Talk:Craig Cobb

N Subject to consensus, something could be added about that talk show incident, but you need to suggest some text and to provide a reliable source. For the rest, Edit semi-protected requests exist to enable people to request specific edits, not for general comments. You are welcome to comment on this talk page to help build a consensus. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for consensus on a little-watched page where most of the editors seem heavily biased is rather silly, especially given that it's a clear-cut case of false and potentially libelous information on a BLP. Deleting the "despite being 14% African-American", which is both verifiably false ("African-American" ancestry was not what was tested for) and blatantly non-neutral is pretty clear-cut, and I would say that adding "and the validity of current genetic ancestry tests is in question", citing the article the IP linked, is also clear-cut per NPOV. Washablemarker (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm requesting the removal of false and potentially libelous information on a BLP by deleting the outright false and non-neutral "despite being 14% African-American" from the first line of the article, and I request adding "and the validity of current genetic ancestry tests is in question", citing this, to the 'Cobb dismissed the results as "statistical noise" and "short science".' sentence right before where the period currently is per NPOV. Washablemarker (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about "African-American". The source said Sub-Saharan African. Editors have now replaced it with that. The relevance of that Telegraph source to the matter at hand has been questioned above, and I think it advisable to gain consensus on its relevance before including it. Note that I am not presuming to close that issue (I have no power to, and anyway I have no opinion on it), merely calling for it to be discussed further. --Stfg (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DNA tests are a lot more accurate than people give them credit for. My ex-wife used to do DNA testing to identify genetic diseases, and she found out far more about people than they really wanted anyone to know. With some more analysis, scientists could determine which tribes in Sub-Saharan Africa Cobb's ancestors came from, plus what areas of Europe his European ancestors came from, plus what route his paleolithic ancestors took to get from Africa to Europe and where they took refuge from the glaciers during the last ice age. DNA includes a complete set of blueprints for a human being, and it doesn't lie. You can deny a rape, but not when a DNA test confirms it. (58% of "African Americans" are at least 1/8 European in origin)

The reason they said "Sub-Saharan Africa" is that the split between the original homo sapiens population in Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world occurred around 50,000 years ago, when the great homo sapiens exodus from Africa began. North Africans and everyone else in the world are a distinct subset different from Sub-Saharan Africans, who have most of the human race's genetic variation. Cobb is white because he carries the definitive European white-skin gene - but that mutation only appeared about 9,000 years ago, although 98% of Northern Europeans carry it today. Prior to that time, Europeans were much darker than they are now. If you want an example of what Europeans were originally like, go to Ireland and find some Black Irish. I know a few of them, and "black" is not a figure of speech. They are descended from the original Irish but haven't inherited the white skin mutation yet. Color is only skin deep and doesn't reliably indicate ancestry.

So, to summarize, it's obvious that some of Cobb's ancestors made their way to America on the slave ships, not the Mayflower. If he's 14% African, then at least 2 of his 8 great-grandparents would have been classified as "negro" under the Jim Crow laws many of the Southern states had in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and Cobb himself would be classified as "negro" under some of those laws. This is all very relevant to this article since he is a "white" supremacist. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m puzzled. Are you saying that southern Europeans don’t have white skin? And that maybe one billion people throughout the world have a common ancestor just 9,000 years ago? Was there a similar genetic mutation in northern Asia?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the information about the DNA test results be moved out of the "Leith, North Dakota" section, and placed into a section heading of its own within the Biography: "DNA Test Results Suggesting African Heritage". It is not directly related to his activities in Leith, North Dakota. If legitimate sources can be quoted questioning the reliability of the test results, they should be cited. But he did agree to the tests, these results are public and have gone "viral", and given his views they are a significant aspect of his biography. 69.109.120.162 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason Goddard offered to give him the tests is because he was appearing on her show to discuss his activities in Leith. So it's not true that the two subjects are unrelated. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that critique. However, this is now a significant part of his biography meriting distinct mention. The revelation has spread widely through news outlets and the web. It will and does significantly impact people's view of him. It cannot be considered a minor detail.

By all means, keep the mention of the fact that he challenges the conclusion, and why. But his genealogy isn't something that he is doing in Leith, it's something that he is (or is not). 69.109.120.162 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mr. Cobb submitted a DNA sample to the "Trisha Goddard" talk show and received genetic testing results back during a recent taping that demonstrate that he is 14% Sub-Saharan African. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-white-supremacist-dna-20131112,0,7467682.story#axzz2ke4L78Fl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_svnsF5OLbI

162.232.100.65 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most studies coming from the US are.showing that their white population is mixed.As a scientist(English is not my language) 14% does not prove that your great grandparent was a black person.DNA test is not like math.You can have african ancestry and look white and be able to have white children.You can even marry a white person who also have 14%and still have white children.Is hard to explain that is why study years.They are many Europeans who still have african,arab or asian ancestry( wars and invasions by the Moors,srabs,mongoloids) who have a 15% of this mixes in their DNA and that happen long before America was discover.Most studies are being made for cancer and health issue.White Europeans(depending of the region and country) tend to show a different mixed than white americans.That help explain what deseases made be more common in some population and what we can do to decrease the chances to get them.That is the reason why this studies are being made. Is funny how people are afraid of DNA and if they do not likr the results then is fake.I bet that the reason she did it is because studies made for health research are showing that most white population in the US have native american,african or jewish ancestry.She read the studies made for cancer research and she knew he had a high probability of finding one of the three.She just find black.Cientifica1 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Cientifica1[reply]

Have those test results been independently confirmed?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LATimes says "Cobb told the Bismarck Tribune on Monday that he doubted the validity of the test and said he planned to take up to three more DNA tests and publish the results." Might be worth adding that. I may do it today.

talk) 17:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This[8] is even better. Looks like Cobb is at least hedging his bets - he's going to continue on even if they are correct, and thinks the test might explain why he hates Blacks. I'll leave this for someone else.

talk

) 17:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC

I b

Note: Per

talk) 18:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with

Celestra's take on this, and would like to suggest the following approach: we shouldn't at this stage claim that the DNA test proves anything, but we can state that newspapers have reported that the test took place; that Goddard stated that the result of the test indicated the 86/14% split; that Cobb has challenged the validity of the test; and that Cobb has said that he intends to take further DNA tests and to make the results public. The RSs support these, I think. --Stfg (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

″Sub-Saharan African″ is a rather general term. The Lemba people of southern Africa have some Jewish ancestry. People in the Horn of Africa surely have very different ancestry to those in West and Central Africa, from where most African-Americans originated.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No valid reason for PP

talk) 23:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Are there any fair-use photos of Cobb available? He's getting so much attention it'd probably be worth having a photo of him in the article. I'm tempted to say we should use (John Glover as Lionel Luthor, from Smallville), because Cobb looks almost EXACTLY like that guy....although I know we can't do that. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be said about his Canadian arrest and his fugitive status there. It seems he updated his Podblanc site while at a public library in Canada, and since there is racist content being posted on his site, that makes him a hate criminal in the eyes of Canada.72.11.53.145 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[9] and [10] - house he owns about to be torn down, girlfriend of Cobb's follower trying to get a court order against a councillor.

So this hasn't been edited in a long time. He has since abandoned his plans in Leith and he even got rid of his 6 plots of land. Furthermore the article still refers to an upcoming event last January. 174.68.101.141 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Nos[reply]

Edited the first paragraph that stated that Cobb is homophobic and changed it to anti-LGBT to make it NPOV. Adrift* (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am Craig Cobb, the subject of this article. I have taken a DNA test with Ancestry.com -- a firm recognized in your own ISOGG Wiki as being one which tests for 500,000 autosomals compared to AncestryBYDNA's mere 176. That AncestryBYDNA test was given to me on the Trisha Goddard show in 2013. That company is also cited in many ISOGG stories and links (your own claims) as having been re-formed because of poor and shady business practices. They then began copying Ancestry.com's (a highly regarded company in ISOGG Wiki) packaging, logo and name. These tests are then offered with bulk discounts to high school sociology teachers with (I believe) the true intent of defaming and shocking young white students. This practice is hateful and harming to these youths psyches, as it was to me in my case.

Not too long ago, this page had me in the category of...something like..."Americans of Partial African Descent". That has been retracted. If you see some edits i made (this is permitted under your system) you will see that I was quickly blocked from making these factual changes by a persistent editor with an agenda.

In any case, last evening I received the results of my DNA test by Ancestry.com and I have zero "Sub Saharan" African American percentage in my body. You can see screenshots of the test where I have laid them in BELOW this video: http://www.podblanc.guru/craig-cobbs-dna-test-result-from-ancestrycom-500000-alleles_568ad742a.html In my professsion as a white social activist fighting white genocide, i have been imprisoned in 4 countries. Wiki had this "14%" info online early--and it indeed dismayed and stressed me prior to my being arrested and incarcerated for several Class C felonies in Leith.

I feel sure that Wiki will agree that I have negated the junk science of the disreputable (look at their histories in ISOGG Wiki) firm AncestryByDNA in testing with a reputable firm. I will be glad to provide you with my emails citing my test index number to confirm these facts. Further, this evening I will put onto You Tube a video made by myself of myself in which I clearly show the tube with the same number, spit into it, and walk it fron the Minot, ND post office parking lot to the parcels bin.

In your revision of the piece, I request that you leave in your long-standing calumny but correct it with the new data, and I respectfully ask that you not include any negative terminology such as "Mr Cobb now claims" etc.

Thank You very much for your considerations. Sincerely, Craig Cobb, Sherwood, ND [email protected]

' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.117.89 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Cobb. Thanks for the new information. It has been added. Wikipedia must remain unbiased. Therefore with a neutral position on your views, I will add this new info and proof that you are in fact 100% European. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. One is that we have zero connection to ISOGG Wiki. Two is that ISOGG wiki are unlikely to be a reliable source. Three is that ISOGG wiki doesn't seem to really that that ancestry.com is more reliable for biogeographical ancestry estimates that ancestrybyDNA. Note that the number of SNPs is only one factor in determining accuracy. In any case, biogeographical ancestry estimates are still a fairly new area and a lot of commercial DNA tests (I suspect this applies to both ancestry.com or ancestrybyDNA) have little or no peer review science behind them so it'a rather difficult to even give a good answer about which one is better. They could easily both be just as unreliable. And of course, even if one is more reliable than the other, it doesn't necessarily demonstrate the other one is wrong or false when they disagree (unless the reliabilities are so different that we can make that assumption, but for something like biogeographical ancestry, it's unlikely we can say that). Ultimately even if a reliable source did say that ancestrybyDNA is far less reliable than ancestry.com, we can't use those claims to advance the view that any specific ancestrybyDNA test is probably/ wrong since that's a form of

WP:synthesis

.

In this specific case, from what I can tell the only sources discussing the two DNA tests, or at least the only sources presented so far originate from Cobb himself. Since this is an article on Cobb, it's fair to report the test he says he's taken and the results he reports. However we would need to mention that this is something coming from Cobb. Also as he isn't a reliable source on biogeographical ancestry testing, we can't use his words make the claim in wiki voice that the other test was false, or the recent test is correct. (In fact even someone was a reliable source on biogeographical ancestry testing, we would still take care on using their own words to advance a position about their own test results.) If we had multiple reliable secondary sources presenting the claim that the older tests were wrong and the new tests were right, then we could probably say that, but we don't appear to.

Frankly as I've already mentioned, biogeographical ancestry estimates are still so new and as I already mentioned in the case of commercial tests often with little peer review. So I don't actually think either test is that significant. Although my views are similar to [11] anyway.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.podblanc.guru/craig-cobb-ancestrycom-genetic-test-700000-alleles-100-european_92d3ea584.html

Here is proof. He took another DNA test by a more credible company. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source http://www.podblanc.guru/craig-cobb-ancestrycom-genetic-test-700000-alleles-100-european_92d3ea584.html is Cobb's website. It is easy to assume he lied to keep his case alive. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.65.239 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 December 2015‎

To you and the other anon IPs: We are not allowed to assume anything. Under

WP:NPOV, we can't speculate, extrapolate or editorialize. Additionally that policy forbids us from using terms like "alleged" or "claimed". We have to use neutral terms such as "said". These are hardcore Wikipedia rules. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not stated where Cobb was born. However his early years were in Canada. Since he was deported to Canada it would be safe to say that he must have been a Canadian citizen at the time. The statement that "Canada, where Cobb claims to hold citizenship" is wrong, and reads rather NPOV.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...in honor of President-elect Donald Trump, whom Cobb called "probably the greatest leader probably in several hundred years." ^[1]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Craig Cobb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oweb.com/state/story/1029202005_staWV--AryanMessenger-M0017.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kqcd.com/story/23989487/craig-cobb-in-custody
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304235433/http://rus.postimees.ee/080408/glavnaja/estonija/32619.php to http://rus.postimees.ee/080408/glavnaja/estonija/32619.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://195.250.160.49/viewdoc/4F9ACF372178233CC2257219003D7C51

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth, please, in line with Wiki standards. Valetude (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed three short statements that have been tagged since 2014, 2015 and 2017 respectively. None seem critical to the article, but they could be re-introduced if citations are found. The second is probably the easiest to source and most significant, I read a couple of articles without finding anything.

1. and also attended an invitation-only leadership conference of the National Alliance
2. He moved there [Leith] in 2012.
3. This despite two YouTube videos depicting a heated, profanity-filled exchange and tirade by Cobb.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]