Talk:Laura Loomer

Code Pink analogy

@E.M.Gregory: Good catch. Code Pink. I've seen her on the news quite a few times protesting events. Good comparison. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Laura Loomer Cuomo ambush video edit

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You just deleted an entire event from this article. The video the Daily Beast references is the source of the quotes. Also, your edit was within hours of my "Keep" vote on an article you were voting delete. I certainly hope this was not a retaliatory edit on your part. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the BLP issue that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was talking about; nevertheless I don't think this material is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. So an alt-right activist "ambushed" a CNN reporter on the sidewalk and asked him a loaded question. Who cares. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The section was primarily a collection of unreferenced quotes, attributed to living persons, which BLP categorically prohibits. The section had one reference which did not at all support the quotes. I definitely agree with you about the section's clear lack of encyclopedic value. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: It wasn't one "gotcha" question Loomer asked, it was a series of questions she asked before Cuomo closed the SUV door on her. The section has value because if a reader links to the Daily Beast article and it's subsequent links, they will see Loomer was confronting Cuomo over CNN tracking down an anonymous Reddit user who created a video meme of Trump body slamming and punching a man whose head was replaced with a CNN logo, that Trump re-tweeted that gained national media attention, generating much debate and had extensive coverage for days. Both the re-tweet and the subsequent fallout coverage of CNN, a billion dollar news organization, for tracking down an anonymous Reddit user who was the original source of the video meme. CNN basically told the Reddit user that should they repeat the same behavior, that CNN would make their identity public. Loomer was confronting Cuomo as to why they attempted to extort the Reddit user, why Cuomo had deleted a controversial tweet as to if CNN should expose the Reddit user, and did CNN not consider the Reddit user's video meme as free speech. As to unreferenced quotes, the previous version states that according to the video as reported by the Daily Beast, a video that was the centerpiece of their article, that video was the source of the sections quotes so it was not unreferenced as alleged. I didn't want to get in a edit war with Hullaballoo so I took the higher road and used only the articles wording and not the exchange caught on video. Even though I am curious as to what drew Hullaballoo's attention to Loomer's article, since it's highly suspect "The Big Bad Wolfowitz" deleted the section within hours of us having opposing opinions on another article that is in AfD Cllgbksr (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:AGF is just as defective as your understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS. Linking to a page that links to a page that accesses a likely doctored primary source is not a reference, and probably not a reliable source. Given that I've been editing in this area for a long time, it's more likely that your first-ever !vote in a porn-related AFD was intended as retaliation for my position at Talk:Van Jones, which led to consensus against including another instance of the alt-right ambush fake journalism you try to promote. Can't you keep yourself busy enough going to libraries and ripping "Julius Caesar" out of Shakespeare's collected works? Aren't there pudgy Russian operatives with bad, bad haircuts who can keep you busy promoting treason? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

My vote in AfD had nothing to do with your back and forth with that user or any other user, I felt the article passed muster. I should be offended by your disparaging comments casting me as either alt right and/or a Russian sympathizer when you don't even know me, but it's going to take more than a sarcastic WP user to get under my skin. You talk about having left WP b/c of aggressive editors when it appears you are the aggressor. Your comments were uncalled for and I want them retracted from this talk page. I personally don't approve of Loomer and her tactics but it's not my place to judge her or any subject I write about. I have no problem talking with another editor as it relates to WP policy but when I get personally attacked that's where I draw the line. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

bakedalaska dating loomer

https://mobile.twitter.com/bakedalaska/status/905309022730977280 64.175.40.231 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right

SgThomas has repeatedly removed the alt-right descriptor in spite of it being reliably sourced, apparently relying on WP:REDFLAG and arguing that "alt-right" implies "white supremacist." The cited source makes clear that white nationalism is adopted by only one wing of the alt-right movement, and that the alt-right movement includes provocateurs such as Loomer who are not in the white supremacist camp. And there are other reliable sources that call Loomer alt-right, such as The Observer, Salon, Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, and The Australian. Any thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

How about Merriam-Webster? Here’s their definition: Anyone "reject[in]g mainstream conservative politics and espous[ing] extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism." I bolded "typically" because it doesn’t preclude exceptions. According to this New Yorker article, for example, there has been a branding war between two branches of the alt-right since Spencer rose to prominence. Some formerly proud alt-right members would now prefer to be called "the alt-light, or the New Right, or civic nationalism, or American nationalism, or one of a few other variations." Question is: Do they get to control what the rest of the world calls them? Like it or not, for now they're stuck with the label. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@ChickenFingers6262: According to Wikipedia, it’s not a good idea to use Wikipedia as a reference/source for another Wikipedia article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty obvious she isn't "alt-right" (Personal attack removed). Here is a video of her denouncing neo-nazis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CTRn4z07L4&feature=em-uploademail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman84 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Another link (Personal attack removed): https://twitter.com/lauraloomer/status/875964980981628930?lang=en - a Jewish woman (or man) cannot be classed as "alt-right". Alt-light is a more appropriate descriptor. It is not reliably sourced. Left-leaning websites are not balanced or neutral sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman84 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No original research, please. Sources are not rendered unreliable simply because of their bias. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• 92.24.40.212, please stop edit warring and discuss. We follow what the reliable sources say and we do not engage in original research of the kind you describe in your edit summaries. If you keep edit warring then someone will request to have you blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Many sources label Loomer as alt-right or far-right. This one just came out today, for example. 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional articles listing Loomer as Far-right 174.54.4.54 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Attempted entrapment of Clinton campaign

@DrFleischman: It was a direct quote from the source. How ist that misleading? I don’t mind paraphrasing the quote, but it needs to be correct. Your version implies that the campaign merely 'thinks’ it complied with the law while the direct quote indicates certainty, i.e., checking. The attempt obiously failed; I’m sure that if the attempted entrapment had led to anything quotable/watchable or even remotely doctorable to make it quotable/watchable, we would have seen it, if not on Fox News, then on YouTube or wherever Loomer or her then employer, Project Vertitas/O’Keefe, go public. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My concern was just a technical beef, in that your previous version suggested that the Clinton campaign had used those words, when in fact it was TIME magazine that had used them. Your more recent edit seems like a closer and better paraphrase. I support the current version. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy edit / cite check tag

On October 13 BeenAroundAWhile added a {{copy edit}} tag with the note: style, usage, grammar, flow. Check sources to see they say what the article says they say." BeenAroundAWhile, can you please describe any issues you've spotted so we can work on addressing them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)