Talk:2020s Minnesota fraud scandals/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Lede

The lede should say Nick Shirley's claims are bullshit. The article does refute his claims of no children, and that Walz had already had investigated any fraud almost a year ago.

All Shirley really found was a typo, and the lede does not say it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Walz investigated fraud from Feeding Our Future a year ago. The lead section already states that those fraud cases have been fully adjudicated. So I don't understand what your problem is there.

As for the validity of Shirley's claims, the investigation for the extent of truth is still ongoing. There are no sources in the article alleging the "typo" that you're talking about (you have to be more specific), but you're always welcome to add them. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

"Shirley cited locked doors, a misspelled sign, and a nearly empty parking lot" - Locked door because you cannot let any random weirdo (like Shirley) in, and parking lots are empty because the parents need to drive to work and the infants do not have cars. So, the misspelled sign (also called "typo") is all he found. The lead does not mention that his investigation is a nothingburger as described in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is. There appears to be a consensus in the requested move discussion on this talk page that the scandals and allegations aren't merely "bullshit" or "nothingburgers" as you claim, so it would be inappropriate to add the undue and unsourced bias that you desire into the lead. Zero Contradictions (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The only consensus in the move discussion is that this page should be referred to as "Minnesota fraud scandals". There is no consensus whatsoever that Nick Shirley's claims are true. Shirley's video makes numerous egregious factual errors, such as portraying two permanently closed childcare centers as operating and receiving assistance, visiting a daycare three hours before it opened and portraying the lack of children as proof of fraud, and perhaps most egregiously, failing to mention that every daycare shown in his video has passed inspection and been verified as having children present. Shirley seems to have no journalistic standards whatsoever, and the lede should absolutely mention the egregious factual errors in his video, seeing how much of this article is devoted to discussion of it. Hobbes61 20:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

As I already said, the lead section is fine as it is. Unlike you and Hob Gadling, I actually watched Shirley's video. Let's slow down and compare each of your claims to what the video showed.

portraying two permanently closed childcare centers as operating and receiving assistance

At 7:06 in Shirley's video, David and Nick Shirley both noted that there was a second daycare center registered at the same address as Mako childcare center. Over the next minute, David proceeds to list how much money Mako Childcare received in FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. At 7:40 in Shirley's video, David then lists how much money Mini Childcare Center received in FY 2023, FY 2024, and FY 2025.

David and Nick may not have known that Mako Childcare was closed when they visited, but they certainly weren't lying when they noted that both childcares are located at the same address, and that Mako Childcare stopped receiving funds in 2023, while Mini Childcare Center started receiving funds in 2023.

It's also forgiveable that neither David nor Shirley knew that Mako Childcare was permanently closed by 2023, despite still having its sign present on the building. It's also sketchy that the sign of a permanently closed caycare would remain on an empty building for three years (2023, 2024, and 2025) after it closed. If Mini Childcare Center is the currently registered childcare at that location, don't you think the owners would remove the Mako Childcare sign from the building, so that nobody gets confused and so that everybody calls the right phone number? If Mini Childcare Center really is a real daycare center, then they are losing business and money from continuing to display an obsolete sign on their building.

At timestamp 25:35, David and Nick Shirley visited a building that displays the "Creative Minds Daycare Center" sign. David explicitly said that that when "Creative Minds Daycare Center" closed to having so many rule violations, a new Somali-run daycare immediately opened at the same building the next day as "Super Kids Daycare Center". Again, David and Nick Shirley acknowledged when they were visiting a permanently closed caycare. How could anyone say that they're lying when they noted that there was still an active daycare (i.e. Super Kids Daycare Center) at the same location?

As for Quality Learning Center, Tikki Brown said in the article that you linked that it "permanently closed last week". The article was written on December 29th, so it would've permanently closed on Christmas week. Nick Shirley visited all the daycare centers in mid-December, Quality Learning Center should've been open when Shirley visited the location.

visiting a daycare three hours before it opened and portraying the lack of children as proof of fraud

The article that you linked in this comment is talking about Quality Learning Center. Hopefully, you're aware that the prior comment noted that Quality Learning Center permanently closed on Christmas week. Don't you think it's strange that one article says that the manager of Quality Learning Center claims that Shirley visited outside operating hours, while another article noted that the daycare closed at least a week after Shirley visited it?

Moreover, don't you think it's odd that the daycare has hours on Monday through Thursday from 2 to 10pm? There are indeed legitimate daycares with late evening hours, but they are unusual. It's also strange that one article claims that the misspelling in Quality Learning Center's logo "will soon be corrected", while the other article (from the same news outlet) says that QLC "permanently closed last week" (i.e. the week of December 21st).

Also, don't you think it's extremely suspicious how all the Somalis at the daycare centers that Shirley visited told him statements along the lines of:

"I don't know how many children attended the daycare when I used to work there". (timestamp 13:55)
"No, you cannot register your child at this daycare". (timestamp 14:12)
"I'm scared of you too. How come I have to explain everything?". (timestamp 14:26)
"It's none of your business how many children attend this daycare center". (timestamp 15:27)
"No, you cannot speak to the manager at this daycare".
"We don't know where the kids who attend this daycare are".
[The clueless, one-word responses given by the person at Future Leaders Early Learning Center] (timestamp 21:29)
"[I have] no comment (about the fraud that's taking place in Minnesota)". (timestamp 31:04)
"Who are you? .. What child care names? Which department? That is harassment." (Minnesota Child Care Center refused to answer Shirley's question "Where are the children" at timestamp 35:05. They slammed the door shut at timestamp 36:03.)

perhaps most egregiously, failing to mention that every daycare shown in his video has passed inspection and been verified as having children present

Yeah, sure, a Minnesota government commissioner (Tikki Brown) may say that each of the daycares passed inspection. But why should we believe Brown's word, when Brown is from the same government which approved the fraudulent meal sheets submitted by Feeding Our Future? Nobody disagrees that Feeding Our Future was a fraudulent non-profit. The Minnesota government believed that the nonprofit was legitimate, but only until investigations revealed that it's actually fraudulent. Given what we've seen with the Feeding Our Future fraud scandal, it is rather naive to assume that we can trust Minnesota state government when they claim that the daycares are not fraudulent.

Shirley seems to have no journalistic standards whatsoever

I strongly disagree:

In your comments, you linked two articles from the same news outlet which gave conflicting information on Quality Learning Center.
The article that you linked about the state commissioner's response to the video doesn't note that Quality Learning Center was active when Shirley visited it.
It states that David and Nick Shirley visited two permanently closed daycares (Mako Childcare and Creative Minds Daycare Center), but it doesn't note that Shirley acknowledged in the video that the Mako Childcare did not receive funding in 2023, 2024, or 2025. Nor does the article acknowledge that there was a new and active daycare center located at the exact same address as Mako Childcare, which should've been open when Shirley visited it. Nor does the article acknowledged that David and Nick stated that Creative Minds Daycare Center was permanently closed. It's dishonest of KARE 11 to omit information like that. They're telling you a true fact, but they aren't telling you the whole truth, which is tantamount to lying.

Furthermore, most news coverage has mainly focused on the allegedly frauldent daycare centers that Nick Shirley visited. Of 43 minutes of Nick Shirley's viral video, ~30 minutes focused on the daycare fraud. The Somali healthcare companies that Shirley visited at timestamp 30:32 received only ~8 minutes of coverage. Even though the Somali healthcare companies got less news coverage by Nick Shirley and the MSM, the estimated fraud by the Somali healthcare companies was much greater than the fraud collectively received by the Somali daycares. Nick Shirley gave the healthcare companies some coverage, while the MSM have given them nearly no coverage at all. The staff present at each of the healthcare companies also gave unwelcoming and clueless answers to Nick Shirley's questions when he was inquiring about insurance rates. They exhibited the same defensive behavior as the staff at the purported daycare centers.

I recommend that you watch Shirley's video and decide with your own judgment whether it truly has "egregious factual errors", rather than taking the statements in the MSM news articles for granted. I believe that you have been presented with a biased, one-sided perspective on these fraud scandals, while failing to see what other people and perspectives have to say.

The quotes by the Somalis at the daycares that were caught on video by Nick Shirley (which I presented earlier in this comment) should be enough to make you realize that the MSM is lying to you. A legitimate daycare would never allow its workers or owners to say the things that they said to Nick Shirley.

If anything, the rest of the article should be rewritten to talk about the things that I mentioned in my comment. That would be far more productive and truth-oriented than rewriting the lead section to downplay the Minnesota government-enabled fraud by the Somali immigrants. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:NOR - our job is not to analyze the video or the validity of its claims ourselves, one way or another. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources have to say on the topic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of WP:NOR, and yes, I know how Wikipedia works. That's why I did not edit the article to state what I heard at the timestamps that I listed from the video, nor did I state my analysis and comparison of the video to secondary news sources. A couple of users insisted that the video has "egregious factual errors", even though they never watched it, so it was worthwhile to explain why their claims are wrong. Zero Contradictions (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

100% in agreement. This absolutely is not what Wikipedia is. If we're letting this in here, we're just done altogether with standards. Article should be recommended for deletion if it can't be a Wikipedia article. ~2025-43572-55 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. ~2026-11493-0 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling Hey! Let me know if you'd like to work together on improving the article. Luna (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, lots of other stuff to do. Wikipedia only gets a few minutes a day from me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close - strong universal opposition to the proposed move. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC) —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

2020s Minnesota fraud scandals → 2020s Minnesota fraud allegations – At least half of this article is dedicated to Nick Shirley's allegations, which are still unproven. The Feeding Our Children thing is the only scandal that we know for sure there was fraud in, everything else mentioned in this article are just ongoing investigations and speculations. V. S. Video (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - Several of the fraudsters have already been convicted. These are more than allegations. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, per Magnolia677; there have been convictions. Plus, reliable sources are calling all of this, including the Nick Shirley controversy, a "scandal":

Strongly Oppose: There are well over a dozen reliable sources which support the current title. Zero Contradictions (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose or move to 2020s Minnesota fraud controversies. In addition to the convictions related to Feeding our Children, sources appear to overwhelmingly label the others as a scandal specifically. If WP:COMMONNAME is unacceptable in this instance, then I believe that referring to the incidents as controversies is the more neutral term to use here, especially since allegations debatably requires changing scope to exclude Feeding our Children. UppercutPawnch (talk) 05:17, 3 January 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.

~2026-65095 Changes

Hi @~2026-65095:, I actually just read the CNN source; if you do wish to keep the "who has created anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim videos in the past" phrase from it, it should definitely be in quotes.

I question the relevance of it personally, but won't revert if you decide to reapply your edits. Thanks for your contributions. MSWS (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding Maine, Washington, and Ohio articles?

This is a rapidly developing story. We are already seeing similar medicare / child services fraud allegations in Maine, Ohio, and Washington. Will they be lumped into a wider-spread national fraud scandals article, or will each state get its own article with a list of See Also links? As investigations ramp up, the federal government has paused medicaid payments to all 50 states. https://abc11.com/post/child-care-payments-50-states-paused-alleged-fraud-minnesota-us-department-health-human-services-says/18339437/ Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Right now, there are just allegations, not charges. If charges are brought in multiple states in cases that are clearly shown to be related, then maybe we could combine them into this article. But fraud happens every day, and not all Medicaid/Medicare/child services fraud is related, even if it's getting a lot of media attention right now. There are scores of cases each year on the state and federal levels, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are allegations in multiple states, but people have indeed been charged with health and welfare fraud in Minnesota. This can be found on YouTube as "Fraud in Minnesota: New charges filed related to various state programs [FULL]" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfNSM9QO480 -- and the video description reads, "The U.S. Attorney's Office on Thursday [December 18th, 2025] announced new charges related to fraud in several state programs, including five more people charged in Minnesota's Housing Stabilization Services Program, autism program fraud, and a new fraud case related to Integrated Community Services. Authorities are still working to determine how much this fraud has cost. More charges are expected in the future."

The "relatedness" issue is a good handle on the matter.

Ethnic criminal relatedness is one way of looking at it. Right now we are seeing many charges in Minnesota against people from Somalia -- but although not all investigations and charges are directed toward Somalians, "Somali-relatedness" is legitimate to discuss. See the Minnesota press conference with Joe Thomson, first assistant United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota -- and note that although the word "Somali" was not spoken, the names of the defendants on his power point sheet are almost all Somalian.

Another way of accounting for relatedness is "temporal relatedness." In that context, we can see these cases as a recent or post 2020 (post-COVID) pattern of fraud, without respect to the ethnic criminal "relatedness" of the alleged perpetrators. However, treating the cases as merely linked by time-frame may not address the question of so many of these frauds being charged againt Somali immigrants.

Of course, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and i am not attempting to direct the course of article development, but once a story achieves a certain degree of importance to the public, it is to Wikipedia's advantage to plan how the incoming developments will be handled with the least amount of splitting and merging. Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It is difficult to answer all of this without sources. Can you provide some sources (news articles) for us to review? Some1 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Official governmental press conference: "Fraud in Minnesota: New charges filed related to various state programs [FULL]" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfNSM9QO480 Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Fox news isn't a reliable source. WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS Sibshops (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The link is simply to a unedited government press conference, with Joseph H. Thompson, former Acting U.S. Attorney for Minnesota there were no questions asked nor commentary made by any Fox employee. Joseph H. Thompson appears on the article itself; this is his press conference. It seems irrational to to me reject full coverage of a government press conference because of the carrier, so perhaps you can watch the press conference and find a copy of it carried by a media outlet of your choice. Please, do some footwork -- find another station that carried the same press conference. Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess the more relevant point is that the press conference related exclusively to cases and programs in Minnesota. This discussion is about whether the article should fold in any relevant fraud allegations from other states, and whether those other allegations might be connected. Do you have sources related to that you'd suggest using? —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize you were using it as a primary source. Wikipedia needs coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish if something is due. Sibshops (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Useful timeline article from a reliable source

This article from MPR News contains a useful and fairly detailed timeline of all the various fraud cases and investigations in Minnesota, beginning in 2019. I think it'd be a good source for this article and will incorporate some of it myself if I have time soon. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

What am I reading, exactly

This section about the Shirley video sounds like it's coming from a corporate media source. I came here for objective facts about a developing situation, and I'm just going to back away and take my chances elsewhere.

I'm a longtime contributor to Wikipedia and after reading this I thank my stars I never gave money. This whole article is concerning and everyone whose name appears on the edit history should take a step back and read the site's mission and think about what you're even doing here.

~2025-43572-55 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you be more specific in your criticism, please? It's difficult to respond to "this whole article is concerning". —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Why do you keep inserting contested material that doesn't have a consensus? ~2026-24594-2 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. Your talk page comment can essentially be summarized as "I disagree with this article, please fix it". It doesn't offer any specific feedback.

Moreover, you didn't come to Wikipedia looking for "objective facts". You came to Wikipedia with a narrative in your mind, and you're disappointed that the presented information doesn't match your narrative.

Lastly, if you don't like how the article is written, then you should fix it instead of complaining about it. Wikipedia is not an on-demand writing service. Zero Contradictions (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This article does certainly read like it was written with by PR firm/whitewashes the obvious racism. But more productive, I suggest you make an account and fix it. ~2026-11493-0 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Alarming rise in autism cases among Somalis in Minnesota

PBS Newshour, October 3, 2024 6:20 PM EST: "Researchers find alarming rise in autism diagnoses among Somali American children -- Fred de Sam Lazaro reports from Minnesota, home to the largest Somali community in the U.S." at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/researchers-find-alarming-rise-in-autism-diagnoses-among-somali-american-children

MPR News / Minnesota Now with Nina Moini, Cathy Wurzer and Gretchen Brown, October 10, 2024 11:42 AM: "Somali children show significantly higher rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared to non-Somali children, with studies in Minnesota finding rates as high as 1 in 16 versus the general state average of 1 in 53." https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2024/10/10/research-finds-1-in-16-somali-children-diagnosed-with-autism-three-times-more-than-state

Do you wonder why Somalis have a 3.3 times higher rate of autism than the general public in Minnesota? Well, with that many more kids with autism, the Somalis in Minnesota can collect 3.3 times more money!

And now you know ... the REST of the story. Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:NOR. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course. I am just trying to provide contextual news sources. Pardon me for having a little fun with the topic Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Literally what is wrong with you? ~2025-31653-63 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

bad reference

the reference 123 to wired is dead and gives a 404 Eluvatar (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

New section: 2026 developments

On January 7, 2026, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on alleged fraud in Minnesota’s social services programs. Republican members and testifying Minnesota legislators alleged large-scale fraud and retaliation against whistleblowers. The committee cited estimates from federal prosecutors and announced further investigative steps, including document requests and planned testimony from state officials.

Source Funnaile (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Fix biased wording in lede

Changed to "said" per MOS:SAID. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

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.

The current lede states: [Walz] noted that Shirley was a "conspiracy theorist," and criticized "Republican opportunists" willing to "hurt our people to score a few cheap points".[6]

My objection is to the word "noted", which does not appear in the source. The source's wording is The governor also referenced Shirley's video, labeling him a "conspiracy theorist,". The word "noted" inappropriately implies that the governor's claim is true; it was a bald assertion on Walz's part and there is nothing to establish Shirley's claims as "conspiracy theory". This is a WP:BLP violation against Shirley, as the term is known to have negative affect. (Even if Shirley proposes that the government was complicit in fraud, I don't think that can meaningfully be called conspiracy.)

~2026-31814-0 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable comment - whether or not Shirley's claims are accurate, the word "noted" is not the right one to use here. Perhaps "describing him as" would work better. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It's similar to "said". noted is an neutral descriptor especially when attributed because it means to give one's opinion. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence should be in the lead at all. It belongs in the "Tim Walz's response" section. Some1 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 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.

Heavy racism and bias, embarrassing

This article is racist and biased to the point that I can only assume that most users must not be aware that it even exists.

It completely ignores the political motive of the Youtuber who recently harassed Somali Americans, and the political motive of the administration. Both of these are well-documented in the sources on the matter with most of them noting that the Youtuber has a history of heavy immigrant bashing and bizarre statements about Ukraine, and is an extreme partisan.

It repeatedly confuses unproven allegations of fraud with poor evidence as "fraud", not properly distinguishing between the two.

It also repeatedly uses poor sources to allege that random incidents of fraud are connected to Somali Americans even though sources don't support it.

It singles out a particular ethnic group even though most fraud in the state (and the United States at large) is committed by European Americans.

Definitely need more eyes on this. Lunarscarlet (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you specify some specific sentences you would like to see changes, with the relevant sources for added/removed material? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree, this page gives Nick Shirley way too much credit. His video was proven to be intentionally deceptive and is not a reliable source. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Rather than bulk-reverting, @Lunarscarlet, could you point out some specific issues and instances that should be fixed? Or even better, just go and fix them individually? I was trying to make some improvements earlier today (for instance, distinguishing between references to Somalis and Somali-Americans), but it keeps getting swept up in the same 23k back and forth. I agree that the article should distinguish clearly between allegations of fraud and actual fraud charges/convictions. Per reliable sources (now removed) the vast majority of those charged in these cases over the last few years are Somali-American, and there are several interlinks between different areas of fraud (i.e. some of the same people/locations involved in multiple cases); those references should be kept. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI since the content is locked now but this is entirely false:

"Nick Shirley previously built a following with anti-immigrant videos.[4]". In none of his videos does he engage negatively towards immigrants, he simply interviews them so this is a lie and by some random paywall source. ~2026-24058-2 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Also completely unrelated to the article. Even if he did, it has no relevance to the article. ~2026-24058-2 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what the sources say, not necessarily if its true. See WP:VNT. UppercutPawnch (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Frankly confused as to see you could see it as anything but not true looking at the titles so the vitriol he pumps out. These include:

Dearborn Michigan has Fallen… Christians and Muslims Battle
I Confronted Dangerous Migrant Scammers in NYC | Canal Street
Inside Paris Dangerous Migrant Crisis
Inside a NYC ICE Raid Operation
EARLY Confronting illegal Migrant Scammers in NYC
Portland has Fallen
Inside Ireland’s Dangerous Migrant Crisis
Inside the Somalia Capital of America

Though its a moot point to even begin with because all of the sources talk about his obvious history of anti-immigrant videos. Luna (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

My statement was not a reflection of my opinion Shirley's videos, which is actually the same position I share with you. I was simply referring to the perspective of truth held by the temp account editor. UppercutPawnch (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Most certainly true. CNN thought it was relevant and wrote: "The stepped-up effort also comes days after YouTube content creator Nick Shirley, who has created anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim videos in the past". Luna (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It's been 4 days since you were asked for specific examples of content you take an issue with. You nonetheless repeatedly mass revert without discussing on talk whatsoever. Can you follow WP:BRD-NOT and please join the discussion and explain substantive reasons for rejecting these edits? Per WP:REVONLY and WP:FIXFIRST, I'm assuming you reviewed the content you're reverting and can actually explain why exactly it's being removed for each specific piece?

Can you tell me what you think is wrong about the content you removed wholesale on:

1. Expansive CMS restrictions on high risk Medicaid programs.

2. Up to date details of federal prosecutions in lead

3. The entire section on HSS, including how fraud was perpetuated, investigated, and responded to.

4. The entire section on EIDBI.

5. The entire section on Adult Day Services

6. The entire section on childcare.

7. The entire section on NEMT.

8. The entire section on ARMHS.

You also should consistently follow your own edit reasons for your mass revert. You're adding back disputed content that has been raised by multiple editors, such as CNMall41's BLP concerns, above concerns on relevance and characterization of Shirley, and inaccurate content like Feeding our future being the "earliest" program defrauded. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Following up on this because I forgot the user started a convo here: I am confused as to why the mass reversion of content (20,000+ bytes) is occurring here when the removal was originally due to allegations of bias in the Minnesota Reformer. Unless the Minnesota Reformer has a racial bias I am unaware of, I don't see how the mass reversion of content is directly relevant here. I've since reverted the change. UppercutPawnch (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It should be distinguished between recent additions and longer term additions. One editor added all of it without discussion and almost none of it is DUE. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't interacted with you before so this isn't true, but some of my complaints about the article probably do overlap. I took particular issue with things like "incidentally there are 24,000 Somali people in this town" which is plain as day racism. If Minnesota Reformer is politically biased then that explains part of it. I separately take issue with things like not mentioning the Youtuber's political affiliation which has nothing to do with Minnesota Reformer. I have also have issue with allegations painted as being not allegations. Luna (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Then why not remove only the specific parts you disagree with, rather than reverting the entire set of edits each time? Several of the reverted changes had already been discussed and resolved.

For example, the political labeling was intentionally adjusted from “right-wing YouTuber Nick Shirley” to simply “YouTuber Nick Shirley” to avoid assigning a political stance.

By mass-reverting all edits, you are effectively rolling the article back multiple revisions, undoing progress that had already been made and agreed upon, rather than addressing the individual issues in question. ~2026-24058-2 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Nick Shirley is right-wing. Sources describe him that way. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I actually agree with all of your statements here. I do not think that tangential information regarding demographics Minnesota's Somali and Somali-American community belong on the article unless made relevant by a reliable source (and I do believe that such an insertion would create an uncalled for racial bias), and through a quick Ctrl+F search for "Somali", it looks like any instances of this have been removed (or maybe I'm just blind). I agree with that Shirley's political affiliations should be included and have argued with CNMall41 on the talk page for Shirley's article about this as he seems to be the only person that is in favor of the removal of such categorizations (from this article and the lead of Shirley's). I also agree that allegations should be explicitly labeled as such until convictions have been made, both in principle and to uphold WP:BLPCRIME. If any of these exist on the page, I encourage you to WP:BEBOLD and edit the page to add or remove such content.

What I intensely disagree with is mass reverting without first discussing. Even if the WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include content, it does not mean one person gets to unilaterally exclude content. In this case, it especially content that in this case is not specific to what is disagreed upon. This is what the WP:BRD cycle is for - I highly implore you read this before you continue editing since you seem to be new here based on your account age. UppercutPawnch (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

"I actually agree with all of your statements here. I do not think that tangential information regarding demographics Minnesota's Somali and Somali-American community belong on the article"

"I also agree that allegations should be explicitly labeled as such until convictions have been made"

"I agree with that Shirley's political affiliations should be included"

Thank you. Luna (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you stop edit warring, self-revert, and justify your editing on talk? You're clearly going up against 3RR at this point, with multiple editors asking you to stop. Again, you're not even following your own stated principles here. Your edits add content disputed by both myself and ~2026-24058-2 above. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I replied below with the rule on sourcing. Luna (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring is also against the rules. I see you were already informed about this on your talk page, but you're just electing to ignore it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Responded below. Luna (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You're mass reverting half the article, over and over. Can you specify why you're removing these sections wholesale or not? If not, don't do those mass reverts. The article and text noting Faribault's population isn't "racism" at all. It's actually noting that the Somali community was especially taken advantage of by fraudsters and interpreters who stole their identity. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The rules say "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The content you've added has been disputed on being racially derogatory and having poor sourcing. As someone pointed out most of it also isn't even scope. Something that happened in 2014 and then has a long tail of litigation somewhere isn't a 2020s allegation. Luna (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You're the one reverting, and not discussing why you're reverting. Instead of answering with reasons to justify your reversions, you keep on reverting and edit warring. You also repeatedly include disputed content as well. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The rules say "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required."

Derogatory content about an entire ethnic group certainly qualifies as a risk of harm. It's extremely irresponsible for a Wikipedia page to imply that a whole town of Somali Americans are criminals, or insert a bunch of grey area stuff from over a decade ago that isn't in the reliable sources, or use it as an attack page against the Somali American community. Due to right-wing agenda pushing and misinformation on this Somali American people have been harassed. Washington AG: Somali daycares are being harassed. Luna (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:OM Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. Let's keep things productive, you should refrain from edit-warring, self-revert, and just use this talk page to actually discuss your edits, citing the specific text you take issue with. I gave a whole list of the items you reverted, feel free to explain why you reverted, say, all content on CMS restrictions or HSS? You've been asked to do this multiple times, ignored this to mass revert as usual, and have produced only one quote of text that wasn't even in the live article you reverted. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The "not censored" rule explicitly lists harm to people as an exception. For the sections you're adding I think all of them but two concern things that aren't from this decade and aren't even in scope here. For ones that do, like HCBS, it involves two individuals and says that they were acquitted. Acquittal means legally there was no fraud. And this is even aside from the bad sourcing claims raised or importance. Luna (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

None of what you're saying is accurate, but I'm glad we're getting somewhere with the "aren't from this decade" criteria. I'll re-add the rest and we can continue to discuss here. You're obviously incorrect in your understanding of what an acquittal means, considering that it states Judge West herself says fraud occurred (do you claim to understand her ruling more than she does, if so, please explain how). It merely means that the individual acquitted cannot be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not that it didn't occur. If someone is murdered and the suspect is acquitted, it does not mean a murder victim resurrected back to life and it never happened. It's also not one of the sections you removed, which you still failed to justify at all. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

"considering that it states Judge West herself says fraud occurred" No, this is your personal conclusion. She wrote that there were other possibilities. Luna (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is the relevant "aren't from this decade" portions, not "all but two" as you claimed, but rather only small sections of two:

Adult day care:

Media investigations into adult day care scandals in the state date back to the early 2010s, with KMSP-TV reporting on the case of Yasmin Ali in 2013, a daycare provider who fled trial after being accused of stealing $4 million from the state.^[1]

Child care:

Minnesota's Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), funded with federal Child Care and Development Block Grant dollars, has been exploited by fraudulent child care providers dating back over 10 years, through methods that include faking children as receiving services, over-billing, and recruiting mothers to work at daycares and watch over their own children. In 2014, DHS established an investigatory unit to focus on CCAP fraud, which ultimately uncovered $5-6 million in CCAP fraud through 2018 via prosecutions. Jay Swanson, the head of the CCAP fraud unit, estimated that up to $100 million a year may be lost through CCAP fraud. The state legislative auditor reported that they were unable to substantiate the $100 million estimate, while noting that fraud was likely above the $6 million found via prosecutions.^[1]^[2]^[3] In September 2015, several child care providers in Minnesota, including the largest in the state, were charged with defrauding CCAP by over-billing the state for over $1 million.^[4] KMSP-TV reported that it was an open secret among the Somali-American community that "starting a daycare center is a license to make money", with people buying shares of daycares to take advantage of government funding. Notable fraudsters included Fozia Ali, who served on the park board for the city of Hopkins, Minnesota.^[5] In 2019, the legislative auditor found that DHS "did not adequately identify and analyze the risk of fraud in CCAP and had weak processes to coordinate investigations statewide".^[6]

As the modern cited fox9, KTSP, and CBS sources show, there clearly is connection from pre-existing events and 2020s events. It's not like CCAP was fraud free before 2020 but suddenly, Jan 1, 2020, it becomes a big problem. This would obviously create a misleading impression, especially given that Nick Shirley is advertising himself as the only original reporter on this topic of a story ignored by news media since forever.

While fraud in Minnesota has been gaining national attention recently, the investigations into these schemes by FOX 9 and others have been going on for more than a decade. - Fox9 states that much of the scandal is the uncovering of fraud that has been going on for over a decade. It offers no such delineation on Jan 2020.

A viral video has put a national spotlight on Minnesota's child care network as allegations of widespread fraud swirl. Records show Minnesota has been trying to improve oversight of the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) payment system for more than a decade... audits completed in the past 10 years show that Minnesota has lacked the teeth to properly vet attendance records and go after possible fraudsters proactively. - Similar statement from CBS on how recent national attention is on older cases.

As the fight to stop fraud in Minnesota public assistance programs continues, watchdogs say there were warning signs that the state had issues managing taxpayer money that stretch back more than two decades... OLA audits reviewed by 5 INVESTIGATES show OLA identified gaps in oversight in multiple DHS programs going back more than two decades. - KSTP pretty clearly lays out that foundational flaws were present pre-2020. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Something that happened in 2014 and then has a long tail of litigation somewhere isn't a 2020s allegation. This page isn't supposed to be a broadly construed attack page/database that singles out allegations based on race that aren't even in the scope of the page. Luna (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The documented cases are almost exclusively perpetrated by Somalis . Why bury that fact? ~2026-33139-9 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The Enron Fraud Scandal and 99% of others are almost exclusively perpetrated by anglos. Why bury that fact?

By the way I agree with this section and agree that things from a long time ago or allegations from unknown quality sources shouldn't be used. This controversy (and probably the only reason this article exists) is centered around the Shirley fraud video (and maybe the feeding our future thing), which has already been debunked, and the response to it. It's not an excuse to cherrypick. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Through the years: A decade of investigating fraud in Minnesota". Fox9. December 29, 2025.
[2]
"Child Care Assistance Program: Assessment of Fraud Allegations" (PDF). Office of the Legislative Auditor. March 13, 2019.
[3]
"Records reveal Minnesota's long history with day care fraud warnings". CBS. January 1, 2026.
[4]
"Four Twin Cities day care centers raided for fraud". MPR. September 29, 2015.
[5]
"Millions of dollars in suitcases fly out of MSP, but why?". Fox9. May 14, 2018.
[6]
"In Minnesota, legislative audits warned of poor internal controls in state programs". KTSP. October 20, 2025.

Request to spell Learing Center correctly

Protected edit request on 17 January 2026

Minnesota Reformer

@~2026-19229-6 I've noticed you've been making a lot of large scale edits to the page without consulting the talk page, largely around claiming that the Minnesota Reformer is not a reliable source without any previous discussion. Do you have any evidence to back this up, especially in relation to this topic? This seems to have given some editors the impression in the edit history that you're edit warring. UppercutPawnch (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Minnesota Reformer is highly, highly partisan. Fox News level. Per WP:ONUS it's on the person adding it to get consensus for contested content. Plus there is LLM usage in the mass additions by KiharaNoukan. ~2026-19229-6 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Article 1 consists of direct quotes from the gov of Minnesota (worth noting Reformer is used on Tim Walz's page multiple times, arguably the most scrutinized MN related page on wikipedia given his VP candidacy). Article 2 consists of stats on the state of MN, with sourcing from the Fed Reserve of Mpls, State agencies, and the CDC. Can you please explain what you find objectionable here? As for the repeated assumptions of bad faith accusations you've made against me about LLM usage, what exactly is your evidence? From your diff where you allege LLM usage again, you claim that there was no mention of "Somali" or "356" as a reason to delete the entire section, but that's because you removed the relevant source in your previous edit. Relevant from the src: Nasro Aden Takhal was charged in May with using the identities of 356 people to fraudulently scheduled provider, transportation and interpreter services. Of those, 344 were Somali Americans. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Here are some Minnesota Reformer quotes:

Gov. Walz to Republicans: Expect me ‘to ride you like you’ve never been ridden’

A day after ending his campaign for a historic third term — and possibly his political career — an animated Gov. Tim Walz offered a preview of how he plans to spend the remainder of his term

Minnesota prosecution of ICE officer faces new political obstacles under Trump

The Trump administration made its opinion known almost immediately after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday: The officer acted heroically in defending himself from Renee Nicole Good

Gov. Tim Walz’s Minnesota in 8 charts

It's more biased than Fox News. It's not reliable for this topic at all.

As for the LLM usage is quite apparent based on the writing style, technical titles, and the numerous AI hallucinations like incorrectly naming companies for fraud that never admitted any fault, incorrect years, context that doesn't matter, etc. ~2026-19229-6 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

What about those quotes do you find objectionable? And on LLM usage can you quote something specific? The only thing you've brought up is the claim about not finding two keywords in two sources, which is because you yourself deleted the third source in a prior edit. I'm personally quite familiar with Medicaid services, so I used "technical titles" for some items for the purpose of accuracy, but not all. For instance it would be misleading to label HSS as "housing services" since that is a far broader category than just HSS, which may also encompass federal section 8 housing vouchers, recovery residences, housing support, and waivered programs. For others, I elected to use simpler terms like "autism services" instead of EIDBI when I thought it would be too complicated, and the colloquial term is appropriately narrow. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It's stark, open political bias. No one with political bias can be considered reliable on the allegations as they have motive to politically attack the governor as much as possible. ~2026-19229-6 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific in your concerns about the Reformer. Allegations of LLM usage without evidence are not very productive. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This is unhelpful and does not actually explain anything. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the bias in the Reformer here, especially when the same paper is also using headlines that appear to be pro-Walz (see: Gov. Walz urges Noem to review Minnesota ICE arrests after reports of detained U.S. citizens), and due to the comparison to Fox News, anti-republican (see: U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer makes wildly inaccurate claim about Somali crime on national TV). Compare to some Fox News headlines I grabbed: Heritage Foundation warns America 'dangerously close' to family breakdown point of no return, Soros-backed Dem reveals he and coalition of anti-Trump AGs met 'daily' to strategize lawsuits. UppercutPawnch (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Bias =\= unreliability. If there’s a case for unreliability, perhaps this should be raised at RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this indicates that the Minnesota Reformer is "more biased than Fox News". Describing Tim Walz as "animated"? Quoting his words? Including the Trump administration's opinion while making it clear that it's an opinion?

At last year's award ceremony by the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists , the Reformer won 7 awards, including Journalist of the Year and the society's "most prestigious" award, which was given to the newspaper's entire staff for a consistent use of public records to produce scoops and investigations that hold the powerful to account and inform the public about their government’s actions. Arguing that it is unreliable because of a handful of anodyne headlines (WP:HEADLINE) is ridiculous. Astaire (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

On an article this politically sensitive, where people are trying to attack an entire ethnic group, it makes sense to me to only use sources that were already discussed to be high quality and reliable. That would solve this issue and other ones with low quality sources. Luna (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on “truth” as judged by editors, nor on subjective impressions of tone or bias. It operates on verifiability and reliable published sources.

Minnesota Reformer is a professionally run news outlet with editorial oversight and a documented track record of factual reporting. Disliking its headlines, tone, or political framing is not a valid basis for excluding it under Wikipedia policy.

Claims by another user that it is “more biased than Fox News” are opinions, not policy arguments. Wikipedia does not rank sources by perceived ideology. It evaluates whether a source is independent, secondary, editorially controlled, and capable of being challenged. Minnesota Reformer meets those criteria.

Blanket rejection of a source because editors dislike its conclusions or because the topic is politically uncomfortable is not how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources report (as another user also mentioned but also visible on WP:TRUTH, even when that reporting is contentious. Excluding sources because they conflict with preferred narratives is editorial control, not neutral editing. ~2026-24058-2 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent comments are this are:

His YouTube content is a higher source than biased mainstream media pushing a specific agenda. His content speaks for itself and it is a false claim made by the media

His content is free to view on YouTube and other social channels. It is not anti-immigrant in any sorts of way. It covers topics on immigration but it is not biased or anti-immigration. It is a false claim whether you like it or not. Simply watch his channel or socials and provide a link to the anti-immigration videos

You've just been reading mostly left wing opinionated info on wikipedia.

I don't believe you're qualified to judge what a reliable source is if you believe in political, anti-immigrant youtube videos are more reliable than trusted sources that are already considered reliable by Wikipedia (which Reformer is not). Again, given how politically sensitive this is, it makes sense to me to just use sources that were already discussed to be high quality and reliable. Luna (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I recently learned of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth which actually kind of makes Wiki a non reliable source of truth, but it does strengthen your own argument.

I'll move over to Grokpedia after learning that factual information is less favored over narrative driven reporting that is considered 'reliable'. Funnaile (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does absolutely claim it's a non-reliable source, see WP:RSPWP, WP:GENERAL etc, but this is only something WP claims, so it can't be trusted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)