Talk:David Pakman

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2025

Change "In August 2025, it was alleged that Pakman is a member of Chorus Creator Incubator Program, an organization funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund that pays political online influencers US$8,000 a month to promote Democratic Party messaging." to "In August 2025, it was alleged, and Pakman confirmed, that he is a mentor for the Chorus Creator Program, an organization that provides a stipend and educational resources to creators to facilitate the creation pro-democracy content." Taftun (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given for the proposed change, which appears to be an attempt at PR/whitewashing. Day Creature (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The proposed edit provides more information and is clearer about intent. SlapperDapper (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It's also making a mountain out of a molehill. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2025

Change "Pakman is a member of Chorus Creator Incubator Program, an organization funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund that pays political online influencers US$8,000 a month to promote Democratic Party messaging." to "Pakman is a member of the Chorus Creator Incubator Program, an organization that provides a stipend and educational resources to political online influencers to promote pro-democracy messaging. Taftun (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The amount that is paid to the influencers is hardly relevant, nor is the source of the funding. It might make sense to link to the Sixteen Thirty Fund wikipedia page here, but in the context of this paragraph this information is irrelevant. Additionally, the program does not pay influencers $8,000 a month, it pays UP TO $8,000 a month, if that absolutely has to be included. Also as one minor grammatical note adding "the" before "Chorus Creator Incubator Program" makes the sentence flow slightly better. Finally the program is not to promote "Democratic Party messaging" the purpose, both on the Chorus website and in the words of Brian Tyler Cohen, one of the founders, is to promote "pro-democracy" content, this is a relevant distinction that makes the current wording actively incorrect, not merely non-specific.

Thanks, done. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Why did you approve this request? You removed content cited to the Wired article, a reliable source, and replaced it with a public relations narrative from the organization's own website that seeks to obscure the program's funding and ties to the Democratic Party. I am going to restore the previous version of the article. Day Creature (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Presumably for the reasons offered by the requester. It's not clear why the source of the funding is relevant, and the Wired article cited doesn't appear to support "Democratic Party messaging", unless we're meaning this in an incredibly loose sense (i.e. the Democratic Party also engages in pro-democracy messaging.) Kdlev (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you not read the article? The source of the funding being a dark money group and the program pushing pro-Democratic Party messaging are the entire point of the article. It's right there in the first paragraph: "A secretive program aimed at bolstering Democratic messaging on the Internet." Day Creature (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I did read the article. Your quote mentions "Democratic messaging," which seems to be distinct from "Democratic Party messaging." I did not find any description of, "ties to the Democratic party," as you suggest in a previous comment. If you believe I am mistaken, can you please point to the section of the article which supports your claims/preferred phrasing? As far as I can tell you are inserting assumptions which the author of the cited article does not make. Kdlev (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"Democratic" here obviously refers to the Democratic party (hence the capital "D"). I'm really not sure what else you take it to mean. I'm finding it a bit difficult to believe you're arguing in good faith at this point, but nonetheless I'll provide you with some additional quotes from the article:

• "An initiative aimed at boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to $8,000 a month to push the party line."
• "Now, Democrats hope that the secretive Chorus Creator Incubator Program, funded by a powerful liberal dark money group called The Sixteen Thirty Fund, might tip the scales."
• "The Sixteen Thirty Fund has emerged as a powerful funder in Democratic spaces in recent years."
• "In 2018, The Sixteen Thirty Fund provided $141 million to more than 100 left-leaning causes in order to bolster Democratic support during the midterms . . ."
• "Spehar and other content creators have accused Chorus of attempting to establish themselves as a gatekeeper to Democratic political leaders."

Day Creature (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that you're willing to discuss it. None of those quotes seem to be referring to the DNC/party officials, which is what I beleived you to be referring to before (when you said "ties to the Democratic Party," and "Democratic Party messaging.") The term "Democrats" refers to people who vote for Democrats, those that prefer Democratic policy, as well as DNC members and elected officials. "Democratic messaging" therefore could (and I believe does) refer to messaging that aligns with the policy goals of Democratic voters and officials, rather than messaging which itself originates from party officials. The article does not refer to the DNC, nor does it describe Democratic Party officials being a source of messaging to be relayed by Chorus participants.

I've deployed a change that I believe should approximately meet both of our needs, I think it more closely represents the contents of the relevant Wired article, and I've left the reference to the funding org, though I still find it to be of questionable relevance to what is included in this article. Kdlev (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with your latest edit, as ultimately I think the distinction between "Democratic Party messaging" and "Democratic messaging" is pretty meaningless. So it seems like the issue is resolved for now. Day Creature (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems it was reverted, even though there is no citation for Chorus paying those influencers for spreading democratic party messaging. Clearly @Day Creatureis trying to push some agenda that is not even supported by his own sources 2003:F3:1705:6B27:78B4:75AF:3317:EA7A (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not here to push any agenda, but merely to make sure the article reflects the information found in reliable sources. Day Creature (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz is hardly a reliable source and there have been already retractions/corrections since the publication. I would wait at least a couple of days before the dust settles and make sure other sources verify (or dispute) her claim.

Also including the part "up to 8k per month" suggests that David Pakman actually received 8k per month, but as far as I know there is no information on individual payout. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What makes you say that Taylor Lorenz is not a reliable source? She's one of the most respected journalists who cover the new media/Internet culture beat. Day Creature (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I can think of several articles of her where the readers had to parse corrections, editor's notes, and off-platform explanations to get the full picture, be it her reporting on Depp/Heard trial, her reporting on Libs of TikTok, or her Biden episode for which she allegedly got fired from the WP. But this is just my opinion and has not much relevance to the matter at hand.

I am more concerned with how her hit piece was received and disputed so far. In my opinion she does a very bad-faith interpretation of the contracts and paints a picture of a conspiratorial propaganda organization controlling everything creators do. I haven't seen much evidence for any of her claims and I expect counter-reporting, so I’d wait before we as Wikipedia jump into the drama.

Several content creators mentioned by Lorenz already responded to the article (including Pakman) and dismissed Lorenz' claims. If you insist on keeping the reference to Lorenz' article, especially using words like 'secretive funds' (as in the current version), we should also mention Pakman's response to it. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I do think the reference to "secretive funds" is an awkward and unnecessary way of phrasing things, so I went ahead and removed it. You are welcome to add something about Pakman's response, but keep in mind the restrictions of WP:BLPSELFPUB if it's something he published himself. Day Creature (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Should we even be including this reference if the claims of the article are disputed until there's a more established set of facts? Ggrrcc (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph to reflect the article more accurately. Here are the major points I've removed/changed:

- Revealed – Nothing was actually “revealed.” Pakman had already advertised for Chorus back in November (see comments from ເສລີພາບ below).

- Payments – The article doesn’t say Pakman received any payments. He is mentioned in a section that begins: “Influencers included in communication about the program, and in some cases an onboarding session for those receiving payments from The Sixteen Thirty Fund, include...” It’s not clear whether Pakman was just included in communication or if he was among those paid. If he was, the article doesn’t disclose how much. Citing the maximum possible amount is misleading, even with “up to.” It’s like writing: “Fennecfoxxx is an active contributor to Wikipedia, which is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Employees of the Foundation are compensated with up to $500k per year.”

- Member – We also don’t know in what capacity he’s involved in the program. Is he a mentor, a mentee, or something else?

- Democratic Party messaging – The article says “Democratic messaging”, not “Democratic Party messaging.” It does not claim the organization has a direct relationship with the Democratic Party.

I'm open to revert my changes if I have missed anything. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

"Democratic" should be made lowercase so readers don't think there is an association between Chorus and the Democratic Party, as the article doesn't allege this and doesn't make any connection between them, besides that some of these influencers happen to be people who message positively about the party. Even clearer wording would be "pro-democracy".

There are only two parts of the article which discuss the aims of Chorus. The first paragraph:

"They were being offered $8,000 per month to take part in a secretive program aimed at bolstering Democratic messaging on the internet."

This is not sourced and no evidence in the article is provided to back up this claim or that they were being paid to promote any specific messaging at all.

Later in the article:

The goal of Chorus, according to a fundraising deck obtained by WIRED, is to 'build new infrastructure to fund independent progressive voices online at scale.'"

This is at least sourced as being obtained from a fundraising deck. In summary, this is the change I would make to that paragraph:

In August 2025, a Wired article mentioned Pakman in connection with the Chorus Creator Incubator Program, an initiative funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund whose goal is to build new infrastructure to fund independent progressive voices online at scale.

This uses a direct quote from the article about the goal of Chorus, and that quote is the only part of the article that actually mentions their goal.

If not that, then change "Democratic" to "pro-democracy", since that is part of their mission statement and the article doesn't allege any connection between the Democratic Party and Chorus, and that makes it more clear. This would still be flawed, because it would still say that "Chorus... supports online influencers to promote... messaging", which is not supported in the article. There is no mention made in the article that Chorus dictates or influences messaging for influencers in the program, so it would be inaccurate to say that Chorus is paying people to promote any type of messaging without evidence.

If not that, then at the very least make it lowercase "democratic" so it's more clear that it's about democracy, not the Democratic Party, although this would still be somewhat unclear. 73.246.224.161 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate a point I made earlier in this discussion. When the Wired article says "Democratic messaging", the Democratic Party is obviously what's being referred to. Changing this to "pro-democracy messaging" or making "Democratic" lowercase is completely inaccurate and distorts what the source is saying. I have some misgivings about Fennecfoxxx's changes, but this is definitely going way too far. Day Creature (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the article doesn't actually allege any connection between Chorus and the Democratic Party. The only statement about the goals of Chorus that the article substantiates with anything is the paragraph which says:

"The goal of Chorus, according to a fundraising deck obtained by WIRED, is to 'build new infrastructure to fund independent progressive voices online at scale.'"

It doesn't allege that Chorus creators are being influenced to promote any messaging at all, let alone messaging on behalf of the Democratic Party. Somebody just decided to put that on the Wikipedia page for whatever reason. 73.246.224.161 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Day Creature about the meaning of “Democratic” in this context. Lorenz is clearly referring to the party, not to “democratic” (lowercase) as the opposite of “dictatorial.” That said, I also agree with you that her article never actually alleges a connection to the DNC, and in her interview with Glenn Greenwald she explicitly acknowledges that Chorus is not linked to the DNC.. This is why I removed the link to the Democratic Party page but kept “Democratic” capitalized. It’s similar to someone saying, “I support Democratic policies” -meaning they align with the Democratic Party without necessarily being a member of it. I hope that makes sense.

As to messaging, I think it’s fair to say the goal of the organization is to promote specific messaging - they don’t hand out money for nothing, and they certainly don’t fund just anyone. The current version is not meant to imply that Chorus dictates the exact messaging. Let me know if you think it can be interpreted that way. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the word "to" implies some sort of deliverable. "I pay you to do xyz messaging." Money in exchange for specific messaging, a quid pro quo, etc. That word could probably be changed to "who" so there's no ambiguity that specific messaging is being bought.

"...supports online influencers who promote Democratic messaging."

This makes it somewhat more clear that these are people who on their own tend to choose to promote Democratic messaging, and removes a direct allegation that people are being paid in exchange for specific content, which the article doesn't allege. There's still a bit of ambiguity and it would still be possible to misinterpret that statement as if people are being paid for content, but it's at least better. Perhaps another word could be better or there could be a better way to phrase it. 73.246.224.161 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant less ambiguity in the beginning, not no ambiguity. 73.246.224.161 (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fair. I made the change. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

References

"revealed"

"revealed" is the first word listed to watch out for under MOS:SAID. Presently we are stating, as a matter-of-fact, in Wikipedia's voice that they are supporting content creators "promoting Democratic Party messaging". This is a negative characterization of moderate liberals that the far-left routinely uses in order to paint them as being less sincere and to promote themselves as the true grass roots leftwing movement. We should either 1) make it clear that this is Lorenz's characterization of the group, or 2) replace it with the group's own description of what it does. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Also, David Pakman put out a video back in November announcing Chorus and redirecting people to his website to learn more about Chorus, so the characterization that she "revealed" him to be working with Chorus seems particularly groundless. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Chorus is not funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund

Lorenz posted screenshots of the contracts on Bluesky, and lawyer Elizabeth Booker Houston pointed out that the Sixteen Thirty Fund doesn't fund Chorus, but is their "fiscal sponsor". Being their fiscal sponsor means Chorus can act as a nonprofit under them, but (as posted in contracts by Lorenz) the "funders" of Chorus are its direct donors. Lorenz misinterpreted the Sixteen Thirty Fund being their "fiscal sponsors" as meaning they are providing funding to Chorus, but Chorus receives its funding directly from its donors.

Lorenz responded by deleting her Bluesky message with the screenshot of the contracts and banning Houston from replying to her on Bluesky. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

View on Circumcision

Is this mention worthy of attention? It does not seem to merit any as the man is neither health practitioner nor religious. ~2025-32759-16 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree and have removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Typo in Views (date: 23/02/2026)

This wiki article misspells the paraphrasing of reference 22. The quote from reference 22 is: "Pakman, for his part, has previously asserted that Israel would never “waste ordnance” on Palestinian civilians and that he views Congressman Ritchie Torres, who is perhaps best known for being one of AIPAC’s top recipients of funding, as the kind of person who he would like to see lead the “progressive movement.” The wiki article refers to it as ordinance, which has quite a different meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12083-82 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, reference 22 itself refers to a youtube clip of David Pakman himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuXjPz1tKbk). So having the clip as a reference might be more complete. ~2026-12083-82 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

View on Israel

The current phrasing seems slanted against David, as Pakman has been critical of the Israeli government fairly consistently since 2023, has been critical of AIPAC, and it cites one fairly biased and outdated to back up this claim. This should either be replaced with a more credible source or reworded to better reflect David Pakman’s views in a neutral manner. CastawayFaraway (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Also the line about Ritchie Torres and AIPAC seems irrelevant to an article about David Pakman. Seems again like another negative swipe at Pakman. CastawayFaraway (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm tagging this with an NPOV tag for persistent efforts to inaccurately portray him as being affiliated with Israel.

Why does he have an entire section devoted to him taking a vacation to Jerusalem 10 years ago?

Why is the bulk of the "Views" section sourced to a small magazine whose editor prints it himself inside his own apartment?

We all know the answer. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest the tagging editors find sources that show that Pakman's positions have evolved. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"I struggle to think that they are going to—quite frankly—waste ordnance on 4 random civilians walking down a road"

This is the quote. He is talking about 4 specific civilians. In a video where he talks about how he agrees with a lot of views about Israel not being concerned with civilian casualties, he makes one comment about how he doesn't think these 4 random people were specifically targeted.

Our current text:

• Pakman has asserted that Israel would not "waste ordinance" on Palestinian civilians (cited to an Indy magazine with a circulation of under 4,000)

Obvious POV. Quit wasting our time defending this. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't care one whit about the magazine's circulation if it is otherwise reliable. I will have a look and make sure the source is not being misrepresented. If it is I'll change accordingly. If it not then the onus lies on those who want to make the change to find another source.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I checked. The source is not being misrepresented. Please find another source if you wish to see this changed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

You may not care if the magazine is reliable, but WP:BLP does. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and the claim that he doesn't think Israel would waste ordnance on civilians is an exceptional one, and all you have is one low-quality source that misrepresents his quote. You know the source is misrepresenting his quote, and your silence on that means you agree that your indy magazine is representing this living person's words.

WP:WEIGHT also makes this clearly unsuitable. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's Current Affairs. It's absolutely a reliable source. And, again, your whole reason for removal is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you believe Mr. Pakman's views have evolved please find additional sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's an op-ed. It's clearly unreliable for any statement of fact, even more so given it is not a mainstream publication. That you say I don't care one whit about the magazine's circulation if it is otherwise reliable proves you don't understand the reliability policies or WP:BLP. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Here’s David Pakman’s own words from the exact clip referenced in the opinion piece.

https://youtube.com/FuXjPz1tKbk?si=lSrggIkLipZohOZh

He says just after saying he does not believe Israel would deliberately target four Palestinian civilians that he agrees with the caller’s criticism that the Israeli military is too careless with civilian casualties. It’s pretty clear that the article took his words in bad faith as it did not show the full context. If anything, this video should replace the article referenced as that article referenced this video, so it’s a reference to a reference.

I would also like to state my skepticism that there would be this level of fixation on his stance on Israel if he was not Jewish. My guess is no. CastawayFaraway (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:AGF friend. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

But also your personal interpretation of a primary source does not trump a secondary reliable source per WP:SECONDARY. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, assuming good faith. The section on his beliefs is incredibly brief and only focused on Israel (and Congressman Ritchie Torres for some reason) despite his content focusing on a broad range of political issues, if anything he spends more time talking about domestic policy instead of foreign policy, and there is not one mention of any of his positions on social or fiscal issues. His personal life section focuses in on his one trip to Jerusalem without mentioning the importance of said trip, and I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why this needed to be mentioned. CastawayFaraway (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Update, I just saw the article was modified, apologies I was working most of today and only just now had time to respond. CastawayFaraway (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone who has the permissions to do so to either modify his views and personal life sections or just delete the thinly-veiled antisemitism entirely? CastawayFaraway (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Please provide appropriate sourcing and I'd be happy to. But the sources come first. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The contrary is true, Mr. Simon: please read wp:weight, check the article and check the shows: Mr. Pakman is not a commentator on Israel's politics. I may have watched about 80-90% of his public shows since 2021, and Pakman concentrates near-exclusively on internal US politics and rarely explores non-US topics, and the latter also only when it is connected to internal US affairs. From my admittedly non-perfect memory, he may have mentioned Israel about as often as he did Denmark, and certainly less than for example Russia and Ukraine.

If the article had a ton of (properly sourced) information on Pakman's political views about internal US affairs; THEN I could imagine a few sentences being added about his views on the politics of other countries; but even then it should not be limited to such a misrepresentation. This was an appropriate action, thanks.

I also agree about the complaint on the "Personal life" paragraph: the typical key facts about personal lifes in our biographies are not the tourist destinations, but the marital status, the number of children, and the place/area of living. Instead, our article focuses on one single of his tourist destinations years ago. And yet by his own tellings, Mr. Pakman has visited not just Jerusalem, but also at least Argentina, Spain and Portugal several times in the last years, and I think other countries as well. He also journeyed other states within the US. So again, this focus on his Jewishness (which is the topic of the cited source, after all), violates wp:Weight.

--Enyavar (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a reliable source being used for a single line. the WP:WEIGHT concerns are nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

United States government is no longer consider a valid source???

I added the following statement:

The United States Government officially declared David Pakman to be a “deranged leftist” “media offender” on the White House's website.

This was reverted with non-primary source needed by User:Bridget

Now, the White House website IS a secondary source when it officially assesses David Pakman's positions as an important enough media figure, and acknowledges tracking him. Even more, that website is THE source of government information. Even this Wiki's page about the White House itself references whitehouse.gov as sources, in fact eleven times. Obviously, the house is not a neutral source, but it's not like Mr Pakman wrote this assessment himself.

References

--Enyavar (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Enyavar (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This sentence quotes the White House website on Pakman and solely cites the source where you're getting the quote from. That's a primary source. For a political BLP like Pakman's, strong, secondary reliable sources should be preferable. Bridget (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If we added that David Pakman is a "deranged leftist", then the website would be used as a secondary source (as it cites primary sources). But it's not reliable/neutral, so it can't be used as a secondary source.

But the proposed addition is not using the website as a secondary source. It's using it as a primary source, because it's about the declaration itself. In that case, the website is reliable, but it's no longer a secondary source. That's why the addition was removed. Paditor (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I reinstated the edit with the addition of a secondary source. --Enyavar (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've adjusted the statement to more appropriately neutral and encyclopedic language - and to language that side-steps the thorny question of whether grievances expressed on the White House website are equivalent to official statements of the United States government. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)