Talk:Dana Loesch

Issues in need of a section header so that the TOC does not follow the first comments on the talk page

Reinstating Dana Loesch talk page

What is your problem? Why are you deleting everything? If you're not going to contribute anything, why don't you leave this alone while I'm working on this page? ProfessorLoesch (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is one of many comments, continued below, which are directed at other editors questioning legitimacy of article subject for WP. Also, there is important policy on Conflict of Interest, WP:COI and speciifcally WP:Autobiography to consider. IMO, this talk-page section and similar others below (with odd titles and disjointed content) should be merged per WP:TPG (talk page guidelines). -Anon 97.81.120.170 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cindamuse - you might recognize this as the "talk page"

yeah, this is where you discuss stuff that you have a problem with. Generally that's a good idea before you go deleting vast swaths of referenced material. ProfessorLoesch (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I eagerly await your input here. ProfessorLoesch (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, judging by the concerns with which you tagged the page, it seems like you're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, but I'll address them:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

Ok, so discuss them on the talk page guy...

This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since October 2010.

It has several references, which is pretty good for a page just started. Add citation needed tags if you want more, and I will fill them.

It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since October 2010.

Already has some, more to come. You're welcome to add some yourself if you want to get off your backside.

The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since October 2010.

Clearly you didn't bother to either plug "Dana Loesch" into google or simply read the page on Wikipedia.

It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since October 2010.

So make some specific complaints or suggestions.

It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy. Tagged since October 2010.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I'm not Dana Loesch. If you think Dana Loesch has time to fool around on wikipedia, then clearly you didn't bother to either plug "Dana Loesch" into google or...oh wait. ProfessorLoesch (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I came across this article working with NPP. I gave a quick review, copyedited to remove unencyclopedic content, and brought it into compliance with WP:MOSBIO. The edits were immediately reverted to ones that were nonconstructive and out of compliance. I alerted you of these edits on your talkpage and encouraged you to review the standards and guidelines for editing biographies of living persons. Rather than receiving a response, you blanked your talkpage.
  The article has issues. At the time that I came across the article, the attempt was made to establish notability through sources that lack independence from the subject. I alerted editors to the need for independent, third-party sources. Those were ignored. Maintenance tags were removed, unaddressed, which is contrary to policy. Notability cannot be established through the subject's own publicity and websites. As far as being wikified, I have done this, but you continue to revert these edits to your own. I believe that the subject may be notable and have not prompted for deletion, preferring to edit to present the subject as notable. It is to your benefit to accept assistance from other editors who may have a bit more experience than yourself at retaining articles. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang On

Seriously? I don't know why people seem to think Dana Loesch shoudn't have a wikipedia page...

• she's one of the original tea party founders, and a nationally recognized tea party leader
• she's a radio host
• she's the editor of one of the most popular conservative websites on the web
• she's appeared frequently on every major news network (except NBC I believe...don't think she likes them). She's appeared on CNN more than 20-30 times at least (just google it) as a political commentator. She was chosen as one of six political commentators by ABC to cover their election night coverage for the 2010 midterms.

Do I need to go on? I'd be happy to...

As you can see, I've cited this thing heavily.

I have to go for now, but I'll be back in about two hours. When I come back, I intend to expand upon her tea party influenceProfessorLoesch (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues

While it's far from an exemplary article, it is referenced, and notability appears to have been met. Also, I see no evidence that this article is "autobiographical". Is there any objection to removing these tags? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography and Questionable Notability

Restoring proper tags. Article is almost certainly an autobiography, written by User:ProfessorLoesch of the same name. Also appears to be about a non major market radio host of highly questionable notability, though I will leave the decision on whether or not it should be nominated for deletion to others. Virginia80 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is obviously not an autobiography, nor is it a puff-piece. Loesch is clearly notable by Wikipedia's general notability rules. I've reverted all Virginia80's recent edits. Virginia80, please be much more careful in future if/when you edit WP:BLPs about people you oppose. In particular, please gain consensus on this page before making any more contentious edits to this article. CWC 11:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This article was developed by User:ProfessorLoesch, probably the subject, for the purpose of this article. The article needs to be evaluated in light of the fact that it was developed solely for self-promotional purposes. Additionally, in checking the few, mostly unnotable sources listed, she is not a graduate of the university listed; she dropped out. Her own web site cannot be a source for her (self-stated) relevance. I believe the article should probably be listed for speedy deletion, though (as mentioned in my previous edit note), I will leave that open for further evaluation. Virginia80 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Loesch has been on CNN almost every day since February 10, when she was hired. Eric Boehlert and MMFA has been slamming her in various articles on MMFA since the CNN announcement. For a media outlet, as well as someone like Boehlert who is also notable on Wikipedia, to react like this, I think the notability issue is more than covered. Groink (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems absurd that Dana Loesch herself would create a user account, using her own name, and then create a page for herself. The notability tag can stay, as it seems to be the subject of some valid debate. However, the autobiography tag is simply misleading. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed (again) the autobiography tag. The notability tag was already gone. As for the BLP ref tag, the article has ten listed and properly cited references. I am removing that as well. I think someone needs to drop the stick here. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the Loesch wouldn't have time? It seems people like her do what they do exactly to have plenty of spare time! But I have doubts if she even knows how to write, though. 187.115.243.66 (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly obvious that neither Dana Loesch nor her husband would register as Professor Loesch, even if they had enough spare time to edit here. In addition, "ProfessorLoesch" (now user DoctorFuManchu (talk · contribs)) explicitly denied any connection to DL here; per Wikipedia rules, we require some actual, ya'know, evidence before throwing any more nasty accusations. So, yeah, drop that WP:STICK and walk away from that poor dead equine ... CWC 10:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My WP:AGF has all but run out here. The same editor continues to disrupt this article. His or her edits are against consensus, and have been reverted by multiple editors. This editor has been asked to drop the stick. I believe the appropriate policy is don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. If this continues, I'm afraid further steps will need to be taken. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Others above are assuming that ProfLoesch was aware of WP:COI policy, instead of learning afterwards and backtracking, and they're using subjective terms like "obvious" when it's far from that. Seems reasonable to assume that User:ProfLoesch is the subject, or related, given the rhetorical style and dogged defense of early content that violates various policies. -Anon 97.81.120.170 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's sad that this has been revisited, but here we go:

• 1.)It is extremely, extremely unlikely that Dana Loesch ever had anything to do with this article.
• 2.)In any case, the issues that previously dogged this article have been addressed. Notability has been established; references have been provided. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

POV? Autobiography?

Look, I'd never heard of this woman until less than an hour ago, when I caught her in the last part of an episode of Bill Maher's show. I don't know her from Eve, and that's why I came here. So what do I see but a tag at the top which decries the article because it "may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" and for being "an autobiography, or [for having] been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject." So I look at the article, and I find that this "autobiography" is 187 words long, including section headers (but not including the infobox). What the hell? We're to believe that this is written by the subject? And are we to believe that the subject would create an entire section pointing out that she's a drop out? Give me a break. If that's POV, it certainly isn't because she wrote it.

So this really got my curiosity up. I did some investigation. Turns out that at the top of the list of editors working on this article[1] is an editor who has been "editing" for well over a year, yet has only 47 mainspace edits to his/her name in that whole time, nearly half of which have been to this article. And this editor has basically been shoving the theory down on everyone else here that this is an autobiography because was created by someone with a username that contained the same last name. Look, that doesn't even come close to proving it was written by the subject. Sure, it might give rise to the suspicion that the creator might have intended to create a hagiography, but the proof is in the pudding, and this (as far as I can see) is a very spartan, very vanilla article. (For the record, if this article changes substantially, this is the version that was most recently tagged as "POV". I think it's possible that there may have been editorial misconduct on this article, but the prime suspect is not whom the tagger would have us vilify.

So I want to see a list of specific statements that are allegedly POV, and/or a presentation of evidence that this article was created (or even has been substantially edited by) the subject. Otherwise, this looks like a total witch hunt to me. I think that if the greater community was brought in on this, the notion that this article has POV issues would be laughed off of the relevant talk page.

Having said all this, I do see one potential problem with this article. Does this woman rise to the level of notability necessary for an article? Damned if I know--I'd never heard of her until an hour ago. I'd be interested in seeing that discussion, and I very well am open to persuasion that this article should be deleted. But I have no tolerance for editors with accounts that appear to exist for one purpose, especially when they demonstrate such overwhelming prejudice. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow up comments. Now I've looked at the edit history in more detail. While I still stand by the substance of my comments, I will acknowledge that there have been a few edits that did appear to address the topics raised in the tags. For example, I approve of this removal of that "30 under 30" crap--that did look like it was from a self-written autobiography. And this edit did remove some non-encyclopedic material.

My point is, these problems have been addressed. But now it just looks like the continued tagging is blind antipathy. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see now I should have read this talk page before creating my diatribe. Obviously, I am not the only one who has a problem with the way this article is being handled. I suggest that an administrator be brought in to talk to the relevant people if there continues to be a lack of respect for Wikipedia procedures, including WP:CONSENSUS. Good night! HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the article, and excellent comments here. I also think that your welcoming message on the disruptive user's talk page was a nice touch. Hopefully there will be no more disruption here. If there is, the administrative assistance you suggested is probably the next step to take. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I will say that perhaps Loesch's criticisms of CNN should be returned to the article. As they've recently hired her, I think her previous comments about them merit inclusion here. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

An error in my edit summary

Earlier, when this article was being disrupted on a regular basis, I reverted a series of disruptive edits, with the edit summary: "revert vandalism". After reading our vandalism policy (and shame on me for not doing that beforehand), I realize that those edits do not qualify as vandalism. Please note that these edits were still disruptive and unacceptable. However, they did not rise to the level of constituting vandalism. My edit summary, as well as my accusations of vandalism were incorrect, and I apologize for these mistakes. I have left a similar note on the talk page of the editor against whom I made this incorrect accusation. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fifty lashes with a wet noodle!! HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Rejected Offer" edits

To the anon IP editor who has been repeatedly inserting the same edit:

I'm really baffled by your edits to Dana Loesch, and would like to discuss it with you in an attempt to avoid having you blocked. Your edits appear to me to be simple vandalism, but perhaps your intent in sincere. Here's what I see:

First of all, you write the following:

• However, the Tea Party immediately rejected the offer . . . To what offer are you referring? No "offer" was made to the "Tea Party" (more on that in the next bullet), and so there was nothing to reject. This makes no sense to me at all.
• . . . the broadcasts continued against the Tea Party's consent. The clear implication of this second part of the sentence is that the Tea Party is a singular entity, speaking with a unified voice, and capable of granting or withholding consent. This seems far from true to me; there are many people leading many factions of what is called the Tea Party, but as far as I know, there is no one person speaking for the Tea Party, and therefore no one can give consent to anything. If I am wrong, please explain it to me.

Secondly, at the end of your post, you place a footnote number, like so: . . . consent. [5] This is the item that looks most like vandalism to me, because it has the appearance of trying to make the reader believe that there is a source for the statement. But there is none. Your "[5]" links to no source. Maintaining good faith, I checked the article that the actual source with the footnote numbered "5" was linked (currently here[2]), thinking that you simply did not know how to properly footnote in Wikipedia. But I found nothing in there like the statement you added to the article. It is hard for me to avoid concluding that you were trying to be deceptive; perhaps others will see what I do not.

So I'm asking you to first, desist in reverting me, and second, explain yourself, either on this talk page or on my talk page or yours. But if you revert back to this apparent vandalism again, I shall have to have you blocked. For an explanation of why, please read WP:3RR. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Afghans and/or alleged Taliban fighters

Besides and despite that some sources taking a side in direction of them being Taliban fighters the Navy didn't say or confirm this as far as I know and there are sources like CNN [3] that don't go either way and also foreign reliable sources like German Tagesschau (in German language)[4] that calls them "alleged" Taliban fighters. Till this point is officially cleared one way or the other I think we should either just call them "Afghans" or "alleged Afghan Taliban fighters". The sources who "identify" the dead certainly are just taking a crap-shot as they please and it would be more NPOV to at least add "alleged" for now.TMCk (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to look here before editing. While earlier sources say "allegedly" and "appear to be Taliban" other later sources don't bother. Couldn't find a statement "confirmed to be Taliban fighters" but I guess that will come eventually after the investigation. CarolMooreDC 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Statements pertaining to breast cancer, birth control, bigotry, agism, and abortion

I note that my recent inclusions were reverted with the edit summary "not notable." I would remind editors that per WP:NNC, while notability is used to decide whether we should include an article on a particular subject, it does not determine which specific facts should or should not be included in articles because articles are supposed to be comprehensive by default. Therefore, I am reverting the deletion. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Trans-vaginal ultrasound quote

It seems there's been some controversy over whether to include a recent contentious quote by Loesch in this article, relating to the Virginia bill which would require women to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion. I think this does belong in the article, and this source should be acceptable:[5] If you disagree, please comment below. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that Loesch has repeatedly stated that various lefties (including, IIRC, Think Progress) have been busily lying about the bill and her support of it, I say not. Even someone like me who skims Big Journalism posts on that topic while looking for interesting stuff can tell that that Think Progress story is very deceptive.

Indeed, I think any paragraph about a conservative sourced only to ThinkProgress.org probably should be removed immediately per BLP. I've removed at least three versions of this allegation from this article. All had the obvious defect of failing to give Loesch's side of the story, perhaps because doing so would make it obvious that the entire 'controversy' is a beat-up reeking (IMO) of desperation. CWC 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it ought to be included. The user that has repeatedly removed the paragraph keeps referring to Loesch's column in which she misrepresented the facts regarding the legislation's specifics without citing any sources as evidence that the bill did not require a transvaginal ultrasound, even though her later comments clearly demonstrate that she knew that the reality, as reported by every single other news outlet (including MSNBC, The Telegraph, and local news is that the only way to determine gestation age during the first trimester is via a transvaginal ultrasound. Furthermore, the actual quote at issue here is inarguably evidence of her defense of the legislation as it stood at the time she made the comment. I realize that based on Loesch's often controversial statements, the inclusion of the disputed paragraph might appear biased, but after thoroughly reading through WP:BLP, I see no reason why this paragraph should not be included. She made the statement, it was reported on; this is biographical information and I therefore believe it ought to be included in this article, just like her comments regarding US troops urinating on dead Afghan fighters belongs in the article. She's made her career saying highly controversial things, and there's no reason why this paragraph should be omitted just because what she said was controversial.

Furthermore, CWC's description of people that disagree with Loesch's opinions as "lefties" demonstrates that the repeated removal of the paragraph in question here is politically motivated. I am not a "lefty" or a "righty" (although I do write with my right hand), and I think that if anything, the inclusion of her comments helps validate the existence of an article on her in the first place. As we've seen in the Palin wars, Wikipedia is not the place to insert one's political perspective. I am therefore replacing the paragraph. If anyone can demonstrate to me why there's any reason to remove it that is not entirely politically motivated, I will gladly cease my protests.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, here. CWC has clearly demonstrated a political motivation behind his repeated deletion of the paragraph in question. His dislike for any views that differ from his own is more than apparent - he casts aspersions upon using leftwing ThinkProgress as a source, but seems to think its rightwing counterpart BigGovernment is perfectly acceptable - and he is showing absolute disregard for the facts in play here, citing BLP without actually demonstrating that he's even familiar with what that means. I've reinstated the paragraph until such time as it can be explicitly demonstrated that it doesn’t belong here.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

1. Osiriscorleone, please don't lie about me ever again. Not lying about Ms Loesch any more would be helpful too.
2. You violated WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (a) by putting the disputed text back in the article twice and (b) in the preceding comment. Don't do that!
3. The relevance of Big Journalism is that she writes there, so it is a source (in fact, the source) for "Loesch says X". It's a polemical group blog, which is lower that Think Progress in the reliabity scale.
4. BLP says that the onus is on the editor inserting the controversial material, not me.
5. My use of the word "lefties" was only in summarizing Loesch's writings, not in relation to any Wikipedia editor.
6. Wikipedia articles should not track every controversy a person gets involved in, only those of lasting significance.
7. Look, it's not that hard: anything that relies purely on Loesch's opponents and does not give her side is a prima facie violation of NPOV and BLP.
8. My recent edits are based on core Wikipedia rules (NPOV, BLP), not my politics, both here and at Peter Gleick (a 'lefty'). Cheers, CWC 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not lying about anyone here. You said what you said, Loesch said what she said. All I've done is point that out. You took the disputed text out based on a political viewpoint, rather than getting consensus first, and from a quick review of your edit history, it's not the first time. Since there are now two voices supporting the inclusion of the paragraph (three, if you count the original author) against your one, it would appear that you are uninterested in getting consensus and would prefer to just strike the incident from the record. I've tried as hard as I can to help amend the paragraph so that it references reliable sources, because I think it's important that Wikipedia remain current and accurate. I've also tried to find any examples of her side of the story that doesn’t come from BigGovernment, but have found none. As for relevance, a simple Google search produces pages upon pages of coverage of Loesch's statement. Clearly this is as relevant as anything else she's said - at the very least, it's of as lasting significance as her comments regarding the US troops urinating on Afghan fighters.

Like I said, I'm not going to get into an edit war here. If you insist on censoring Wikipedia to fit your personal worldview, that's your right, and best of luck to you.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I took that text out because it was a BLP violation. WP:BLP says to remove BLP violations, then discuss. (It was also a NPOV violation, but remove-then-discuss only applies to BLP.) This is bordering on process-wonkery, but it's important. BLP also says it's OK to use un-fact-checked writing (eg., blog posts) by the subject of an article in certain circumstances: Loesch's claim that the law doesn't mention or require trans-vaginal ultrasounds would be perfectly OK to use in this article.

And if Wikipedia fit my personal world view, it would be a lot different ... the article on mulesing would be NSFW, for one thing ... hmm. Best wishes, CWC 00:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on how the paragraph violated WP:BLP. She made the comment, didn’t she? It was reported on, wasn’t it? It just seems to me that this merits inclusion just as much as the Marines incident does. And it's pretty clear at this point to anyone following this story that while the law didn’t mandate the use of transvaginal ultrasound directly, it did call for an ultrasound to determine gestation age, and only transvaginal ultrasounds are capable of detecting gestation age during the first trimester. Furthermore, Loesch was clearly aware of this fact when she made her comments, which demonstrates that she was lying when she claimed the law didn’t require the procedure. So basically what you're proposing is that we let the lie stand, since we'd be taking her at her word, even if that word is false. I'm used to this kind of laziness in the mainstream media at this point, but it's disheartening to see it in play here. It just seems to me that your opposition to including this paragraph is highly political in nature. You’ve decided that the inclusion of this paragraph is without merit, and since I'm not going to engage in the edit war, your manipulation of the facts will stand.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)