replaced to restore both neutrality & accuracy as per his documented malign behavior. Since this involves his calculated agitprop, "agitator" is an appropriate replacement, but I'm open to better suggestions.

On the issue of the creepy child-sex advocates, it's a bit more complex because of the changes in culture, custom & consent laws worldwide over decades, centuries & millennia, e.g. "Platonic love" (that wasn't Platonic), the "beardless youth" fetish, & the "pet children" of Greek & Roman antiquity; of course the kiddy-fiddlers will never stop pushing for a return to something like that, but should we gift them all with the accolade "activist"? If they advocate harming kids & push for the legalisation of child rape, of course we shouldn't!

So, the grossly innapropriate & blanket use of "activist" remains a weeping sore on the face of Misplaced Pages. It's not my first time with this issue, & I continue to have serious ongoing concerns & I'm clearly not alone. Previously I've done a cleanup edit here re the conspiracy lies & criminal harassment endured by survivors/families of the Sutherland Springs church shooting, again replacing the WP:UNDUE "activists" with "agitators", & this has been the accepted text since May 2022. I hope no one is seriously suggesting that this edit & the others there should be reverted. Similarly, I changed the descriptor in the lead for that poisonous fraud Andrew Wakefield given the amount of blood he has on his hands (especially of god-knows-how-many maimed & dead children, e.g. the Samoan measles epidemic), but it was soon reverted with a similar unconvincing excuse. This should also be revisited, as should far too many others.

On the issue of believing "activist" is neutral, is there any possibility that this is a quirk of different varieties of English? North American English seems wildly blasé about applying the term, but my understanding is that British Commonwealth English (including Australian English) is more selective in its perceived meaning of the word, & this article is about an Australasian person & tagged as using Australian English. What do you think?

So, in summary, "activist' is non-neutral (maybe a feature of Australian English?) & should go. "Agitator" (given Sewell's agitprop) is an more-than-appropriate replacement. Anyone got a better one? Cheers! Bluevista99 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluevista99 I’m an American but TarnishedPath is an Aussie I believe, and we seem to have about the same perception of the word. I really don’t think your perception of the word is a widespread one, and you present it without evidence that this is a word with a positive meaning. As we have both shown, this term is widespread on Misplaced Pages even in cases of flagrantly immoral activism, e.g. pedophilia, and perhaps even has a negative connotation. Personally my association is neutral to negative, makes me think of zealotry and extremism. I think giving actual child rapists this descriptor shows that it is not a positive one. Agitator is very clearly non neutral and is not widely used by sources in comparison - it should not be used unless it is widely and overwhelmingly the common descriptor used to refer to the subject. Your edits on Sutherland Springs present NPOV issues, but no one really watched those kinds of pages except for blatant vandalism if it’s not right after it happened. If I was getting that article to GA, which this article is, I would require that blatant editorializing be removed (it is not in the source). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluevista99, in the example I gave of Moira Deeming, she's an Australian politician so I would presume that most of the people editing her article would be likely to be Australian. Yet I've had to clean up the article on a few occasions after someone (good chance of them being far-right) has added "LGTB activists" or "Trans right activists" to characterise counter protestors that showed up to Posie Parker's event in Melbourne. My reason for removing the terms, was because reliable sources didn't use those terms.

On the topic of Sewell, if there were more than a few sources referring to him as an agitator or a provocateur I would have no problem with using either of those descriptors. However that's not the case. There are however sources which refer to him as an activist. WP:NPOV demands that we go with the reliable sources. I'm not going to comment on the article you bring up because I don't edit it or care about it. TarnishedPath 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Australian English
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• GA-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/02 March 2021
• Accepted AfC submissions
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• GA-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• GA-Class Victoria articles
• Low-importance Victoria articles
• WikiProject Victoria articles
• GA-Class Melbourne articles
• Low-importance Melbourne articles
• WikiProject Melbourne articles
• GA-Class Australian crime articles
• Low-importance Australian crime articles
• WikiProject Australian crime articles
• GA-Class Australian politics articles
• Low-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment