Talk:Laura Loomer

Rebel Media

Rebel News Media is Far Right? Since when?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.201.83 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We go by what the reliable sources say. This article cites this source to support the descriptor; I see The Rebel Media also has five sources supporting "far-right". GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News is 100% far-right aka racist? Iseverynametakenwtf (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Noting I've moved these comments down from where they were left in a year-old section. I've left a note at User talk:Iseverynametakenwtf#Laura Loomer because I assume they didn't see this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

All their sources are far-left or left, so of course any source center or even slightly leaning toward right is considered "far-right" now. Read the bibliography list on the bottom for proof.

And I came to read who she really is to find out the truth. Apparently truth cannot be had. 72.94.178.112 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have centrist or right-leaning reliable sources describing Loomer or The Rebel News in a different way I'd be happy to evaluate them. If you're unsure if a source is generally considered reliable, you can check to see if it's listed at WP:RSP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Julius Caesar play disruption

"Loomer, who is pro-Trump, was arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing"; I submit "who is pro-Trump" could be removed here, since it surely evident at this stage in the article to any reader with two synapses to rub together. 81.187.27.126 (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Looks like Wukai took care of this in a copyedit: [1]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in this is neutral

WP:NOTAFORUM. No changes have been suggested, nor have any specific issues been identified with this page. If you have concerns about neutrality, please first read WP:NPOV and then explain your specific concerns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This entire page reads like a leftist hate rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.57.221 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Do you have any specific suggestions for changes, or for sources that you'd like to see represented? Vague comments like this are not particularly useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC) "She has also occasionally reported for the American far-right conspiracy theory and InfoWars.[11]" -Citing this as fact based on the far left conspiracy theory website the Daily Beast seem problematic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.180.239 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Which bit do you have a concern with, the description of InfoWars or the fact that Loomer wrote for them? Because the description of InfoWars is the same as how it is described at the InfoWars article, which is more than adequately cited. I've added two cites to this article to confirm (from The Washington Post and The Atlantic). As for the description of The Daily Beast as a "far-left conspiracy website", WP:RSP#The Daily Beast summarizes Wikipedians' consensus on the source as "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The claim that Loomer has occasionally reported for InfoWars is, to my knowledge, an uncontroversial statement of fact and so this is a perfectly usable source for it; the descriptor of InfoWars is coming from The Washington Post and The Atlantic, not The Daily Beast. I've also added an additional citation from The Washington Post which confirms Loomer reported for InfoWars. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Is this Wikipedia or RationalWiki? This is incredibly onesided! 87.49.44.24 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC) The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Even though almost all Wikipedia articles are pro-Left or pro-Democrat, nothing is ever described as "far Left." However, descriptions such as "far Right" are very common. Even given Wikipedia's basic pro-Left bias, this article is very unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC) See my comment directly above, in reply to 87.49.44.24. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC) This article is clearly heavily biased from a leftist perspective. If it cannot be presented neutrally, then this article should be deleted. Even if there are no sources that aren't far left, no article is better than a biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.32.161 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC) That's not how neutrality works on Wikipedia. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If there are no (or very few) sources that describe Loomer as something other than a far-right conspiracy theorist, then the article will reflect that. I would recommend you read Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare THere is a systematic problem in wikipedia concerning calling people white nationalist, far-right, conspiracy theorist. I have seen these label thrown around, usually quoting some left-leaning newspaper as source. These are highly opinionated labels and if included should be rephrased to "Considered far-right by etc.. etc..". THe systematic bias presents itself as I have never seen any wikipedia page on any person being described as far left" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.135.79 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

While you are generally correct that strong statements such as these should be attributed if they are not widely held, if a descriptor is practically unanimous among the sourcing it can and should be used without attribution. In this case the descriptor is so widely applied to Loomer that it would be ridiculous to attribute it in-text: Laura Loomer has been described as far-right by The Washington Times, Newsweek, Vox, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Fox News, the Associated Press, PBS NewsHour, The Independent, The Washington Post, NBC News, Business Insider, The Hill, and The Daily Beast, and alt-right by Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, The Forward, New York, Slate, and CBS News.

I will also note that she has been described as such by sources from across the political spectrum: Fox News and The Washington Times on the right-leaning end; to PBS NewsHour, The Hill, and the Associated Press in the middle; to Vox and The Daily Beast on the left-leaning end.

As for your claim that you have "never seen any wikipedia page on any person being described as far left", they certainly exist: Manuel Abramowicz and John Bachtell are two examples I found with a quick search, and there are a whole lot of others who are described as adherents to more specific far-left ideologies (ex. "Jane Doe is a(n) anarchist/Marxist/member of the Communist Party/etc."). Category:Far-left politics and its subcategories are full of people. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This page is far below the objectivity standards seen elsewhere on this site. Bias, bias, bias. It reads as a cheap political pamphlet. This is no bio of living person, not even indictments treat its subject in this way, not even in kangoroo courts..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.204.144 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020 re photo

Surely a better picture can be used than a cropped screenshot? Ms. Loomer is now a congressional candidate, and it's only fair to put up an actual photograph for her page. I suggest something like this. https://postimg.cc/XZ11200c — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMontana (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Change the blurry screenshot to a better picture. Something like this https://postimg.cc/XZ11200c SamMontana (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @SamMontana: Wikipedia can only use images that are freely licensed (see Wikipedia:Image use policy), and the one currently used in the article is to my knowledge the only freely licensed photo that has been found. If and when she is elected in November, presumably an official portrait will be taken that we can use (like the one at Lois Frankel), because portraits taken by government employees as a part of their official duties are public domain in the United States. If Loomer herself has issues with the photo that's in use she could certainly donate a photo to which she owns the copyright. However, I can see no evidence that the photo you linked has been freely licensed, and without that it cannot be used. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Publications like the New York Post have used better pictures such as https://postimg.cc/bGYkZGW3 See source:https://nypost.com/2020/04/18/republican-aoc-laura-loomer-gains-steam-in-congressional-run/

@SamMontana: Publications like the New York Post do not have the restrictions on photo usage that Wikipedia has. If you read the image use policy I linked it explains it all pretty clearly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Why does it have to be "Italic text

@GorillaWarfare: Okay. Then use this photo. It is a stock photo from gettyimages. This is clearly free for all to use. https://postimg.cc/64zN5mvH

@SamMontana: Getty Images photos are not usually freely-licensed (see the GettyImages.com link to that photo, where it is clearly for sale, and clearly marked "Rights-managed"). A freely-licensed photo would be one clearly marked as released under a Creative Commons license, or similar. Photos that are merely available to view on the Internet does not mean they have a compatible license—most do not. There is more information on which licenses are acceptable at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses—unless something explicitly says it is released under a license like the ones mentioned there, it should be assumed to be unusable on Wikipedia.

I know Wikipedia's photo usage policies can be a little frustrating, because they are very different from elsewhere on the Internet where photos are often reused without much regard for copyright. However Wikipedia is quite strict on which photos it can use. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: This makes no sense. The photo was clearly used for her campaign. It say "Laura Loomer for congress." If Ms. Loomer did not want this photo distributed, she would not have had the picture taken. It is clearly a campaign photo, and therefore free to reuse.

And if this is the case, that we cannot use pictures unless given explicit permission, then you should take down the screenshot. The screenshot from YouTube violates copyright far more than a campaign portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMontana (talk • contribs) 03:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@SamMontana: If she would like to freely license the photo so it can be reused, she is more than welcome to do so, and we'd be delighted to have it. However, without an explicit statement that the photo has been released into the public domain or under a free license, we can't use the photo. If you see a photo that says something like "Released under CC-BY-SA 2.0", that's the kind of thing we're looking for. Lack of a copyright statement, or assumptions about how the photographer wanted their photos used, are not sufficient.

Regarding the current screenshot, if you click on the image you can see more details about why it was allowed to be used. Although most screenshots from YouTube are not freely-licensed, the video from which this image was taken was released under the CC-BY 3.0 license, a free license which is compatible with Wikimedia projects. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Please cite your source for why a photo needs to be released "explicitly." A campaign photo falls under fair use.

@SamMontana: Because Wikipedia takes a very strict view of fair use images, and the #1 item in the list of examples where non-free (aka fair use) content may not be used is Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. There is a freely-licensed photo of Loomer available, and the fact that you don't like it does not mean we can use a copyrighted image in its place.

As for why the license needs to be explicitly stated, Commons:Upload/Unknown author or license verifies that we don't accept photos where we don't know what the specific license is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I am impartial in the matter. I am simply attempting to improve the article. It's unbelievable that Wikipedia cannot find a better photo of a public figure than a YouTube screenshot. The fact that you think this means I "don't like the photo," is concerning. Especially given your administrator status.

@SamMontana: I am getting the impression that you think I am intentionally trying to keep a poor-quality photo in the article, or am misrepresenting our policies on acceptable images. I assure you I would love for every biography on Wikipedia to have a high-quality image of its subject, but sadly freely-licensed photos are difficult to come by because your average joe with a camera just doesn't think about licensing at all, or your average professional photographer wants to license their images so they can make a living. This is the reason a lot of biographies on Wikipedia don't have photographs, even biographies of people you can easily find photos of online. If you would like a second opinion on whether the photos you've suggested are usable, feel free to start a discussion over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Maybe they'll explain it more clearly than I have. I'm about to sign off for the night anyway, so they might be more responsive too—otherwise, I'll answer any further questions you might have in the morning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: It's obvious that you're intentionally doing exactly that. I don't see the point of keeping a blurry photo up. If you actually are concerned with not "misrepresenting" things, than you should not be against removing the screenshot. It is not a clear picture of Ms. Loomer, and frankly borders on cartoonish. No congressional candidate should have a screenshot for a profile. Period. I don't know why you find this controversial.

I know we're supposed to assume good faith here, but I honestly don't understand how you can continue to argue after having the policy clearly defined. You can't use a better photo because Wikipedia doesn't have permission to use a better photo. It's as simple of that. And there's nothing especially outrageous about the existing photo. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a dispute resolution here. Feel free to state your side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_GorillaWarfare — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMontana (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's not a great photo, but it's not so bad that it's worse than nothing. It's not as if a paparazzi took the photo while Loomer was in her bathrobe getting the mail, she was appearing in an interview. And it's not as though the screengrab was taken mid-sneeze, her expression is fairly neutral. The photo quality is poor due to resolution and lighting, but it's not an unflattering photograph. I see that Gråbergs Gråa Sång has commented below to agree that it should be used until a better photograph can be obtained.

As for the dispute resolution discussion, it is bizarre that per your discussion at User talk:SamMontana#Laura Loomer you seem to understand that I'm just explaining the long-standing policy, and yet you opened dispute resolution because I'm... not willing to break policy to upload an incompatibly-licensed photograph? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: For those who may not have seen, the Village Pump proposal closed as a "no". ValarianB (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Second semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020 re photo

Remove the photo. As per @GorillaWarfara "unless something explicitly says it is released under a license like the ones mentioned there, it should be assumed to be unusable on Wikipedia." This screenshot was not released under any license. It is therefore in violation of copyright. Please remove. SamMontana (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Indeed! However, this video does explicitly say it was released under a free license. If you click on the image you can see more details about why it was allowed to be used. Although most screenshots from YouTube are not freely-licensed, the video from which this image was taken was released under the CC-BY 3.0 license, a free license which is compatible with Wikimedia projects. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: But the video in question no longer exists. There is no longer any permission whatsoever. So while there might have been permission at one point, that permission has expired.

Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked once they've been applied to a work: [2]. Once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright and similar rights, even if you later stop distributing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Please show that the copyright is still active.

@SamMontana: Last time I checked it was not the year 2088: Copyright law of the United States#Duration of copyright. However, if it was and the copyright had expired, then that would mean the work entered the public domain and it would still be usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's the best one we got per WP:s strict policies, it's the one we'll use. I've seen worse. If someone takes a better one at some political event, or if Laura Loomer wants to contribute a selfie, they can "donate" them here: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor chiming in. I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that it is preferable to use the current photo in this BLP article than none at all. True, it isn't great, but it is adequate and compliant with WP image use policies, to which we must adhere. I will make a modest effort to ask around and see if someone representing Laura Loomer wishes to contribute a CC-4.0 or public domain permissioned photo of her to Commons via the upload wizard, the link to which Gråbergs kindly provided. (Given that Laura's BLP got ~200,000 views yesterday, you'd think she would want to take full advantage of this opportunity, but what do I know.... shrug).--FeralOink (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I suggested this to SamMontana earlier today, and they said they've already reached out: User talk:SamMontana#Laura Loomer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reached out via email, but I'm not exactly politically connected. If someone knows someone who could get a better photo, please do so. (SamMontana (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC))

Ping SamMontana and GorillaWarfare: I have not received any response from the Laura Loomer official campaign page to-date, requesting a photo of her that is acceptably licensed for WP purposes.--FeralOink (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a shame. Thanks for trying! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Selectively/misleadingly edited"

Fine with either "selectively", "deceptively", or "misleadingly", it was the entire removal of the adverb that I strongly object to, as most video producers edit their video in some way. I see Project Veritas uses "deceptively edited" so it makes sense to go with that based on that and the sourcing here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Aren't edits by definition, selective? All editors use discretion when choosing their edits. Deceptive or misleading imply intent which the sources don't back up. Mikeroetto (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth there has been similar conversation on this at Talk:Project Veritas and Talk:James O'Keefe (not to mention there's additional sourcing there). However I do think "selectively edited" is generally understood to mean "deceptively edited", not taken literally. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Problems with Newsweek Article - Home Depot

The men from the Home Depot parking lot were in the country illegally--the article simply states that they were "some men," reflecting the bias of the editor and omitting an important fact that was critical to Loomer's activities at Pelosi's country estate. What's more, the Wikipedia article also cites to a Newsweek piece that is contradictory on its face. The Newsweek article first states that Loomer "tricked" the men, but further down states that she "persuaded" the men. Which is it, tricked or persuaded? These words are incongruous. If the source contradicts itself, then reasonable minds would conclude that the word "tricked" is unproven and should be removed from the Wikipedia article or replaced with a judgment-neutral word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.87.178.58 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have added that Loomer described the men as undocumented. I found the original source describing the incident (which the Newsweek article appears to be drawing from) which says Loomer tricked the men, so I've retained that word and added the new source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist Claim is False for Two Reasons and Should Be Removed

The article needs to remove the repeated references to the subject of the page as a conspiracy theorist since that is not true.

First, the claimed conspiracy has been proven to be true. It’s fact, not conspiracy. There’s a 20 February 2020 Daily Mail story by Martin Gould, for example, relevant to the very issue of the alleged conspiracy.

Second, the claim the subject of the page is a conspiracy theorist is based on her alleged association with other alleged conspiracy theorists. That’s guilt by association. That cannot possibly have any reliable sources whatsoever because it’s a logical fallacy.

Hence, for two reasons, the conspiracy theory claim is false and should be removed, along with any indirect references to the person’s being a conspiracy theorist.

Lawfare (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The article refers to Loomer as being a conspiracy theorist because reliable sources have labeled her that; for example, as annotated in the lead, CBS used that term just two weeks ago. As for the claim, no reliable source has said so; your source isn't reliable. --Weazie (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources saying something is true when it is not doesn’t make it true. Those reliable sources may have been accurate when first reported, but time has moved on and evidence has proven otherwise. It’s no smear on reliable sources to say the facts have changed since those first reports were made.

If any current reliable sources refer to the now factually incorrect information, such as the two week old source you raised that used "Conspiracy theorist" as the first two words of the story without any substantive support for such a report, that may simply be because of media making references to past reporting without having first considered if facts have since change. Did the 2 week old story make an independent determination or did it simply repeat what was said in the past? No it didn't. Something is not set in stone, things change, facts change, as has happened here. No one considers anything as first reported to be set in stone forever to remain exactly as first reported.

"Reliable sources have labeled her that," you say. Yes, it's a label as you say; there was no proof offered whatsoever in the story to support the claim. Yet you assert it as evidence that the false appellation should remain in place based on a story that merely labels someone but does not otherwise support the assertion. In other words, this is a sort of confirmation bias. As Wikipedia puts it, "Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making." And there it is, "distorting evidence-based decision-making."

As for saying my source is not reliable, maybe that’s true. I presented that one source as an example to get the ball rolling here on discussion of this issue. Indeed there are other sources reporting essentially the same thing. People can find them.

I understand this is a touchy issue because the subject of this page is in a political race against an opponent who is using the conspiracy theorist claim prominently, but that’s irrelevant to the effort to write accurate and truthful information. We should be honest and let the chips fall where they may. The conspiracy theory of which the subject of this page has been accused has turned out to have been accurately reported by the subject, thus it is not a conspiracy.

Lastly, there remains the issue you didn’t address that guilt by association is inappropriate as it is a logical fallacy and can have no reliable sources whatsoever. So there’s that too.

Lawfare (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and excludes unreliable ones. When you can cite reliable sources that support your beliefs, feel free to make an edit (or to suggest an edit). --Weazie (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lawfare: Wikipedia publishes what is reported in reliable sources, and when a claim like "conspiracy theorist" is widely repeated among reliable sources, we too will repeat it. If a different reliable source (not the Daily Mail, by the way: WP:DAILYMAIL) contradicts that claim, or if a source issues a retraction, we certainly can revisit. "People can find the sources" is not acceptable; if you want a change to be made, the onus is on you to provide the sourcing to support it.

I will preemptively note, however, that if your argument is that source A calls her a conspiracy theorist, and source B describes a conspiracy theory she's promulgating as not being a conspiracy theory, we can't use source B to contradict source A per our WP:SYNTH policy.

As for your point about "guilt by association", this article describes Loomer as a conspiracy theorist because reliable sources describe her as a conspiracy theorist. The term is not being applied to her based on her association with other conspiracy theorists; she is widely described as one herself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting about Daily Mail, that was new to me. Thank you.

As to other people finding sources, I hope they investigate. I really don't have time myself.

As to guilt by association, again I understand what you are saying. Given that is the case, however, I suggest removing the references to other alleged conspiracy theorists.

1. "She has also occasionally reported for the American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website InfoWars."
2. Same appears twice: "She has also occasionally reported for the American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website InfoWars."
3. "In February 2019, Loomer traveled to Minnesota with Jacob Wohl, a far-right conspiracy theorist who has made false claims about public figures."
4. "Loomer and Wohl said they were investigating a false and debunked conspiracy theory that Omar had married her brother so that he could obtain U.S. citizenship."
5. "Vox debunked Loomer and Wohl's conspiracy theory as "largely nonsensical," citing the absence of any evidence that Ahmed Elmi, Omar's ex-husband (whom Loomer and Wohl claimed to be her brother), was related to Omar in any way, and noting that U.S. law permits citizens to petition citizenship for their siblings, voiding the need for marriage, and that Elmi, a British citizen, has never received U.S. citizenship."
6. "Loomer claimed on Twitter that crisis actors were used for the Santa Fe school shooting, prompting concerns about the spread of misleading information and conspiracy theories by troll farms and social bots."
7. "The company also removed right-wing personalities Paul Nehlen, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer, along with Jones’ site, Infowars, which often posts conspiracy theories."

Further, Loomer is linked to a category called "American conspiracy theorists." That page itself biased. For example, Rachel Maddow is not listed as a conspiracy theorist despite years of reporting fake news that was actually a prominent part of the media coverage part of a proven conspiracy to overthrow the President of the United States for which at least one person has already pled guilty. She is one of the nation's leading conspiracy theorists yet she is not listed on the "American conspiracy theorists" page upon which Loomer appears. Point is that adding that category to Laura Loomer page just further drills in something that has been repeated on this page about a dozen times. I get the point. I suspect next the page title will be renamed the Conspiracy Theorist Laura Loomer page. The point is there is clearly an overemphasis on the conspiracy theorist claim (that's false but I need sources to prove it--sources that come from a media hostile to Laura Loomer so finding truth other than in Daily Mail, etc., will likely be impossible, just like media hasn't reported that Rachel Maddow is a conspiracy theorist). --Lawfare (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(1 & 2)— in the lead, which reflects what's in the body [see MOS:LEAD] (3)— CT is describing Whohl, which per RS he is (4)— doesn't describe Loomer as a CT (5)— doesn't describe Loomer as a CT (6)— doesn't describe Loomer as a CT (7)— Infowars description as a CT should be removed as it has already been described that within the body. In response to "I suspect next the page title will be renamed the Conspiracy Theorist Laura Loomer page" obviously it won't be. In response to "The point is there is clearly an overemphasis on the conspiracy theorist claim (that's false but I need sources to prove it--sources that come from a media hostile to Laura Loomer so finding truth other than in Daily Mail, etc., will likely be impossible, just like media hasn't reported that Rachel Maddow is a conspiracy theorist)" -- we only describe Loomer as a CT once, so you're right, that is false. We go by WP:WEIGHT which is determined by RS as has been explained over, and over, again. You've mentioned Maddow, yet this article isn't about Maddow... if you find RS that describe Maddow as a CT, feel free to bring that up on Maddow's talk page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lawfare: MelbourneStar has already covered much of what I wanted to say in reply to you, so I won't repeat them. However I will add a few points:

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources have to say, and if you don't have time to find them then quite frankly I wouldn't bother commenting here. Your opinions (or mine, or anyone else's) on Loomer, or how Loomer is treated by the media, are not going to result in changes to this page.

As for references to other conspiracy theorists: it is standard in Wikipedia articles to give a brief description of other people who are mentioned in a Wikipedia article—usually approximating the first sentence of that person's article—so that people who are unfamiliar with the person don't have to navigate over to another Wikipedia article to find out who they are. Wohl and Jones are both most notable for being conspiracy theorists themselves (as you can see by visiting their articles—Jacob Wohl is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, fraudster, and internet troll., [Alex Jones] is an American far-right radio show host, political extremist and conspiracy theorist.) and so that is why they are described as such here.

As for your comments about Maddow, you yourself have acknowledged that the sourcing doesn't support describing Maddow as a conspiracy theorist, and so you have answered your own question as to why she is not listed in the category or described as one in her article. I will note that we must respect WP:BLP even on article talk pages, so please don't continue to use unsourced descriptors for BLPs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:84A0:E740:34F7:1A:2323:E42 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC) I clicked through both sources, and they're just boilerplate CBS News and Bloomberg articles that say "conspiracy theorist." I don't even know anything about this woman--but if I click through two sources to "conspiracy theorist" I expect to discover what the conspiracy theories are. The point of a source is to SOURCE the claim, not to repeat the opinion of a 21-year-old with a journalism internship who works at a news outlet that used to be reliable 10 years ago. Wikipedia used to be a gem, but now it's just a forum where people with predictable and static political opinions edit articles without any basis. Which makes sense, because it's not possible for anyone except the entrenched (and like-thinking) editors to manipulate the tenor of articles, since I'd have to spend a dozen hours learning how to participate in the Talk pages and edit them properly, which I simply don't have, which is why I'm leaving this awkward unsigned dangling paragraph at the bottom which will be deleted.

Nobody is forcing you to read or contribute to something you don't like. If you don't like what you read, you're more than welcome to make cogent arguments for why material should be changed (instead of relying simply on your own opinions - like this post I'm responding to) -- or continue on your quest to finding something more reliable than Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Both Bloomberg and CBS are solid reliable sources for use in the Wikipedia. The articles in question were written by Mike Leonard and Kathryn Watson, respectively. Despite your unprofessional characterizations, neither are 21-year-old interns. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Extreme bias

First time I hear about this individual, and check on wikipedia page seems to be extremely biased, POV, possibly violating living people bio rules, and lacking in useful information. Why was this individual banned from PayPal? No info. I can understand facebook etc, but PayPal, bank accounts? What is going on.

Also, alt right is painted in extremely one sided way, way worse than a few years then I checked these entries last time. As an onlooker from far away, it seems that wikipedia has been infested by partisan bias, and its trademark objectivity is lacking. Why lead by conspiracy theorist, when this is clearly some sort of right wing anti muslim provocateur? Conspiracies wrt mass shootings seem to appear on alt right, like Alex Jones etc, but are here used for BIAS to depict person as uncredible. While she might be some sort of extremist, the depiction here is far worse than that of other controversial figures, like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill etc. What happened to dispassioned biographies of living people. Even murderers get a kinder treatment here....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.204.144 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question about PayPal: the companies who've given reasons for banning Loomer have generally cited violations of policies prohibiting hate speech or spreading misinformation. However, we don't give much info on why PayPal banned her because PayPal hasn't released much information on their reasoning: In the letter to Loomer, the company declared they were "terminating our relationship with your account(s) pursuant to PayPal's User Agreement. Under the PayPal User Agreement, PayPal, in its sole discretion, has the right to terminate your accounts for any reason and at any time upon notice to you." (Newsweek). Loomer has said why she thinks PayPal banned her, but that also seems to be based on her own speculation rather than anything PayPal has said, and so can't be repeated in the article as though it was a statement of fact. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Far-right" or "-wing" in the biography section

@Bcliot33: here's a section on the article's talk page. Feel free to change the title, and then explain your recent edits here. Gain consensus for your edits which are currently in dispute, and most of all: please stop edit warring until you gain that consensus, otherwise I will open a discussion at WP:3RRN. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: I am following a general rule to not state "-wing" in the biography. I could notice all political pages have no "-wing" in the bio, especially latest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Tlaib edit which editor claimed it's not wikipedia policy. By doing so, user Ian.thomson has been reverting my legit edits and going to my talk page to insult me. This shows he is not mentally fit to edit this kind political pages but also for some reason he has reported me for following Wiki guidelines of neutrality.Bcliot33 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You are not following a rule, you are completely twisting an editor's advice to try to force us to either not follow the sources in this article, or use inadequate sources in the Tlaib article, in either case to push the Overton window further right. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: I do believe Ian.thomson should not be allowed to discuss this issue here since he is not concerned about the general rule of not naming "-wing" in the bios but instead trying to guess or suggest I have a personal agenda. Personal attacks should not be tolerated in my opinion. Bcliot33 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You're continuing to cast WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence. That is a personal attack, and a hypocritical one since you're just making up a rule by misquoting another user for the express purpose of pushing a false dichotomy. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Bio section

Regarding naming "-wing" in the bio, editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NorthBySouthBaranof suggested it's not a general rule to name if a person is right-wing, left-wing or extreme-right or extreme-left. I think he is correct. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney is labeled simple as a politician or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toni_Cade_Bambara. Bcliot33 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• That is not how you quote a Wikipedia user, or any other person. Instead of linking their User page, you should link to the place where they said that. But this point is moot, since:
• A general rule saying that one has to add "-wing" would be silly. Of course it does not exist. You do not need a quote for that, and you do not need to say you agree.
• Romney and Bambara are what Wikipedians call "other stuff". See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
• This is the actually relevant point: There is also no general rule saying that adding "-wing" is forbidden. If the reliable sources say it, we should say it too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Far Right - Anti Muslim

Both of these labels are based in opinion and bias, not facts. Having an article that is protected where this false information cannot be corrected only hurts Wikipedia's ability to garner donations. I certainly wouldn't donate to a fart left political organization. Why would Wikipedia position itself as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalseWikiInfoFix (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@FalseWikiInfoFix: Both labels are supported by multiple reliable sources. See Laura Loomer#Informational notes if you would like to verify for yourself. Page protection at the level it is applied to this page does not prevent anyone from changing information; it simply requires editors such as yourself who are quite new to the project to do so by achieving consensus on the article talk page first. You can presumably understand why–had the page not been protected I assume you would've just changed the labels before someone could explain to you that they are well-sourced, and so the protection has worked precisely as intended. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

SJW page guarding

Time and time again attempts to remove inflammatory, perjorative language in this article have been reverted by a de-facto page "owner". It's no accident that, across wikipedia these self-appointed owners are frequently adherents of the Church of SJW™ . Should we add wikipedia to the growing list of instituions ruined by this cult? I know the behavior has certainly diminished my desire to participate. Mikeroetto (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Charming. If you've got the vitriol out of your system, feel free to begin a discussion on why you think the descriptor is contrary to Wikipedia policy, not supported by the sourcing, contradicted by other sourcing, or whatever it is you're trying to convey here—unless, of course, it's just "I don't like it", in which case your opinion is noted and we can all move on. By the way, if it's me you're referring to when you talk about the "SJW", I'll note that Loomer's far-right status was mentioned in the lead long before I started editing the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So I had a nice threat left on my user talk page this morning warning about "discretionary sanctions" ; I'm sure it's only a coincidence. The joke here is this: far-[right/left] labels are subjective and the supposed reliable sources are mere expressions of opinion not fact. (Not to mention that are all known left-leaning sources.) It's also a well-known tactic of the woke left to use the far-right label as a smear to purposely conflate someone with X-supremacism. There are five or six individuals up-page that gave well-reasoned arguments objecting the pejorative labeling, but all I can see in response is Pavlovian responses referencing wikipedia's byzantine rule system.

Why can't we omit intensifying labels altogether, maintain an encyclopedic tone and let the reader draw his own opinions? Mikeroetto (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mikeroetto: Discretionary sanction alerts are not threats; per WP:AC/DS, An alert is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault. You're quite right that "far-right" and such labels are subjective, as are many statements made in Wikipedia articles, but the idea that using such labels is unencyclopedic in tone is preposterous. If you would like to propose a policy change to prohibit the usage of such terms, be my guest, but it's disingenuous to imply that it's somehow unencyclopedic or against policy to use the term when it is a) supported by reliable sources, and b) widely-used across the encyclopedia. As for your claims that the sources supporting the "far-right" label are "all known left-leaning sources", this is certainly the first time I've heard someone describe The Washington Times and Fox News as left-leaning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Her birthday

Is actual May 21, 1993