Talk:Laura Loomer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Change "Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is a far-right[a] or alt-right[b]" to any description that does not libel her, such as "rightwing" or even "nationalist right" since she is not alt right, as the article itself already acknowledges here: "Loomer has denounced the alt-right, and has publicly repudiated white supremacist Richard B. Spencer, who coined the term, and has refused to share a stage with him. Loomer has received anti-semitic threats and harassment from the alt-right following this dispute." 2601:543:8101:5D09:EC92:C0FA:B02E:CDF2 (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

This source calls Loomer far-right, not alt-right. Rockypedia (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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

References

Far-right is not the same thing as alt-right. Rockypedia (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

After reading through this section, and researching on my own, I don't see a single strong, reliable source that calls Loomer alt-right. "The Forward" is a small magazine (circulation 22,000) that is aimed at a small segment of the population in New York City. If that's the best one, I can't see how we can leave a definitive statement in the lead in Wikipedia's voice that says "Loomer is alt-right". The Salon piece does not describe her as alt-right, merely that her protest made her an online sensation with "the alt-right". The Observer piece is an interview, and only the headline calls her "alt-right", and headlines aren't even written by the author of the piece; they're written by headline writers whose job it is to gain clicks. Rolling Stone and The Daily Beast? Forget it. The Independent and NBC News do describe her as far-right. If there were more sources stating that definitively, I would have no problem with a sentence in the lead describing her as far-right. As it stands, I think "sometimes described as far-right" would be more appropriate. But "alt-right"? I'm surprised this is even a debate, given that this is a BLP and there are literally zero reliable sources that describe her as such. Per BLP, I'm removing the "alt-right" descriptor, along with the unreliable source attached to it, and unless there's consensus somewhere to re-add it (with a better source, hopefully), it should stay off until then, per BLP. I hope you'll all respect that policy and continue the discussion before re-adding. Rockypedia (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the community considers The Forward to be a reliable source, regardless of it's circulation numbers. And I don't know how you can write off Rolling Stone and The Daily Beast with a simple "forget it." Both outlets are widely cited for this sort of content and there is clear consensus that they are reliable. The only reasonable issue I see here is the fact that some reliable sources have described Loomer as alt-right and some have described her as far right. These are not the same thing, indeed; but neither are they mutually exclusive. In fact there is substantial overlap between the two groups. Our challenge is in how we communicate that Loomer is both alt-right and far right without watering either one down. Excluding both terms from the article is definitely not the solution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I got into a similar discussion on the Richard Spencer page some time back. Their belief is that if there are enough people that label you something, then that is what you are. I was trying to argue that we should at least put the word "alleged" in front of it. With their logic, you could call Donald J. Trump's page, Donald Trump -- Liar instead of POTUS. When I tried to make that argument on the page, I was basically accused of being a white nationalist. After further protests, one of them wrote on my personal page that I would be banned if I didn't shut up about it. My issue with these fights is that it gives the pages a partisan feel that will turn people away who come looking for facts. When I read "Laura Loomer is an alt-right..." I stopped reading. Why? Because I could tell right away that the page had a partisan agenda and every single "fact" on here will have to be read through a partisan lense. Sadly, on Wikipedia, if you want to learn the truth, you have to go to the talk pages and watch people duke it out and try to weigh both "sides" of the argument. I guess it works, but it kind of defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia :(. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you can’t be Jewish and be alt right. Richard Spencer is not so happy with. I don’t think you really know what they’re all about. Just because a Reliable Source says so, doesn’t make it true. I think you should reconsider what constitutes a Reliable Source especially with your previous complaints. Loomer has also denied being alt-right. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC) TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If you claim the source is not reliable, you will need a much, much better reason than that. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. If you can find a reliable source that says that Loomer cannot be alt-right because she's Jewish, let's see it. Richard Spencer is definitely not a reliable source, by the way. No, not even for the alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If you consider the Southern Poverty Center a reliable source, I suggest you read this, Mr. Grayfell. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already read it. Read WP:SYNTH. Let me clarify: I was asking for a source about Loomer not being alt-right. The SPLC source doesn't mention Loomer, and it specifically explains that the alt-right is conflicted about antisemitism. It's useless for this purpose. Grayfell (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TBird, welcome to the rest of Wikipedia, good to see you diversifying from Talk:Dana Loesch. Regarding your comment: Just because a Reliable Source says so, doesn’t make it true. This is sometimes difficult for newer editors to wrap their head around, but our mission is verifiability, not truth. Searching for truth is an obstacle to Wikipedia, as unintuitive as that sounds. We could debate all day about what's true and never reach an actionable consensus. But at the same time we can agree on what's verifiable. As long as we add appropriate citations then readers are done a service as they can click through and review the sources for themselves. Also, please don't edit war. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Strictly as a heads-up, I note that a tweet from Laura Loomer today is gaining circulation on social media. "I wonder if it's possible to sue @Wikipedia," she muses. "No matter how many times my page is changed, they still allow for ppl to call me 'Alt Right'. It's definitely costing me $ since the first thing everyone sees when they see my name is 'Alt Right'. Maybe they need to learn a lesson." I also note that, despite Dr. Fleischman opening this section of the talk page with mention of "other reliable sources that call Loomer alt-right, such as The Observer, Salon, Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, and The Australian," the lead now cites only one source, The Forward, to support labeling Loomer as alt-right. Perhaps in view of Loomer's renewed complaint, it would be opportune for us to cite more mainstream sources in addition to The Forward—which Wikipedia acknowledges in that page's lead "has a politically progressive editorial focus." I detect that Dr. Fleischman is weary of all this, but the issue may not go quietly into that good night without bolstering our sources on this particular point. KalHolmann (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. And thanks for the heads up on the tweet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

While I don't have a particularly strong preference for alt-right vs far-right, sources do support "alt-right". Perhaps a ref bundle like this would be helfpul:

Laura Elizabeth Loomer is an alt-right American political ...

References

Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, thanks for your suggested sources. Following DrFleischman's reply on 12 July 2018, I added two more sources calling Loomer "alt-right", bringing the total to three. I apologize for neglecting to update this thread accordingly. The sources at the time you commented encompassed the first three in your bulleted list. Since the other two in your list are equally helpful, I've copied and pasted your ref bundle into the lead, replacing the three standalone references. I'm gratified that we've been able to collaboratively beef up these cited sources in response to Ms. Loomer's public complaint against Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

First citation calling her alt right is a false allegation cited from an unreliable partisan opinion rag Themitchc (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Forward is a century-old Jewish-centric newspaper. You'll have to try better than that. ValarianB (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of revenge porn against Congressman Barton

https://mobile.twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/933452214886191104?p=v

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/22/us-rep-joe-barton-deciding-how-respond-after-graphic-photo-circulates-/

http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/alex-jones-and-laura-loomer-release-revenge-porn-video-of-conservative-lawmaker-could-face-jail-time/

There's a controversy thats at play here Laura Loomer and Alex Jones were named in some political blogs for releasing the nude pictures of Congressman Joe Barton on November 22nd, 2017 note this controversy is still being verified by multiple sources and allegations that Alex Jones and Laura Loomer committing revenge porn is being speculated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:E10E:325:3306:D219 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. However we need reliable sources linking Loomer to the Barton leak before we can include it in this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/infowars-likely-just-violated-law-by-posting-rep-barton-masturbation-video/

Update Dan Abrams blog is reporting that Laura Loomer and Alex Jones were the people that released the sexting video of Congressman Joe Barton in this scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

Change Alt-Right to Republican. Loomer has no affiliation with Alt-Right or white nationalism. Plagueoflegions (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources disagree with you. Please review our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

https://forward.com/series/forward-50/2017/laura-loomer/

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/897253826809413633

The Alt-right is well known to be either passively anti-Jewish or rabidly anti-Jewish. The same website you cite in calling her "alt-right" also states definitively that Loomer is not alt-right.

(I forgot my login a long time ago, but I am a donor. So don't discount this)--72.42.159.123 (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting that being a donor would make a difference is comically misguided. The tweet is neither reliable, nor does it say what you seem to think it does. The Forward article starts by saying "It's hard to know how exactly to categorize Jewish 'alt-right' personality Laura Loomer." Seems clear enough. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting I'm not some [deleted] trying to sabotage wikipedia. "It's hard to know how exactly to categorize" means they do not know for sure, right? So how can you use that as a source?--72.42.159.123 (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the source. It's unambiguous in calling Loomer alt-right. The "hard to know how exactly to categorize" comment is about what kind of alt-righter she is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just my opinion here. I rarely edit in this field, but I am uncertain about the usage of the term. Daily Beast is probably not a reliable source for contentious claims, and The Forward does not look like a reliable source for BLP in general as well. That leaves us with the Rolling Stone source, which the only relevant part says "She was subsequently revealed to be Laura Loomer, a blogger for a Canadian alt-right website"; I think it would be fair to call this synthesis if we were to label the subject as "alt-right" consequently. The Fortune source explicitly calls her "far-right provocateur", so personally I think it's better to use "far-right" instead. What do you think, DrFleischman? And if people still wants to compromise, we can always replace it with "right-wing". Alex Shih (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No, "right-wing" is far too vague to be informative in this situation. We're not talking about a mainstream republican, we're talking about extremist conspiracy theories advocating anti-Muslim rhetoric. Downplaying this is not a compromise.

Why, precisely, are you saying that Daily Beast and Forward are not reliable? Do you mean these sources specifically, or the outlets in general? Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, there are limitations to the extent in which a source can be used for. I thought I was pretty clear that sources like Daily Beast and The Forward, while acceptable as a reliable source in some occasions, cannot be the only source(s) of verification for contentious claims or BLP in general. So I think the question here is whether or not Rolling Stone, a higher quality reliable source, explicitly supports the claim made by these two sources. Alex Shih (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You're throwing this out there like it's self-evident, but you're going to need to do a little more work. What is it about those sources that leads you to believe they lack a reputation for accuracy and fact checking in a BLP? You should also look at the other two sources I've proposed for this, above. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not an example of WP:SYNTH. "Synthesizing" what you read within the same article is called reading comprehension. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. You can't just say these sources are unreliable for contentious or BLP content without any explanation and leave it at that. These are reputable outlets and are used for contentious and BLP content all over the encyclopedia, I believe with the backing of RSN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Also this isn't really the proper place to discuss the sourcing for alt-right. We have an active conversation for that above titled "Alt-right". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Notable

How is she even notable of her own? A criminal charge she knew she would get for acting the goat and a few said mentions in NYT, etc is not having achieved anything noteworthy enough.Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Are you familiar with the relevant guideline? Look at a all the content supported by reliable independent secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned above there ARE mentions of her in RS but if you look at what they mention "stormed a stage" anand the like. What other than rabble-rousing for attention has she done? WP:ANYBIO.

"trivial [emphasis added] coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]"

""The Domain Troll Behind Pro-Trump Stunts". The Daily Beast."Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Utter hogwash. We have a lot of content in this article, all supported by reliable sources. WP:SIGCOV gives examples of "trivial coverage" that bear no resemblance to, say, this, this, or this. Is it possible to believe in good faith that those are mere trivial mentions? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, she may "just" rabble rouse and seek attention. But her repeated efforts far exceed the "trivial" denotation. Weazie (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Bollocks she is a right wing nobody. Most of the references are mediocre by any standard. This article is a platform for no one who cares. Carry on grooming. That is all. 81.141.33.167 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Alma mater

So the linked article/reference for her having graduated from Barry University says nothing of the sort. There's zero evidence she graduated from Barry, she's not listed as an alumnus, and she got kicked off campus for the 'controversial' thing she did where she misled administrators. Is there any way to flag that part of the thing and have somebody who can edit the page do so? 73.173.238.218 (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no personal knowledge of whether Ms. Loomer did or did not attend any given university, but Wikipedia normally follows the definition of alma mater as a person who has graduated from or who has attended the school mentioned. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen this come up from time to time, and I could be mistaken, but I thought an alma mater was the college you graduated from. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Alas, no. I wish the info box would state "Graduated from" instead of "Alma mater." That would solve the problem. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile trying to get that changed, because 2 weeks is enough to qualify, maybe even a day, while most people think it means they got a degree from the college. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at Template:Infobox person which says "Alma mater. This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates." So we can just remove it. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The linked article says "She transferred to Barry University, in Miami" and backs that text. The other reference seems to be a reliably published book and says "Laura Loomer earned a Bachelor's degree in Broadcast Journalism from Barry University. She received an award for being the most outstanding senior in the Communication department, served as president of Lambda Pi Eta. the National Communications Honor Society, and was a recipient of the Miami Young Republicans College Scholarship in 2012 and 2014. Laura served as president of College Republicans and worked on various campaigns, including Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential election and Governor Rick Scott’s (R-FL) 2014 re-election campaign. Laura also worked at WSVN-7 FOX. the local FOX affiliate in Miami as a video editor." Doug Weller talk 07:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Laura Loomer: Alt right vs Alt-light in 2018, request for discussion and consensus

Just got into a revert war with user Grayfell, so in good faith I will now bring our revert dispute to discussion seeking a consensus on this talk page as to which political group Loomer should now be identified with. On August 14, 2018 Vox (website) originally founded in 2014 by three former journalists of the Washington Post, Melissa Bell, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein, issued a correction to their article on Laura Loomer [1] that states "Correction: A previous version of this article described Loomer as “alt-right.” Loomer has distanced herself from parts of the alt-right movement over anti-Semitism, and can be considered part of what’s sometimes known as the “alt-light. Per WP "Vox takes a liberal-leaning editorial stance." We as WP editors should take notice of that 2018 correction due to the integrity of WP and also vicarious liability concerns if we're not playing "error free ball" on her BLP. So before another editor weighs in on this you should familiarize yourself with Vox (website) because if they being a credible, liberal leaning, news organizations are making corrections to their own article, concerning which group she identifies with, we should take notice. Looking for a consensus on this per WP policy.Cllgbksr (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: You reverted my edit twice today, inferring I was trying to "whitewash" the Loomer page. Please review the case I make above, feel free to vett that single source, the news site Vox (website) as to their credibility, and as it relates to their August 14, 2018 correction for the article I identify above, as to which political group Loomer CURRENTLY identifies with, and weigh in per WP:BRP. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Saying that Loomer was "once considered alt-right, but isn't considered that anymore" is not really consistent with what the sources say - Vox cites a 2017 New Yorker piece mentioning that she had distanced herself from Richard Spencer to describe her as alt-light. But a Slate article from July 2018 still describes her as alt-right. This isn't a case where new information came to light and everyone realized that they were wrong about Loomer, but it looks more like a disagreement among reliable sources. I think the solution is probably just to split the difference and say that Loomer "has been described as either alt-right or alt-light". Nblund ^talk 00:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't give more or less credence to sources based on how liberal they are. Even introducing that tidbit suggests some serious misconceptions about WP:RS. I will assume you mean WP:BLP. For BLP, if you have a source for how she "currently" identifies, let's see it, because the Vox article did not support this.

The edit in question introduced WP:SYNTH, some very awkward phrasing to the very first sentence of the article, and at least one factual error. The Vox source doesn't say she considers herself part of the alt-light, it says she can be considered part of what’s sometimes known as the “alt-light.” This is not a comment on her personal preference, merely how undefined others might choose to define her. While it's implied that alt-light and alt-right are distinct, it's not directly stated, and sources repeatedly emphasize that the two "movements" very closely overlap. Further, the Vox source only says she's distanced herself from "...parts of the alt-right..." and cites a New Yorker article from July 2017 as part of this explanation.

The New Yorker article could be discussed as a new sources, but it also doesn't support her labeling herself as alt-light, or anything, really. The only relevant part of that source is her disputing the validity of the term "alt-light": “The alt-right keeps labelling us alt-light, but I don’t think we should give in to that,” Loomer said. Right now we have multiple sources spanning a couple of years listing her as affiliated with the alt-right to different degrees. If she's distanced herself from parts of the alt-right, what does that that say about the other parts? The "optics" crowd likes to emphasize this distinction a great deal. At this point, my assessment of reliable sources is that they consider 'alt-light to be a mere subset of 'alt-right', or at the very least, consider them so closely overlapping that the distinction is not regarded as informative. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: @Grayfell: "Loomer has been described as alt-right and recently as alt-light" could work. With the WP link to alt-right and alt-light". Cllgbksr (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

or "Loomer has been described by her critics as alt-right, and by the alt-right as alt-light, a label she has expressed she should not give in too."Cllgbksr (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd scrap "recently" - she's been branded alt-lite before (ex 1, ex 2). Otherwise, I think the first description is okay especially if there is additional description in the main body. Grayfell is basically correct that the alt-light is a more dog-whistly version of the alt-right, but it is worth acknowledging that Loomer is seen as more of a "fellow traveler" in the mold of Lauren Southern or Milo Yiannopoulos, rather than an overt white supremacist like Spencer. Nblund ^talk 01:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

or "Loomer has been described as alt-right, a label Loomer has rejected based on their anti-Semitic views. Loomer has been described by the alt-right as alt-light, a label Loomer has expressed she should not give in too."Cllgbksr (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Good points Nblund. Cllgbksr (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Described by her critics" is absolutely not acceptable. She is described this way by reliable sources, and whether or not they are her "critics" is a distraction. "...has been described as..." is already a WP:WEASEL, even without the "critics" part. If we have some reason to doubt these sources, we should be able to explain it. If not, we shouldn't imply doubt anyway just because sources are unflattering. We can be respectful of BLP without resorting to PR-isms. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So I'm guessing Grayfell you want the alt-right label to hang out on the article like a 20 mph curveball, even though the alt-right group describes her as alt-light, and she has made it clear she is not anti-Semitic since she's Jewish herself. Why don't you suggest a sentence for the lede instead of telling me what won't work. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, as to your "Described by her critics" is "absolutely not acceptable" wording I suggest, similar language was used in the NBC article dated November 2, 2017, I will link to and I quote "Loomer describes herself as an independent journalist, but many of her critics have labeled her a vocal member of the alt-right.". The link to that article is in the Vox article I referenced today. [2] Which is the only link in that article I can find as it relates to a prior story on Loomer. I get we have the sourcing on hand that puts her in the alt-right bucket, but when Vox issues a correction last month that takes her out of the alt-right bucket and puts her in the alt-light, whether she accepts it or not, we have to update her page as it evolves over time. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please try and keep your indents consistent for readability. There are several related issues her, so here are some granular points for simplicity:

• I do not see anything particularly curve-ball-like about describing a fringe figure by the type of fringe position they are associated with. If the shoe fits, and all that. The Vox source doesn't seem persuasive to me that anything has really changed.
• We have many sources, including the NBC one, which in some way connect Loomer to the alt-right. We cannot ignore these sources, nor can we present them in a way which primes the reader to treat them as unreliable without a good reason.
• The alt-right is not a monolithic groups which can bestow or retract a label. Further, the alt-right is an ideology with a strongly negative reputation for accuracy and fact checking, so alt-right sources are not presumed to be reliable.
• As mentioned, this Vox article is a single source which made a minor correction. Not a retraction, just a correction, and the correction doesn't directly say that Loomer isn't alt-right. A single passing correction doesn't cancel out these other sources. This corecction is supported by a much older source which we also have access too. This source also doesn't say she isn't alt-right. So as far as I can see, we do not have any sources which takes her out of the alt-right bucket. The bucket, being generous, has a hairline crack, but it doesn't seem to be leaking just yet.
• While many in the alt-right are antisemitic, according to a huge number of sources (tediously documented in the archives of Talk:Alt-right) the term is extremely difficult to pin-down. It is not appropriate to cram this complicated issue into the very first sentence of this article. If it were, I might point out that "antisemitism" has, until relatively recently, applied to many Middle-Eastern people in addition to Jews, by which standard Loomer's anti-Islamic rhetoric could be defined as antisemitic. Anyway...
• As I said before, I don't have a strong preference for alt-right over "far right", but we must follow sources. Right now it looks to me like sources still strongly favor "alt-right".
• "Alt-light" seems like a euphemism to me, and many sources agree. Wikipedia has an article about alt-light, but that's not necessarily enough. Wikipedia has many articles about euphemisms, but that doesn't mean we should apply them to topics. This is both an WP:NPOV thing, and a MOS thing (WP:EUPHEMISM).

If you're familiar with her work, can you find a source where she specifically and directly states that she is not alt-right? I would accept a primary one for this, although obviously something which would be reliable for general statements would be preferable. If she wants to call herself "new right" or "classical liberal" or whatever, so be it, and I am not opposed to explaining her stated position. We would have to do this in context with clear attribution, and we should not use her statements to undermine otherwise reliable sources. Right now we are trying to second-guess a lot of information based on evasive social media nonsense and similar. Grayfell (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a work in progress: Per [3] "Loomer is a pro-Trump activist and a journalist at the right-wing media outlet Rebel". Loomer describing herself: "“And I’m a nationalist; a lot of the people here are probably nationalists, because we respect our country, we want to preserve our country, and we don’t want our American patriotism, our Americanism in general, our heritage in general, to be overridden by migrants who refuse to assimilate.” Loomer tweet found in same article: “I canceled my speech at the Free speech rally in DC next weekend because I will not share a stage with the keynote speaker @RichardBSpencer,” she tweeted. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you proposing this for the intro or the body? I think her self-description as a "nationalist" is just confusing - that term is typically applied to people who are part of self-determination/independence movements (e.g.: a Catalan nationalist, or a Kurdish nationalist) - I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that description being mentioned in the body, but I don't know if it will suffice as a concise description of her politics. Admittedly, I haven't found anything better and it might not exist. Nblund ^talk 21:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Ref your last reply, your statement "can you find a source where she specifically and directly states that she is not alt-right?". My reply is, can you find a source where she specifically and directly states she is alt-right? Cllgbksr (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. We could use such a source if we had it, but we don't require or expect such sources per WP:BLPRS. We have sources saying something and we don't, apparently, have any relevant sources refuting this. We go by sources. I'm not so pedantic that I expect a written declaration of her beliefs in order to try and summarize them, but we still need to stick to what sources say, not what they imply. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Above in bold she's on record being quoted stating she's a nationalist. Are we going with it or not?Cllgbksr (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How would we include that, and why would we include that? Did you read Nblund's comments? What does "nationalist" mean? Nationalism is a very broad term, and self-identifying as a "nationalist" tells readers very little. Since the point is still to inform readers, I don't believe this is productive by itself, but context would determine this. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean how and why would we include it? She said it! "Laura Loomer has been quoted saying she is a nationalist and rejects the alt-light label". We have sourcing for that. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As to your comment "self identifying as a nationalist tells readers very little", it's not our job to tell readers what something means. The only thing that matters is she's been quoted stating she's a nationalist. Her version of what nationalist means to her may be different than someone else's. It's moot what nationalist means. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"Explaining things" is probably the single most important thing that an encyclopedia does. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of random facts - and if a particular quote or statement doesn't make the article subject more coherent to readers then it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Like I said: I'm not wholeheartedly opposed to including this quote somewhere with context, but the claim that we should just be indifferent toward what words means and faithfully transcribe whatever nonsense people spout about themselves is not an argument that I think is even remotely worth entertaining. Nblund ^talk 02:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, because this is an encyclopedia. Also, I have never seen any reliable source indicate that "nationalist" is contrary to "alt-right". If anything, the alt-right is commonly seen as nationalist. Loomer's quotes certainly don't seem to dispute this, since the lines about "Americanism" and "assimilation" would fit in perfectly with the alt-right. Or an op-ed in The Good Citizen, for that matter. This is why "nationalist" is too vague to be particularly helpful, because it applies to a very broad swathe of the population.

Refusing to speak with Spencer is individually commendable, but being invited to speak next to him in the first place can be seen as an indicator of why she's noteworthy to begin with. The word "infighting" comes up so much with the alt-right (and reliable sources discussing the alt-right) that it's almost a cliche. "Infighting" doesn't make sense unless sources accept that there is some shared group all these far-right social media savvy reactionaries belong to. They do accept this, and they also indicate that Loomer is also part of this group. This article should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: @Grayfell: Ok, all good points. I want a consensus, if this seems reasonable, an edit to the article that reflects her quote identifying as a nationalist, her refusal to share the stage with supremacist Richard Spencer, that Loomer rejects the anti-Semitic component of the alt-right, that she rejects the alt-light label the alt-right has given her. The way her lede/page reads now it 100% paints her as an alt-right activist and everything that goes with that group, i.e. it implies she is a Jewish woman who is anti-Semitic. And that dog doesn't hunt. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it would make sense - perhaps in a "views" section in the body, to say that "Loomer has described herself as a nationalist and argues that immigration poses a risk to American culture". I also think it's reasonable to say "Loomer has distanced herself from what she views as antisemitism among alt-right figures like Richard Spencer, leading some to describe her as a part of the alt-light, a label she rejects." I don't think it's accurate to say the alt-right gave her the label, because we have non-alt-right sources also using that description. This level of detail probably doesn't belong in the intro, so we should probably discuss that separately. Nblund ^talk 18:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nblund, seems reasonable, No issue with working your language into the views section in the body. Agree separate discussion as to the intro in the revision. Still waiting on Grayfell's input. Thanks. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. Perhaps this is overly bold, but I've taken a swing at it. I've rearranged the article to accommodate this new section, and also because a year-by-year list of her (semi) noteworthy activities seems like it's going to be much harder to maintain as time goes on.

A "views" section will help contextualize the career section, which might allow for trimming some details that haven't turned out to have lasting significance. With this in mind, I think it would be a good idea to slightly expand this section to document more specific views (such as her anti-Islam stance) but only with reliable, independent sources. As Nblund says, we shouldn't just transcribe what people say about themselves, but people are coming here to find out what her positions are, and we should be willing to explain them as appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a definite improvement. Thanks Grayfell. Nblund ^talk 22:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: @Grayfell: Agree, big improvement Grayfell. Thank you. Last suggestion, small tweak to lede, from "Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is an alt-right American political activist and Internet personality" - to - "Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is an American political activist and Internet personality." Drop "alt-right" from lede, let the views section break it down for the reader. Cllgbksr (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad we could work this out.

Many, many sources define her by her politics, so it seems appropriate for the article to do so, as well. Since the lede is intended to summarize the body of the article, and her alt-right/alt-lite/far-right status is, apparently, a big part of her notability according to sources, we should figure out a way to include this in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: @Grayfell: Grayfell valid point ref lede. Suggest using Right-wing since it encompasses all components of the right, sample "Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is a Right-wing American political activist and Internet personality." Cllgbksr (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm torn. I think right-wing may be workable, but far-right probably does a better job of capturing her position relative to more mainstream right-wing ideologies like conservatism or right-libertarianism. Nblund ^talk 18:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem seems to stem from the fact that there are many references by "alt-left" online sites (like Rolling Stone) that somehow have the audacity to label anyone at all. I tried to settle the argument by making a neutral statement that says she is a "conservative labeled by SOME as an alt-right activist". I thought, wrongly, that was down the middle enough to satisfy everyone. But nope! Reveryed almost as fast as I had suggested it. You guys are not coming to a concensus as long as anyone disagrees. -- TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Dismissing a source by labeling it "alt-left" severely undermines your argument. This and the inappropriate use of boldface for editorializing emphasis tip your hand that this edit wasn't as "neutral" as you claim it to be. Also, "You guys are not coming to a consensus as long as anyone disagrees" is the entire point of consensus. By design it requires agreement.

Anyway, is she notable because she is right-wing? Well... That's not the impression I get, so "right wing" and "conservative" seem slightly misleading. She is notable specifically because she is on the fringes. Fringes of the right-wing, but also fringes of activism and social media and journalism (being generous). I would accept "far-right", but this will only work if either: we find many sources treating this term as a defining trait, or we can agree that it is completely uncontroversial to treat both alt-right and alt-light as subsets of far-right. If this really is WP:BLUESKY obvious, we can use this term without it being WP:OR. Otherwise the lede will have to get a bit more bloated to handle this. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, alt-right/far-right crop up in right-leaning sources like the Washington Examiner, and National Review. Both Fox News, and The Washington Times describe Loomer as "far right". None of these right-leaning sources appear to call Loomer a "conservative". Nblund ^talk 21:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with far-right, but she does not come close to alt-right by any measure. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 22:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think alt-right is pretty poorly defined at this point. I'm also good with "far-right" and, after looking at the coverage of her disruption yesterday, it seems like "far-right" is probably the most widely used descriptor among reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 23:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so here are some sources which support "far-right". I've tried to avoid opinion outlets, and have included some which are older than just the most recent auctioneer-related stunt (funny as it was). So:

• "WATCH: A fast-talking auctioneer-turned-Congressman drowned out this far-right protester". PBS NewsHour. Associated Press. September 5, 2018. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

Doesn't refer to her by name, but calls her a "far-right protester"

• Blake, Andrew (November 16, 2017). "Twitter strips blue verification badges from racists amid authentication policy overhaul". The Washington Times. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

Says "far-right commentator Laura Loomer". Also, "self-described investigative journalist" which may or may not be significant. The Washington Times is weird, and its coverage of far-right politics ranges from good to absolutely abysmal.[4] I think it's fine for this, however.

• Darrah, Nicole (September 5, 2018). "Rep. Billy Long, an auctioneer, drowns out protester shouting at Twitter's Jack Dorsey during hearing". Fox News. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

"Laura Loomer, a far-right activist..."

• Barnes, Tom (September 6, 2018). "Congressman drowns out conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer with auctioneer skills at Twitter hearing". The Independent. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

"Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist and far right activist..." Non-local coverage sometimes misses nuance, but also tends to take less for granted, which is helpful in this case.

• Farzan, Antonia Noori (September 6, 2018). "How Rep. Billy Long's auctioneering past made him the breakout star of the Twitter hearings". Washington Post. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

"...far-right activist Laura Loomer..."

• Mansell, William (August 12, 2018). "Two Muslim congressional candidates confronted by Laura Loomer at campaign event". Newsweek. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

"...far-right activist Laura Loomer..."

• Golshan, Tara (August 14, 2018). "Ilhan Omar, a progressive Muslim woman, wins Minnesota primary for Keith Ellison's House seat". Vox. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

"..a far-right provocateur.."

• Barrouquere, Brett (August 31, 2018). "In unusual alliance, Infowars, Joey Gibson teaming up for 'street army' teams". Hatewatch. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

"...far-right internet personality Laura Loomer..."

These seem like enough to change from "alt-right" to "far-right". I don't think anyone is saying the alt-right is not a subset of far-right, so none of the sources calling her "alt-right" or similar are being challenged. "Far-right" is broad enough to cover all of this, while also being specific enough to avoid vagueness or euphemisms. This will also let readers know why she is significant enough have an article in the first place. With this in mind have added another 'note' supporting this description. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

change "a conservative activist known for producing selectively edited undercover video investigations" to "a conservative activist known for producing undercover video investigations" 217.123.250.139 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. please do not reopen this request without establishing consensus. DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Labeling of Mark Einerwold as antifa

At the end of the article for Laura Loomer, there is a statement that in July 2018, she had wrongly labeled the man arrested (Mark Einerwold) as "leftist antifa terrorist". This article then proceeds to label the guy as "a conservative whose Facebook profile was littered with pro-Second Amendment memes" (sith only one reference). When he was arrested, the local news station, KDLT News, posted on their site (see it here) that "Authorities say they found multiple items related to Antifa, an anti-fascist militant group, as well as other items indicating an extreme hatred for law enforcement and government." My problem is not whether this guy was antifa or not. My problem is that by bringing this up in the Laura Loomer article and stating definitively that he was NOT is a bit outside of WP:NPOV in my opinion. If anything, this statement (should it remain in the article) should be changed to be more NPOV-like. I personally think the verdict is still out on whether the guy was antifa or not, right-wing or not, or just a looney. Until it has been made definitively clear in the public eye, this article should remain neutral on the topic. Thoughts from anyone? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The currently cited source disputes Loomer's claims in substantially greater detail than the local news blurb. That article says Authorities say they found multiple items related to Antifa, an anti-fascist militant group, as well as other items indicating an extreme hatred for law enforcement and government. which is the only relevant paragraph. There is also this story from a USA Today outlet which is entirely about the man's conservative social media history and his brother's explicit statement that he wasn't antifa.

Wait, so this all started because there was an "antifa jacket" and a couple of pages of paper at the crime scene... that's it? Okay, anyway...

The USA Today story cites Loomer's tweets as an example of the "right-wing media" but that is probably not useful as a source for the article. Since the KDLT news blurb doesn't mention Loomer at all, it's not usable here, in my opinion.

So the sources we have which mention Loomer suggest that she rushed to a conclusion based on selective, flimsy evidence. This incident may not be worth mentioning at all. If we're going to include it, we should not misrepresent existing sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: In part, I tend to agree that the KDLT article doesn't mention her and therefore may be omitted. I still don't see how the comment about Loomer brings any pertinent encyclopedic value to the article here though. Since it hasn't been proven one way or the other yet whether she was right, citing one source or another is not valuable. Now, maybe once his trial is over and it is more definitively stated, then we can say "Look here, she was wrong". I just don't see the value at this time. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The trial will only matter to this article if reliable sources mention Loomer in connection to it. One possible encyclopedic value to this is that she has a history of positively speculating about things which later turn out to be wrong or misleading. These tweets are another example of the kind of activity for which she is noteworthy. Is all that enough to keep this one incident in the article? Probably not, but I'm curious to see if anyone else has an opinion.

As an aside, for WP:BLP reasons, I do not feel there is any value in mention this guy's name in the article, per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NPF, etc. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm tired and I don't really have any dog in this hunt, so I'd love to hear from anyone else as well. This article and many others on WP have a real problem with NPOV, and that's what I was trying to address. Until everyone has an interest in keeping NPOV, WP will continue to be considered less than a reliable reference source by academia. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 00:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a meme that's gone around for the past few years that Wikipedia's academic unreliability is a symptom of how it deals with controversial topics. I disagree for a bunch of reasons. For one thing, Wikipedia is not reliable even on Wikipedia -this isn't a bug, it's a feature. For another, this is a tertiary source, and academics are commonly taught to avoid citing those regardless of who published them. If a grad student is regularly citing Encyclopedia Britannica, something very odd is happening. Additionally, changing content to curry favor from some hypothetical audience is a bad precedent, and smells vaguely of political correctness. Wikipedia is and will remain its own entity, and these implied outside threats and rewards might motivate some editors, but they don't actually make good content.

I would ask you not to assume other editors are not interested in Wikipedia's policies. If we don't agree on how to apply NPOV, please do not assume this is because you understand policy and I don't, because that's just poisoning the well. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article must be rewritten. It is full of weasel words like "far right", "conspiracy theorist", and "alt-right." It does not meet Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.155.123 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I note the "Far Right" smear.

Every time establishment types discuss Laura Loomer you throw in the term "Far Right" as a SMEAR. NBC did this in a story recently about Laura Loomer being banned from Twitter (for the crime of telling-the-truth about Islamic doctrine). How would you like it if every time you were mentioned you were referred to as a "Far Left" person? Prime Minister Gladstone and Prime Minister Winston Churchill were anti Islam - and expressed themselves in much stronger language than Laura Loomer does, were they "Far Right"?2A02:C7D:B48D:1200:C936:45E5:38D2:227B (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources (such as NBC) refer to her as "far rght", then we will do so as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know how to do this, but I completely agree. I mean do they ever use "right-wing" anymore? It's always straight to "far-right" which used to be a euphemism for neo-nazi and its ilk. But they are calling Jews "far-right" all the time. Just because we're conservative and tend to vote Republican. Calling conservatives and classical liberals "right-wing" is bad enough (it's a borrowed European term which means something more sinister in Europe--they have virtually no classical liberals in Europe, which is where "American exceptionalism" came from), but calling a Jew who isn't pretending to be a Nazi "far-right" is looney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.213.227 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is both irrelevant, and incorrect (see Category:Far-right political parties in Israel, for example). If you have a problem with reliable sources, take it up with those sources. Correct or not, this is not the place to share your political ideas, this is the place to discuss how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@IP Well, at least the self-appointed politburo let the 'alt-right' label through, giving us a choice. That's actually quite a rare accomplishment if you know anything about how zealously and feverishly the same old tired cabal of activist editors guard 'their' political articles. Be grateful for small mercies while wikipedia's reputation for truth descends further down the toilet. Loomer, the 'Far-right Nazi Jew' indeed! 172.78.12.109 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you are not making any actionable suggestions for improving the article, and have admitted on my talk page you have no intention of improving Wikipedia, this is no longer productive. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a dishonest summation of my comment on your talk page. I have every intention of improving Wikipedia and this article, perhaps not to your personal liking, but as you say, that's irrelevant. Of course I am including actionable suggestions on how to improve the article. The very first thing to do is tackle the familiar group of editors who vote in a bloc to disallow reasonable changes to articles, including this one. This is a serious issue and failing of WP that must be addressed sooner or later. It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to this article AND this topic. Censoring and stifling dissension to your personal views only draws attention to, and underlines the problem itself. I thank you for your efforts this evening in this regard.172.79.83.57 (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You've flatly stated that other editors are a self-appointed politburo because you don't agree with them about something. This poisons the well for any further discussion. You then go to my talk page to add a WP:SEALIONing post ending with Thanks, and sincerely in good faith, which you aggressively restored to my talk page after I remove it. You do this with an edit summary accusing me of being arrogant and having OCD, and call the admins "piss-weak" and scared of something or other. I admit this hot-and-cold routine is kind of amusing, but it's is pretty ridiculously not about improving this article. Take it to a noticeboard or something if you think you have a point to make, but this talk page is about improving this article. If your only actionable suggestion is... some editors you don't like shouldn't get to edit the page anymore? Again, pretty amusingly vague, but this is just wasting everyone else's time. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

This wording under "Activism" seems unfortunate: "Loomer then asked Omar why she was hateful toward Israel and why she married her brother. Omar had previously denied those rumors concerning her personal life.(cite_note-Newsweek-29)"

The sentence starting "Omar had previously denied" could have been written without ill intent, but one way it can easily be read is as a suggestion that Loomer's questioning somehow exposed what was previously denied. That does not seem to be the case, so the wording should avoid giving that impression.

I would propose moving the Newsweek 29 cite note to the end of the first sentence, and then replacing the "Omar had previously denied" sentence with:

The latter question referred to Omar's 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi; suggestions that he might have been her brother and/or married for immigration purposes had been raised "on conservative news and websites — beginning with a popular site called Power Line" and rebutted in a statement by Omar on 17 August 2016.

A citation for the added material can be J. Patrick Coolican's Star Tribune article of 17 August 2016, http://www.startribune.com/ilhan-omar-offers-answers-to-questions-about-her-marital-history/390512041/

50.127.85.40 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

While I tentatively agree that the paragraph could be improved, this proposal won't work. The Star Tribune source doesn't mention Loomer at all, making this WP:SYNTH. Further, the "popularity" of the fake news outlet which started this salacious and offensive gossip is a distraction. I will try and figure out a way to rephrase this which aligns more closely with sources and WP:BLP. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeated links

I removed some links that are already linked above in the article. --Malerooster (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

She is not alt-right. Please remove. Kiosoto (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, this whole horseshit article is biased propaganda from extreme leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:112A:1B5:1B:2509:C089:B8B2 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please also provide additional reliable sources and review the previous discussions of this issue. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

Edit the "bans/removals" section to state she has also been banned from using Stripe since March 2021. https://loomered.com/2021/03/30/congressional-candidate-laura-loomer-banned-from-payment-processing-company-stripe/ She has also been banned from owning a firearm. This should be included too. https://loomered.com/2021/01/19/exclusive-ive-been-banned-from-owning-a-firearm-a-warning-of-whats-to-come-for-all-conservative-americans/ Adam12992 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This should have confirmation from a reliable secondary source, as the subject is far from reliable. ValarianB (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

You’ve allowed someone to smear the individual in this article and label her a conspiracy theorist. You should clean this article up before I post it to her followers and make sure Wiki is unable to continue to fundraise 75.118.227.191 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia articles follow the reliable sources, which call her a conspiracy theorist. We do not respond to threats. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Close discussion. Tylerf2022 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

In the "COVID-19" subsection of the "Views" section, change "was great pain" to "was in great pain" Arejiba (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)