Talk:Michael Flynn

Convicted felon was recently added to the lead sentence and has since been removed. Is there consensus for including this in the LEAD sentence? Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It's quite literally the most notable fact about him in his professional career; and there's zero factual dispute about the fact that he was convicted of a felony. The better question is, why are we entertaining nakedly POV attempts to remove it? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to ask why you nakedly want to include it. I would like to hear from others. This material was added a few weeks ago, after being stable for years! --Malerooster (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Because this is the language reliable sources use and on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say; e.g. CNBC: President Donald Trump said he would “certainly consider” bringing Michael Flynn, a convicted felon who served as Trump’s first national security advisor, back into his administration., CBS The president spent a chunk of Wednesday night and Thursday morning tweeting and retweeting praise of the convicted felon., USA Today In subsequent months, he repeatedly acknowledged his crimes and was once moments away from accepting his fate as a convicted felon., The Week Michael Flynn, President Trump's first national security adviser and convicted felon, appeared in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, and finally received a sentencing date: Dec. 18., New York Magazine: Unfortunately for the convicted felon, such a prolonged legal process puts a dent into one’s wallet, whether it’s filled with American dollars or Turkish lira. Washington Post: Below is an account of Flynn’s descent from one of the highest-ranking positions in the U.S. government to convicted felon, drawn from “The Apprentice,” a book published this October by The Washington Post and Harper Collins., NBC News (which notably refers to this *post-pardon* Flynn was one of the first Trump associates to be ensnared in the Russia investigation – and on Nov. 25 of this year he became the first to be relieved of the legal consequences of being a convicted felon., The Guardian (also post-pardon) Michael Flynn, a disgraced former general and convicted felon pardoned by Donald Trump, is a star draw at ReAwaken America rallies.. I'm not sure what you think the relevancy is that the article was "stable for years" (hint: the article was stable after the addition of this language as well, right up to the point that someone began edit warring to remove it). That has never been a criteria for preventing edits to a Wikipedia article in the history of this project.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Again, this was just added. What do others think? i haven't made up my mind. --Malerooster (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

We get that you haven't made up your mind -- perhaps then stop edit conflicting those of us that DO have opinions on the matter so we can achieve consensus, if you're not going to participate actively.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. LEAD sentence was recently changed after being stable for years?? Editors have gone back and forth. I restored the stable version and brought it to talk. As an admin, you should be ashamed of your behavior and tone. --Malerooster (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Should I? Go ahead and file an WP:AN/I and indicate what policy you think I've broken. Otherwise, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Also I'm genuinely not sure you understand what "stable" means -- the language was added in over a month ago and not substantively touched until now. That is neither a "recent" change nor lacking "stability." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to AN/I over this. We are disagreeing over what is "recent"?!? 4 weeks is an eye blink in Wiki time. I didn't notice the change to the LEAD sentence until the recent back and forth. Anyways, I will not revert this article again. --Malerooster (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, none of those cites are from tabloids. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The edit summary stating that he was pardoned is not relevant as a pardon is forgiveness not reversal. I'll await further discussion before opining on whether it belongs in the lead sentence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

There was never a conviction though!! Notwithstanding the pardon in General Flynn’s case, a conviction requires the judge to both accept the guilty plea and a sentence. Neither happened!! The case was dismissed as moot after the pardon - and no decision was made by the judge on whether to accept the guilty plea or not. This wasn’t a pardon that happened after a conviction - much less a final conviction. So what we really have here now are editors who are now just fabricating utterly false information (there that there was even a conviction at all when there never was - because they may feel defamation laws and BLP simply don’t apply to them and they can just hide behind the skirt of Section 230. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That's simply abjectly false, not to mention entirely original research; but more importantly your assertions to the contrary are irrelevant. It does not matter whether you believe there was a conviction or not. There was in fact a conviction, and numerous reliable sources have reported it as such. And I'm going to warn you one last time to stop making unfounded accusations against other editors and cease making what are borderline legal threats about defamation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any source to back up those claims? BewaRe of making up information on your own. Badbluebus (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Putting convicted felon at the start of Wikipedia articles has been discussed several times e.g. on WP:BLPN] and see the archives of this talk page. I support removal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The reference article describes the The Hollow venue as "a 10-acre site that’s at times a children’s playland, wedding venue, organizing space and weapons training ground." I'm not sure that using a venue constitutes "donating."

Regardless, the sentence is clunky and the source reads more like a hit piece than any specific piece of information about Flynn. The article itself denies that Flynn knew any Proud Boys on the events of January 6th, 2021.

"In Sarasota County, Flynn and his allies have created a kind of laboratory for his approach, energizing local conservative activists through social media and public appearances, and gatherings at a venue called The Hollow that has become a meeting place for the far right. He questions American democratic institutions, repeats lies about the 2020 election, attacks the news media and embraces conspiracy theories about COVID-19. One of the groups he’s welcomed into the fold is the violent extremist group the Proud Boys. The political marriage between a man who once sat at the right hand of President Donald Trump and local extremists in Sarasota County starts in some ways on Jan. 6, 2021, and with their failed attempts to thwart the democratic process and keep Trump in power. It was insurrection day and Flynn, American flag hat atop his head, sat in the VIP section of the rally as Trump urged his supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol and stop Congress from confirming that he had lost the election. Less than two miles away, James Hoel, decked out in tactical gear, a walkie-talkie on his chest, advanced past the Capitol barricades with fellow members of the Proud Boys, at the vanguard of the deadly riot. There’s no evidence the two men knew each other on that day." Ladyplate (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The editor raises a valid WP:V concern. If the source doesn't support "donating," that word needs to go.

The current phrasing also implies a connection the source explicitly denies ("There's no evidence the two men knew each other").

Per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH, we should describe what sources actually say, not imply associations they disclaim. Bladerunner24 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This wiki asserts in the Summary & again later in chronological details that: "Flynn pledged an oath to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory"

This is overwrought & dishonest. By CNNs own admission, Flynn was recorded taking a generic oath that members of Congress take, and pledging to be a "digital soldier." CNN reports that there was no reference to QAnon.

From my reading, there is plenty of evidence that Flynn used phraseology and referenced hashtag #QAnon. This is not the same thing as taking an oath to a memed & vaguely-organized movement. It is dishonest for wikipedia to suggest that he had put himself under oath. Though there was a specific mention: "Where we go one, we go all," Powell rightly suggests that this is a broader alignment of values to uphold the USA as a citizen. Just because Flynn parroted a phrase popular in the QAnon community does not render Flynn oath-bound to it loose conspiratorial assertions.

An editor might better correct this dishonest assertion. I would suggest something closer to: "Flynn used QAnon phraseology and asserted ideological support for the conspiratorial suggestions of QAnon."

Politics are very fluid. Just because a person attends a communist party meeting, a national socialists meeting, a Republican or Democratic National Convention, the attendance and support does not equate to taking an oath to any of these.

Even in relation to a politically-charged character, I support a more straightforward & forthright accounting by Wikipedia. 12.3.141.114 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with the July 2025 concern above. The current phrasing "pledged an oath to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory" is problematic for several reasons:

1. Grammatically, one doesn't "pledge an oath TO" a conspiracy theory

2. The sources (including CNN) describe Flynn reciting words in a video, not swearing allegiance to a belief system

3. "Pro-Trump" before QAnon is redundant editorial padding Per WP:BLP, we should describe what he actually did, not characterize it in loaded terms.

I proposed this revision: "On 4 July 2020, Flynn posted a video reciting phrases associated with the QAnon movement." This is factual, sourced, and avoids the editorializing. Bladerunner24 (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Implemented the proposed revision per WP:BLP. No objections after two days. Bladerunner24 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

While "pledging an oath" is not exactly what the sources state, "reciting phrases" is just plain weird. I think something along the lines of "repeated a QAnon motto" would be more in keeping with sourcing and intent without watering it down to something meaningless. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair point — "repeated a QAnon motto" is more specific.

How about: "On 4 July 2020, Flynn posted a video repeating a QAnon motto."

Works for me if it works for you. Bladerunner24 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I made it "a pledge commonly associated with QAnon," which I think covers the way the sources viewed it without being too vague. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks — that works well. Bladerunner24 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it goes exactly, but I didn't find any mention of this:

Mr. Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and a national security adviser to Mr. Trump during his first term, was named to the oversight board of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in New York.

NY Times Archive

https://www.westpoint.edu/about/academy-leadership/office-of-the-superintendent/board-of-visitors

It seems like maybe section 4 should be 3.4? "National Security Advisor (2017)" is part of his "Post-military career," and this would go after that. TSylvester (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed this should be added. NYT source is solid. Bladerunner24 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion: The source (Independent) states Flynn "tweeted out a full-page ad" from We The People Convention. He didn't author the statement; he shared it. "Shared a statement calling on" accurately reflects the sourcing. "Suggested" implies he personally made the argument, which the source doesn't support. This isn't watering down — it's matching what the source actually says. Sincerely interested in your take on this. Bladerunner24 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, I was chiefly interested in the "oath" vs "repeated phrases" that seemed needlessly vague. I have no particular disagreement with your suggested rewording about "shared" rather than "suggested." Acroterion (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I'll restore the "shared" wording.

Appreciate the collaboration on both fixes. Bladerunner24 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)