Talk:Talbert W. Swan II

Comment: Better, but there are still concerns to the tune of DGG's last review that need addressing. See WP:PEACOCK DrStrauss talk 09:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The coverage Primefac thought to be a source specifically about the Church (masslive.com) is actually the online presence of the Springfield Republican Newspaper, the largest newspaper in the Pioneer Valley and Western MA and a major New England paper. It is NOT a source about the Church, but a credible source. Mjones 17:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: He probably would be considered notable , but this is an advertisement or press release. It includes extravagant quotations of praise, much too elaborate wording , and unnecessary description of the denomination. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Main coverage is mostly revolving around his becoming Bishop Given that said coverage is in a source specifically about the Church, it'swhich in my mind is just routine coverage. Almost everything else is either PRIMARY (e.g. the church he works for) or a brief mention. Valley Advocate is a decent source, though, and more like it would be very beneficial. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Updating comments based on discussion on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This person has received significant coverage in media amd holds a sufficently high church office for notability. Much of the tone issue has been addressed. I believe the best course of action is to allow mainspace editors to trim it down. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't trim.

I did not know who Swan was and I consulted this page to find out. While some rewriting is possible, there was nothing I would want omitted. Burressd (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Not True

Under "Police Reform" in the section on Trayvon Martin, it is written "Stand Your Ground was used as Zimmerman's defense in the killing of Trayvon Martin.". Stand Your Ground was considered and rejected by his defense even before the trial. The suggestion that it was part of Zimmerman's defense was very common at the time, but it's false. RobertLAL (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

High School can't be right if his birthday is

Springfield Central High opened in 1986. That would have made him 21 years old if he was born in 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysus (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Noteworthy Quotation

On May 6, 2022 he Tweeted "Whiteness is an unrelenting, demonic force of evil." AllenIngling (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Talbert Swan is a black supremacist AND he supports Kanye and Farrakhan, both Black people with anti-Semitic "realist" conspiracy theories

https://twitter.com /turtleboyphone/status/1583082391631187968 ^ proof #1

https://twitter.com /search?q=talbert%20kanye&src=typed_query ^ proof #2

remove spaces 47.229.152.107 (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Kanye is not a black supremacist thou. 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:1D94:38B2:1251:69EC (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bishopswancathedra.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Continued deletion of information

Mjones3927 You have continued to delete sourced information including from reliable sources. If you have specific complaints about information, the way is to bring those complaints to the talk page. Do not continuously revert. Doing so violates Wikipedia policy of 3 revert rule and being banned is a potential consequence. You have disruptively edited without taking to talk page. If you have a specific issue to raise than bring here so they can be addressed. Reverting all info is totally disruptive. Furthermore, if you have to ties to Swan or his church (which it seems you potentially do based on your edit history and your claim that you own a picture of him) than that must be disclosed on the talk page. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mjones3927 You have violated the three edit revert rule now. Take your issue here or I will be reporting your account. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You continue to use non credible sources and use conjecture based on opinion pieces. You have no credible sourcing for determining that the subject is "antiwhite" "antisemitic" or a "conspiracy theorists." These labels are opinion that cannot be corroborated and are slanderous, which is obviously your goal. To say that he's been accused of being "antiwhite" and list the source is one thing, but to use it as descriptor in his bio is an attempt at slander that violates bios of living subjects. To say that a writer called him antisemitic and source that writer is acceptable, however, your attempts to malign are unacceptable. Mjones3927 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mjones3927 Thank you for actually bringing the issue here and not just reverting right away. That's how this site is supposed to work and you should review said policies. Which sources are you claiming are "non credible." If they are non credible than info from those specific sources can be removed. Removing all info is not the appropriate thing to do. If multiple reliable sources describe his actions or statements as "antisemitic", for example, than those statements can be included. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mjones3927 Why have you continued to revert? Why are you unwilling to take to talk page? Last warning before you are reported. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mjones3927 You claimed TB is not reliable. Not sure what that source is, but I'll say it's not reliable. Remove that specifically, but not all info that relates to the subject. Again, you should come to the talk page to clarify with other users. Wikipedia is a collaborative. You need to understand that. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You deceitfully use JUSTIA as a source to say the subject was convicted of theft of service to give the public a derogatory opinion, yet your source clearly says the conviction was OVERTURNED. As a matter of fact, the case as linked was about the overturning of the conviction. You clearly have an agenda to slander the subject.

Furthermore, oped pieces are just that "opinion," not biographical data. Has the subject been accused of being antiwhite by critics? Yes. You can say that, but not put that he's "antiwhite" and "antisemitic" as an adjective in his bio along with being a clergyman, etc.

You also continue to delete the reference to the Valley Advocate article as properly quoted and replace it with your negative descriptors. What's your rationale for deleting a properly quoted statement from a credible source? It is obviously to paint the subject in a different light than what the quote suggests. You clearly have an agenda. Mjones3927 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mjones3927 Using the Justia source, there is no mention of the conviction being overturned. Can you point where on Justia it mentions such? If so, then that can be added. I removed the Valley article because the way you inputed it did not make grammatical sense. However, I agree it should be added back. With that said, so should other information. The opinion pieces are in publications with editorial standards. Are you able to prove any of the information stated is false? Or unreliable? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem with credibly sourced info that references OPINIONS "Swan was accused of" or "John Doe stated," however, using OPINIONS about whether or not he is "antiwhite" or "antisemitic" to use them as adjectives to describe him in the bio are not acceptable. They are slanderous and violate rules regarding living persons. Furthermore, your headers are also inappropriate: "Antiwhite Bigotry?" Again, conjecture and opinion. Saying "Controversial statements" is acceptable, however, you, again, are clearly trying to paint a picture, which is also why you continue to delete the Valley advocate quotation. Mjones3927 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mjones3927 The Valley Source was added back and the TB source was removed. I'll fix headings. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You've used TB Daily for more than one reference. I removed the others. Swan was the EDITOR of the book, not the author. There were 23 independent authors. The Justia link clearly says

"Judgment reversed.

Verdict set aside."

Yet you continue to disingenuously add the "Legal Troubles" header and tell a half truth Mjones3927 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mjones3927 The publisher (https://www.amazon.com/Closing-Closet-Testimonies-Deliverance-Homosexuality/dp/0971635528) describes him as the author. Do you have a source for otherwise? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, it clearly says EDITOR on the cover on the link you provided. And if you click the book, on the inside, it clearly lists him as EDITOR. Furthermore, you also make conjecture instead of sticking with FACTS. You say the book "promotes...." You have nothing that corroborates that OPINION. The book does consists of the testimonies of 23 authors, etc. Why not stick to what can be credibly sourced as opposed to editorializing with unsubstantiated opinion. Same with Swan supporting some so called melanin theory. The tweet you referenced doesn't even mention the theory your mentioned let alone corroborates you statement. You went way out on a limb to link the subject to a theory has never event talked about. You cannot even find his name associated with it, so why go there? Mjones3927 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, saying Swan "has expressed support for Hebrew Israelite ideology" is FALSE. I'm sure you're also aware that just because you can source a secondary source like an opinion columnist making that accusation, it doesn't prove it to be true, especially when the columnist cannot point to any primary source where Swan was videotaped, audiotaped, or otherwise expressed that opinion. This is not a good source and a false accusation. Your assertion that he supports Farrakhan is credible because you have Swan's own words, not someone saying he does without the benefit of proof. So if you're going to use that source, use it properly and note that the AUTHOR "accuses Swan of supporting" Mjones3927 (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also "Swan has argued that business owners should be allowed to refuse service to members of the LGBTQ community" sourcing the Washington Post but no specific article or link is not a credible source. The article you previously referenced does not corroborate your statement. More conjecture and opinion. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

CobaltWriterThe header "Alleged Anti White Bigorty" is appropriate as the interpretation of the subjects quotations are subjective. Your interpretation isn't sufficient to remove "Alleged" from the section header. The only contributions you have made to wikipedia have been made today as vandalism to this page. You obviously have a grudge against this living subject.

wikipedia is clear, that even when sourced, "alleged" is appropriate in the bio:

"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred."

"Alleged anti white bigotry" as accused by some is appropriate. Please stop vandalizing the page.

"Salem" source

I've removed the "Salem" source and the associated "Anti-white" racism section; per WP:RSEDITORIAL, a letter to the editor is not a sufficient source to make such a claim in a WP:BLP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a perfectly sufficient source by all standards; it includes the verifiable words of Swan himself. There's no justifiable reason to remove this section, seeing as it's notable, ongoing and well-known. CobaltWriter (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. You'll need a better source for Swan's quotes, preferably one that includes the full context. WP:BLP mandates strong sourcing be attached to those sorts of accusations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a catch-22. The quotes are from tweets which are readily accessible, and the ones listed are relatively tame coming from Swan, but wikipedia will not allow direct links to tweets as a source of what he said. You're effectively covering your eyes and saying there's nothing there. What evidence "counts" in your book? CobaltWriter (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You are free to take this to WP:BLPN if you want to hear the same thing from someone else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question of what source would be adequate, so I can only assume you don't *want* an adequate source. You want your opinion to stick in the article contrary to facts. CobaltWriter (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This user has an obvious agenda of a personal nature against the subject. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That's obviously not true. Just because I firmly stand by my edit does not make me personally involved. CobaltWriter (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That's betrayed by your words regarding the subject "relatively tame coming from Swan" and accusing the administrator, who is objective of "covering your eyes and saying theres nothing there." What does that mean? What's there? Your opinion of the subject is what you're referring to. You have an agenda and we will be watching how you attempt to vandalize this page. Mjones3927 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Your words verify my previous assertions about your lack of objectiveness and personal agenda against the subject. "The ones listed are relatively tame coming from Swan" affirms your obvious bias and rationale for creating a wiki account for the specific purpose of vandalizing the page to paint the subject as you perceive. Thanks for confirmation. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Final warning, stop harassing me. You're continually bringing false accusations against me. CobaltWriter (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a talk page. If you talk on it, I can respond accordingly. What I stated is factual, you came to wikipedia to vandalize the subject's page and are now angry with an administrator for removing a non credible reference you were attempting to use to paint the subject according to you personal agenda. You have no objectivity as determined by your very words. Mjones3927 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You're following me across several pages, inserting yourself into conversations and telling lies about me. You are harassing me by definition. Stop it. CobaltWriter (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm responding on this page only and will continue to do so as I deem appropriate. No one is "harassing" you. Mjones3927 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you if you continue to blatantly lie. CobaltWriter (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Add the following citations under early life, where citations needed verifying education

https://www.masslive.com/news/2015/04/bishop_talbert_swan_celebration_features_bishop_charles_blake_head_of_largest_pentecostal_denomination_in_us.html

https://www.masslive.com/news/2019/03/bishop-talbert-swan-to-take-part-in-online-chat-during-history-channel-airing-of-jesus-his-life.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/17/metro/gordon-conwell-theological-seminary-faces-outcry-after-dismissing-only-full-time-black-professor/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/02/metro/umass-students-protest-racism-sexual-assault-campus/

Each article references the subjects, attendance or matriculation at referenced institutions Mjones3927 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please clarify what citation is supposed to be appended to what sentence. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of Outkick.com

user Pennsylvania2 used outkick.com to modify the bio, adding that the subject, owed child support and had liens for taxes. Outkick is a far right wing non-credible source and the articles reference to a “report” is actually “TURTLEBOY Daily News” a far right wing blog that is also non-credible. Here is a link to the actual “Report” https://tbdailynews.com/springfield-blm-activist-bishop-talbert-swan-owed-81k-in-child-support-evades-taxes-attacks-mayonnaise-dripping-white-people-promotes-homophobia/

neither of these are credible references. Mjones3927 (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)