Talk:Ashley Rindsberg

Deleted Paragraph under "Works"

Deleted the following paragraph because 1) it was not sourced, 2) NYT never, never "reported Poland invaded Germany" and 3) William Shire never wrote any such nonsense in his book.

The book was a response to Rindsberg learning from William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that, at the outset of World War II, the New York Times reported Poland invaded Germany.

Here is a link to the September 1, 1939 NYT headlines proving that NYT never "reported Poland invaded Germany" but did report Germany invaded Poland. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Read beyond the headline (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0901.html for those without a subscription): Berlin, Friday, Sept. 1--Charging that Germany had been attacked, Chancellor Hitler at 5:11 o'clock this morning issued a proclamation to the army declaring that from now on force will be met with force and calling on the armed forces "to fulfill their duty to the end.", and then the entire section under the sub-headline "Border Clashes Increase".

As to your claim that "William Shire never wrote any such nonsense in his book", I'll point you to the end of Chapter 16, in which he writes:

The "Polish attack" on Gleiwitz was used by Hitler in his speech to the Reichstag the next day and was cited as justification for the Nazi aggression by Ribbentrop, Weizsaecker and other members of the Foreign Office in their propaganda. The New York Times and other newspapers reported it, as well as similar incidents, in their issues of September 1, 1939. It remains only to be added that according to the testimony at Nuremberg of General Lahousen, of the Abwehr, all the S.S. men who wore Polish uniforms in the simulated attacks that evening were, as the General put it, "put out of the way."

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, Ahecht: Wasted Time R changed the paragraph on 6 October 2025 to suggest that New York Times said otherwise, it was a footnote, etc. This seems to me to contradict what's above, but at the moment I don't have Mr Shirer's book to do some original research with. I favour reverting but if Wasted Time R can get consensus as WP:BLPUNDEL requires, don't see it as a big deal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I now have a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in front of me. Near the end of Chapter 16 "The Last Days of Peace", in a footnote, are the exact words which Ahecht has quoted. Perhaps BetsyRMadison saw a Reader's Digest edition? Anyway, BetsyRMadison is wrong, Ahecht is correct, Mr Rindsberg is correct, and I fail to see the relevance of whether Mr Shirer is correct. I believe the fix is to revert Wasted Time R's edit, but let's see whether there are objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we agree on what Shirer wrote in that footnote. But if you do the reversion you are proposing, the article will go back to saying, in wikivoice, While reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Rindsberg learned of The New York Times' misreporting that the Second Polish Republic had invaded Nazi Germany, rather than the Nazi invasion of Poland as happened. But Shirer did not say that the NYT misreported the start of World War II by saying that Poland invaded Germany. All Shirer said is that the NYT reported these particular border incidents. And once you fully examine the NYT issue for that day – which you can see at https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1939/09/01/issue.html – you will see that their reporting of these border incidents was a minor part of their total coverage of the events going on, which overall reflected the true nature of the invasion and which was led by the banner headline "German Army Attacks Poland". Also, don't you think that if the NYT really had gotten this so badly wrong, really had reported that Poland invaded Germany instead of the other way around, that this would be much better known? It would be a famous newspaper mistake on the level of Dewey Defeats Truman. And it would have been talked about for years as one of the NYT's major blunders, like the Duranty Stalin/Ukraine reporting, like missing the Holocaust, like the Judith Miller reporting on Iraq WMDs, like the Jayson Blair fiasco, and so on. But it hasn't been, because it didn't happen. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Mr Shirer says that the New York Times reported the "Polish attack" on Gleiwitz. As I said, I fail to see the relevance of whether Mr Shirer is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

... I realize now though that a better fix would be to go back to before BetsyRMadison's edit so the whole thing will be: "The book was a response to Rindsberg learning from William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that, at the outset of World War II, the New York Times reported Poland invaded Germany." This has three advantages: it appears to be true, it doesn't contain WP:SYNTH, it's as long as such a minor affair needs to be. I believe the fix is to revert Wasted Time R'sBetsyRMadison's edit, but let's see whether there are objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

... I have restored as I touted on 26 January, with edit summary = Replaced several sentences in The Gray Lady Winked section with text that was there earlier. See talk page = Deleted Paragraph under "Works". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed material

@Fourthords: while poorly-sourced BLP material should be removed immediately if it's contentious, please consider using or for uncontentious material. At first glance it seems like most of the material in question is uncontroversial and might be easy to find sources for.

Regarding the revert of @I.am.a.qwerty:'s Wikipedia material in particular, there might be other arguments for not including it, but I'm not sure it technically breaks any WP:BLPSELFPUB rules? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see some of it already was tagged. With other bits the rationale for removal isn't obvious though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, so I apologize in advance if I fail to answer what you wanted. I removed material that was wholly uncited (or unsupported by the citations present) per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I also removed material that was only cited to the subject himself, which ultimately only verified that (a) one of his grandmothers was of certain nationalities, (b) he once submitted a project proposal, (c) he wrote some books—now otherwise corroborated by third-party reliable sources, and (d) he wrote some blog posts—not otherwise corroborated by third-party reliable sources—which additionally did run into WP:BLPSELFPUB points two & three. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". Since the official website changed over the years, archives from different points in time (as added here) should be considered unique content. Green Montanan (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a EL is live or not, we don't link to multiple archived versions because it changed over time. Nigh all websites change over time; there's no litany of archived versions in every External-links section because it's unnecessary. Since we're linking to the archive of the whole site, readers can browse the site's history from there, as they can with every other archived official link. Lastly, WP:ELDEAD says nothing about multiple archived links, only saying "Such dead links should either be updated or removed. Updates may sometimes include adding an archive URL, but only if a suitable replacement is not available and the archived copy has substantially the same content, user experience, and function as the original." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Fourthords#Ashley Rinsberg

I'm not sure what you were trying to do in this edit. I started a discussion in the article's talk page regarding the issue of the external links. I did not start a discussion about the awkwardly structured sentence in the career section, but if you feel that it's not awkwardly structured, we can discuss it at the talk page. Green Montanan (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought my edit summary would suffice as explanation for that edit. I'll elaborate on it here:

• + replacement of source w/update to status thereof I replaced the source named "Pirate Wires: Writers, live" and updated it.
• + rephrasing to avoid original research The previous version of the article said that "Rindsberg joined the online publisher Pirate Wires as a senior editor between 9 October and 10 November 2024", but that's an interpretation of the cited source; we don't know when Rindsberg joined the Pirate Wires group blog, only when he was added to its list of senior editors. I fixed that phrasing to avoid the original research.
• + {{use dmy dates}} update I double checked the article's use of dates, confirmed they were still formatted in dmy, and updated the template to reflect that.
• + WP:ELMINOFFICIAL We're discussing that above.
• + WP:ELNO Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided lists, "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." Thus, I removed the external link which only directed readers to a list of titles all of which required a subscription to view.

For this edit, the summaries which I reused are for the same reasons listed here, and if you need any help with the new summaries I listed, please don't be dissuaded from asking here. Welcome to the WP:BRD process! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This link is not to a paid website. It's a list of published articles. While accessing the individual articles requires subscriptions, interested readers can scan the Wayback Machine and view individual articles. Green Montanan (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That's true, the list of posts itself doesn't require a paid subscription. However, 100 percent of those listed do, and only 22% are available (w/o subscription) in the Internet Archive as you suggested we expect readers to do. I don't personally see the encyclopedic value in linking just to a list of titles without any further context available, but I'm not the end-all be-all; I've inquired w/ WT:EL and will return with any consensus if one forms. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

For anybody else following here, it was recommended that my WT:EL inquiry be addressed at WP:ELN, instead. Therefore, the follow-up to this discussion has moved to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Pirate Wires. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ownership?

I'm really puzzled here. Fourthords seems to have taken over this article with this edit about an American (so mdy dates should be used) and started with their first edit to imposed dmy dates, added double spaces after periods (an archaic practice that the software will change), etc. When other editors have fixed these thing, they have been fighting that battle with other editors since then.

I checked to see if they were the article's creator and had some form of "first main contributor rule" rights and found they were not the creator. They had changed the formatting from the original for some reason, and been fighting with other editors ever since. What is the reason?

So I'm asking User:Fourthords, why this insistence on these things?

BTW, I'm old enough to have been taught to use double-spacing between sentences, but that became an archaic practice with the advent of the internet and is no longer used in American English. This article is about an American, so mdy and American typography, spelling, and grammar should be used. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You're just asking about date formatting and double-spacing?

While Rindsberg's nationality has been described in a reliable source as being from the US, that single demonym is the only tie to that country. Most of the other cited content is related to Israel, and he was born in South Africa; since both of those countries use date-month-year formatting, that looked to outweigh a single demonymic descriptor. As for when other editors have fixed these thing [sic], no other editors have asked about nor changed the date format since I added it; I don't know to what you're referring. For what it's worth, while I think the overall ties evidenced in the prose outweigh a single non-specific citation to The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, it's not a significant weight, and wouldn't oppose its change—though none of the twenty-one other intervening editors have objected in any way.

I added double-spacing between sentences because that spacing helps parse large blocks of plain text, formatting, citations, and more in the monospaced editing interface. It's allowed by MOS:PUNCTSPACE specifically because some editors find it helpful, it causes absolutely no impediments, and it has zero impact on the rendered product for readers. It's an aid for editors, just like HTML comments. I can't speak to any archaism; that's not mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style in relation to spacing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll trust your judgment about his nationality. The double-spaces were started by you, and they have been reverted a few times by other editors, but possibly without any comment about them because their main concern was something else in that same edit. You have reverted back to your preferred spacing each time.

When one reads the links you have provided, yes, some editors like double spaces, but several places explain how it is an old practice that has been abandoned, and I was surprised to learn all the different types of reasons why it has been abandoned. The old practice is what one would expect of an old geezer like me, but one who has not followed along with how the world has changed. In this regard, I have followed along and revised by earlier practices and no long use double spaces.

I'm not going to edit war over it, so carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Puffery

@Huldra:, you said here "after all the puffery that is in this article, some critical thoughts are due......" I'd recommend removing the puffery rather than trying to add a sort of nothingburger of a critique (who is Stephen Harrison and why is his opinion of Rindberg notable?) What particular content in the current article do you think is puffery? Marquardtika (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed it a second time. Adding an opinion piece by a non-notable person is entirely WP:UNDUE. Longhornsg (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: How is it WP:DUE? Please obtain consensus for inclusion. That rule exists. Longhornsg (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Your "non-notable person" is not a rule here. Publishing your article in a RS makes the article notable enough for use here. The article is on-topic and includes an interesting POV. That's the type of content we like here.

Stephen Harrison is a writer and tech lawyer. He's the author of The Editors, a novel inspired by Wikipedia. The added content is in the context of Rindsberg writing about Wikipedia, and Harrison's article is right on-topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. There has never been any policy or guideline saying an author needs to be notable by Wikipedia criteria to be a reliable source. It's concerning that someone with almost 10,000 edits thinks there is. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Focus on content, not editors, @Doug Weller, and don't put words in my mouth. This is a point I have seen far more experienced editors make here, many times. I'm not saying Slate is not an RS. I'm saying including Harrison, especially at its current length, is undue. Longhornsg (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Whatever 3 of us see it as belonging in the article. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, I appreciate the context on Harrison. I can see how his opinion on Rindsberg is notable, and it is properly attributed. I accept it as due in this article. Doug Weller, I find your comment a bit flippant, and I believe we're supposed to be building consensus rather than "vote counting", but onward and upward. Huldra, I'd still like to know what content you identify as puffery so we can address that. Marquardtika (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I was still annoyed by the suggestion an author had to be notable Doug Weller talk 15:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK; Rindsberg major call for notability, is that he is very heavily promoted by various conservative and pro-Israeli sources. I think Henderson is basically right: there are loud words in Rindsberg's criticism of Wikipedia, but little(/no) substance. Of course, various sources like to just parrot his criticism, without looking at the (lack of) substance. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

By pure chance, I was notified of an article about Wikipedia and NPOV, and it cited Larry Sanger and Stephen Harrison: Wikipedia: Is ‘neutrality’ still possible?

Yes, neutrality sounds good, but Wikipedia’s attackers are arguing in bad faith, said Stephen Harrison in Slate, and they really just want to “subordinate” reality to their own politics. Conservative commentators took particular umbrage with Wikipedia for “doing what an encyclopedia is supposed to do” after the killing of Charlie Kirk. It merely documented “what Kirk said.” But what MAGA supporters of Kirk wanted was that the page “should double as a memorial.” This isn’t about eliminating politics. It’s about “eroding public trust in Wikipedia” as an “independent repository of facts.”

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, makes sense. Longhornsg (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Belatedly I add an objection, believing Mr Rindsberg is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." So are there more mind-readers besides Mr Harrison? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Marquardtika, Huldra, Longhornsg, Valjean, and Doug Weller: Not sure where to address, but pinging editors engaged with this article. Rindsberg now runs NPOVMEDIA, dedicated to tracking what it believes to be POV slanting on the enwiki. Can this be added to the article, cited RS or Rindsberg? Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Depends on if there are reliable independent sources covering this (not just Rindsberg himself). Do you know of any? Marquardtika (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A search suggests that it only exists on X/Instagram. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Gotitbro: Is your question intended to be a new topic? If so, could you consider per WP:TALKNEW adding a new section heading before your question e.g. "== NPOVMEDIA ==" instead of making it seem part of the Puffery thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Yes, but since I wanted to tag editors in the know I continued this here. Nonetheless, this is mostly done for now as no media coverage has been observed for this. Gotitbro (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Huldra, I balked when I read the entirety of the Steven Harrison post in Slate, as it is very much an opinion piece, and some of it is factually incorrect... HOWEVER, I do agree with the passage that is quoted in this BLP! It is my take too on subject of BLP but phrased better than I could have done. So, for the sake of anyone wondering, I'm contributing my very alternative view from the right (no, I'm not alt-right) to say that I dislike the source overall, but reluctantly concur that the content (that particular sentence) should be included, as it is astute! Also, there might be a surge of interest in this article, as subject was interviewed wrt to his NPOVMEDIA endeavor and someone prominent posted it on the Twitter today so it got a lot of attention.--FeralOink (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm seeing that Huldra + Valjean + Doug Weller + FeralOink want it in, Marquardtika + Peter Gulutzan want it out, Longhornsg wanted it out but gave up, Gotitbro wanted to talk about something else. I'll hope others comment eventually. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

He is Jewish.

JDiala on 7 March 2025 added: "He is Jewish." It's sourced, and it's not in the lead. However, I've looked at recent arguments in the Village Pump thread Should we have an essay or something on "Jew tagging"? and, though I think some proposed solutions there are extreme, I do think that in this case it's unnecessary. I favour reverting the insertion. Anybody agree or disagree? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal too. Bald reductionist three-word declarations regarding faith and/or ethnicity don't belong in biographies. What might well belong is actual discussion of Rindsberg's faith and/or ethnicity, but only if we have sources to support it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)