Talk:2020s Minnesota fraud scandals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | On 2 January 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2020s Minnesota fraud allegations. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Descriptions of Nick Shirley
There has been some back-and-forth editing over the last few days regarding how the article should describe Nick Shirley. Specifically, the issues I have seen disputed: should he be described as an "independent journalist", a "YouTuber", both, or neither? Should he be described as "right-wing"? Should the lead state that Shirley's video contained limited evidence for his allegations? Should the article mention that he "has previously created anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim videos"?
It'd be good to get a sense of the consensus on all these issues, bearing in mind that we should follow reliable sources, and not our own opinions or judgments. Personally, I think most of this should be left out of the lead, which should be short and simple, but perhaps included, with wording tweaks, in the body, where there is more room for context and detail. I also think "YouTuber" or "activist" are the simplest descriptors for Shirley himself, both in the lead and in the body. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like it's out of the scope for this article. We should just using what ever the consensus ends up being in Nick Shirley. Sibshops (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- We should simply describe him how reliable sources describe him. He's described as right-wing in 10+ sources, far-right, and so on. "Independent journalist" is self-promotional fluff. And yes reliable sources went out of their way to explicitly say his video contained limited evidence, and yes reliable sources also talk about his history of xenophobic videos. ~2026-11493-0 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is/was discussed at Nick Shirley. I removed the descriptor. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- No consensus there to remove right-wing. High Professor (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CIR. Consensus is not required to remove it. Consensus is required to include it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- You need consensus to include "journalist", "independent journalist", your preferred wording, and so on because it has been repeatedly challenged. What you're saying only makes sense if there is already a consensus for a particular wording but since the article is only 7 days old there isn't. If you're going to make a suggestion for a particular wording you should do it based on reliable sources. Jim Rhoads Sibshops made an excellent table of what the sources actually say about this. High Professor (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- See my response here. As far as including it on this page, it is COAT and a BLP violation, especially since there is no consensus to include it on the person's BLP. Also, you seem to be confused with how WP:ONUS work which is understandable for a new user. I am not advocating for inclusion of "journalist," I am objecting to using a political affiliation to describe who the person is. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Malvoliox CNMall41 has BLP concerns with the descriptors you added recently to Shirley, can you self-rv that part? Main discussion apparently on Talk:Nick Shirley, fwiw it isn't in his MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is the edit which I am reverting. Already placed this at the BLP noticeboard this morning concerning Shirly but after seeing the edit warring, protected page, and now revert of something under discussion, this likely needs to go to ANI as things are getting out of hand. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Malvoliox CNMall41 has BLP concerns with the descriptors you added recently to Shirley, can you self-rv that part? Main discussion apparently on Talk:Nick Shirley, fwiw it isn't in his MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- See my response here. As far as including it on this page, it is COAT and a BLP violation, especially since there is no consensus to include it on the person's BLP. Also, you seem to be confused with how WP:ONUS work which is understandable for a new user. I am not advocating for inclusion of "journalist," I am objecting to using a political affiliation to describe who the person is. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- You need consensus to include "journalist", "independent journalist", your preferred wording, and so on because it has been repeatedly challenged. What you're saying only makes sense if there is already a consensus for a particular wording but since the article is only 7 days old there isn't. If you're going to make a suggestion for a particular wording you should do it based on reliable sources. Jim Rhoads Sibshops made an excellent table of what the sources actually say about this. High Professor (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CIR. Consensus is not required to remove it. Consensus is required to include it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- No consensus there to remove right-wing. High Professor (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is/was discussed at Nick Shirley. I removed the descriptor. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Editors are invited to participate in this RfC: Talk:Nick_Shirley#RfC:_Political_descriptor. Some1 (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)- He is, in fact, by the truest definition, an 'independent journalist'. A journalist does not have to have a journalism or any related university degree, nor does he have to be a formal employe of traditional media outlets. He needs merely to be engaged in researching, reporting on, and publishing bonafide news as completely and in as an unbiased a way possible.
- Use of the term 'YouTuber' can be taken much too easily as a pejorative which can have the effect of unfairly disrespecting such new-wave journalists. Jonnie Comet (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete this
How do I nominate this for deletion? I never thought I'd see the day where biased right wing propaganda that has been thoroughly debunked by real actual licenced journalists is presented as fact on Wikipedia... ~2025-31653-63 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's 'right wing propaganda'. If anything, the majority of political topics, including this one are left wing favored. Unfavorable sources are cut out, facts are dismissed for biased news sources. You've just been reading mostly left wing opinionated info on wikipedia. ~2026-24058-2 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not the place for this. WP:NOTFORUM WP:NOTSOAPBOX. UppercutPawnch (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ban this account, obvious white wing troll ~2025-31653-63 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- If any of the sources on this article are not WP:RELIABLESOURCES from propaganda sites, please WP:BEBOLD and edit the article to remove propaganda. If this is about specifically Nick Shirley (due to recent political events), it should be noted that the investigations subsection under his video is almost entirely about how independent investigations do not align with his video. UppercutPawnch (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- I would agree that there is a consistent slant in this article, giving undue weight to the more extreme claims and burying evidence of overblown elements (especially around the Shirley video). I've added an orange tag and there is significant work to be done to clean up this article. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've linked this section in the POV header per Malvoliox above, but there are a variety of sections that could be used. EEpic (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have specific concerns? This section was last edited 2 months ago. Again, the goal of the template is to fix issues, not to make a point. 18:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC) —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- either this page stays up or wikipedia has no place in the internet. I think it's insane that people would have this site deleted than uncovering the truth Ttttleaf (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
RFC - Lead
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.
 | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
- A - My opinion basically mirrors the summary here (CTRL+F for "Nick Shirley" for the summary of this incident). But even the most neutral sources all describe Nick Shirley as a political actor and say that his allegations are debunked. The only other incident of note, the feeding our future thing, was already prosecuted and is already over (Shirley tried to revive things). Also one of the main conspirators in that incident was a white person. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: As far as I can tell these two alternatives seem to stem from which content has more weight in each diff, which is actively disputed over. I think this is better in the form of a discussion to determine which specific content from the disputed diffs should be included before moving onto the lead. UppercutPawnch (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- It is basically asking for a preferred version which isn't suitable for an RfC. There has also been no attempt at discussion, just edit warring so it is not ripe for RfC. I am unable to ping IP addresses or I would advise them to withdraw and start a formal discussion instead. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @CNMall41: Whilst it is true that you can't notify IP addresses, it is possible to notify temporary accounts, such as ~2026-32437-2. Don't forget the tilde. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Afaik that's been discussed in two sections above. This is just about the lead, nothing else. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- The mass reverts include the significant changes to the lead. The dispute between the two major diffs has not been resolved, only delayed by full protection. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. UppercutPawnch (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- It is basically asking for a preferred version which isn't suitable for an RfC. There has also been no attempt at discussion, just edit warring so it is not ripe for RfC. I am unable to ping IP addresses or I would advise them to withdraw and start a formal discussion instead. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- A: as it's the better reflection of independent reliable sources. Luna (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- C / Neither Entire leads don't get frozen in place, word-for-word by RfCs. Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, the two versions will become obsolete as soon as editors start improving and making changes to the lead. If there's a specific change you would like to see (a specific sentence added, removed, etc.), then please start a discussion regarding that specific change. Some1 (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- If I had to choose between A and B, then I would support B. Version A is focused too much on Shirley and his video. Version B provides the readers a more accurate and complete summary/overview of the entire article (which is about the fraud scandals in Minnesota, not "Nick Shirley's viral video"). I understand that some editors might find this part of Version B "inflammatory" and "offensive":
Since 2022, a total of 98 individuals have been charged by federal investigators in connection to Minnesota-based social services fraud schemes, with 62 convictions. 85 of the 98 defendants are Somali-American, leading to criticism and invectives towards Minnesota's Somali community, including from President Donald Trump.
But the CBS article cited does say:
This part, regardless of whether it's offensive or inflammatory (see WP:NOTCENSORED), gives readers context as to why Trump and Co. are attacking the Minnesota Somali community, why Shirley chose those daycares to visit, why the Trump admin responded so quickly to that video, why Tim Walz reacted the way he did, etc. It is noteworthy and DUE. Some1 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)President Trump and other Republican lawmakers have focused attention on the state's large Somali community, as most of the fraud defendants are of Somali descent, drawing stiff criticism from local officials, including Walz, who denounced Mr. Trump's criticism
- "NOTCENSORED" also applies to the fact that many reliable sources said that Nick Shirley's claims have been refuted and that he has a history of immigrant bashing. The attacks against the Somali American community are a political narrative. Even your CBS quote frames it as one while attributing it to Republicans. Luna (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- If I had to choose between A and B, then I would support B. Version A is focused too much on Shirley and his video. Version B provides the readers a more accurate and complete summary/overview of the entire article (which is about the fraud scandals in Minnesota, not "Nick Shirley's viral video"). I understand that some editors might find this part of Version B "inflammatory" and "offensive":
- C (none of the above) - For reasons stated above. This is a "preferred version" of mass content changes bring proposed by an IP. Has not been discussed thoroughly and is too broad. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- A: - I'll agree with Luna here; it seems to be more accurate to the source material and less inflammatory. Assorted-Interests (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- B - a more complete summary of the article as a whole. I don't see what's inflammatory about it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- B is more comprehensive, more accurate, more neutral, and better written overall. Though obviously will get changed, not really an RFC thing in the first place. The A version is just wrong on multiple levels and written in a way that shows lack of knowledge on the topic. Factual inaccuracies like FOF being the first case of fraud in the 2020s. Nonsensical statements like listing "Medicaid" alongside a list of Medicaid funded programs. Overfocus on squabbling between youtuber Shirley and Gov Walz. Omissions and inaccurate representations of source content: Compare A's "State lawmakers passed some bipartisan anti-fraud measures in the 2025 Minnesota legislative session." vs B's "state lawmakers passed some bipartisan anti-fraud measures in the 2025 Minnesota legislative session, but broader oversight proposals failed to pass." cited to a Star Tribune article noting how "many of the broad changes they proposed did not pass."
- KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- A, easily, if forced to pick between them. Yes, it needs some tweaks for clarity and timelines, but it's clearer based on the facts and definitely less inflammatory. And gives better context for Shirley's motivation. Adg1034 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- B is obviously superior per KiharaNoukan - it is more accurate and provides valuable additional context such as details about Feeding Our Future, effects on the Somali-American community, etc. There is nothing "inflammatory" about it. A is completely WP:UNDUE - more than half the wordcount is dedicated to Shirley's viral video, which brought the allegations to the public eye but has been so far entirely inconsequential. The IP is completely wrong that "the only other incident of note" is Feeding Our Future, which is "completely over" - sources describe the investigations and prosecutions as ongoing. Also agreed that this is premature to try to freeze any preferred version in place while things are still evolving. Astaire (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - The question doesn't lend itself to making improvements in the future. I feel like the differences be narrowed down to what changed and why. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- A - The primary notability of this at all was the Youtube video and political attacks/grandstanding, and this better matches that. The rest of this isn't WP:NOTABLE on a WP:RS coverage basis except for Feeding our Future, which already has an article. This article could possibly be merged somewhere. EEpic (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The rest of this isn't WP:NOTABLE on a WP:RS coverage basis except for Feeding our Future
This is simply not true. National media orgs have devoted significant coverage to the fraud scandals as a whole . Astaire (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- B is more accurate and informative. A is overly focused on Shirley, a relatively small part of this story, and the descriptionis politically one sided.Hi! (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- B, obviously. The fraud that cost the state somewhere between $1 billion (per Walz) and $9 billion (per Thompson) is much more important than a few videos and Nick Shirley's intention and background.
- Also, option A is simply inaccurate. This CNN article doesn't call the allegations unsubstantiated. Alaexis¿question? 07:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Partisan political appointees are not reliable sources for those numbers. Not to mention, Walz was referencing Feeding our Future which is already given due weight in the article, as well as it's own article.
- And CNN does:
The video, which includes limited evidence for the creator’s allegations
. A lack of evidence of the definition of unsubstantiation. EEpic (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. We cant freeze a whole lead in place. This needs starting ovee with far more speicic questions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- A Between those two, A due to better specifying that the Shirley video was disproven and that subsequent investigations found no issues, less SYNTH, and being more objective. High Professor (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- A, as the starting point going forwards; we don't freeze a lead in place but we do need to choose between the two of these as the rough basis, and can generally avoid things that would push it towards the other one going forwards. The main focus of coverage of the subject is on the Sherley video (as the weight and focus of the article shows), and option A does a better job of summarizing that and its reception. The idea that it's a minor part isn't reasonable - and doesn't really reflect the article, making B a less accurate summary overall. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2026 (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.
