Talk:Dana Loesch/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reliability of TheBlaze

1. source mentions on noticeboard:
   -link
   -link
2. partisan source: TheBlaze
3. article (blp): Dana Loesch
4. disputed content:

   "...[Loesch's] questioning the conservative political credentials of commentators who were supporting Donald J. Trump at that juncture."[^{"'Who The Hell Is This Chick?': Dana Loesch Goes Off On Trump Supporter Kayleigh McEnany". May 9, 2016. Retrieved March 5, 2018.}

   --22:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note - Please don't comment on this page but here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TheBlaze_show_Dana_etc._w_rgd_Dana_Loesch --22:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)--22:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The Trump "bashing" circa 2016 seems notable

Eg she published this in the National Review[1]:

Deleted copyvio. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Breaks down her reasons not to support Trump here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

wp:EL

1. Official websites - wp:ELOFFICIAL: "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable."
2. "Linking to databases. When linking to large database-driven sites like the Internet Movie Database, try to use an external link template. If the URL format of the database ever changes, it is sometimes possible to quickly fix all links by rewriting the template."
3. wp:RICHMEDIA: "Where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, either as a direct link or embedded within an HTML page, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given, as in the following examples: 'Jimmy Wales: The birth of Wikipedia' July, 2005 on TED; 20:01 minutes. (HTML5, Adobe Flash)."
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Political evolution

1. "Loesch is one of the raft of conservative pundits who washed ashore on the frothy tides of the Tea Party back in 2010, when she started filling in for right-wing radio host Michael Savage. (Loesch has linked her political awakening to 1. Marrying a Republican, her husband/manager Chris Loesch, and 2. The attacks on September 11, 2001.)" - June 29, 2017 Jezebel.com
2. "In the 1990s, she did campaign work and opposition research for Bill Clinton and was an active member of the College Democrats chapter of Webster University while she was a student there. However, Loesch claims that her views started to change after Clinton's extramarital affair with intern Monica Lewinsky came to light, and then over the next couple of years, she gradually became more and more conservative. The real tipping point — and the point of no return for Loesch's former, liberal self — was Sept. 11, but she told View host Jenny McCarthy that by that point she had already realized that she didn't share as many liberal, progressive views as she'd thought." - Feb. 25, 2018 Bustle.com
3. "Six months after [her baby boy] arrived, the Twin Towers crumbled — and with them Loesch's left-wing leanings. She says she watched her infant playing in front of the television as the second tower went down and thought, What did we bring him into? Says Chris Loesch: '9/11 was the deal sealer for Dana.'"

- Feb. 24, 2010 Riverfront Times--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1. "...Clinton was a philanderer. I accepted it and continued to support him--but something had changed. I recognized..." Flyover Nation p134
2. "...the second tower collapse, watching the Pentagon burn, seeing that a giant rut had been dug into the earth in Pennsylvania. ... I have been political most of my life, only I campaigned for Democrat candidates. I had campaigned for Clinton his second term. At that moment I regretted it all." - Sept. 11, 2010 DanaLoeschRadio
3. "I love conversion stories. I have my own, from when I became a conservative 15 years ago. But I’m not running for president. Donald Trump is. And his 'conversion' raises serious questions." - D.L. in Jan. 22, 2016 National Review
4. "The September 11 attacks occurred when [Loesch's] son, Liam, was just six months old, and the tragedy took away the last of her left-wing views." - Current issue of Esquire
5. "[Loesch] was a Democrat while a journalism student at Missouri’s Webster University, but claims her faith was shaken by the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal. Her transition to fully fledged Republican was complete after the September 11 attacks in 2001." - Feb. 27, 2018 New Daily (Australia)
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Just be careful not to interpret primary sources or rely on them excessively. (Some of those sources are primary sources and some are not.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

1. "Her family voted for Democrats. [...] In 2000, she married Chris Loesch, the baby’s father: a musician and son of a preacher who now manages her career. They attend weekly services at the Church of Christ. [...] As a new parent in St. Louis, she blogged about motherhood and began her long-running radio program, “The Dana Show.” She became disillusioned with Democratic politics, though, in the wake of President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky." - Jan. 20, 2018 NYT
2. "[Loesch] said she was liberal as a youth, but she grew more conservative after President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky." - Feb. 22, 2018 WaPo
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
3. "She had transformed from leaning left in college at Webster University, where she was studying journalism ... to a fervent right-leaning pundit. After she met her husband, Chris, who was a Republican.... Though she didn’t change her views right away, when the Sept. 11 attacks happened, she had her 'Come to Jesus' moment, politically. She had been blogging about the Gore/Bush election on her first website, Antiradar. 'It was just basically kind of arguing with myself about supporting Gore over Bush and then, of course, after 9/11 happened, then it kind of cemented me further, because the last thing that I gave up in terms of going towards becoming a conservative was where I stood on military and foreign policy.'" - Mar. 20, 2012 TheDailyBeast--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This is all helpful research, but the content you recently re-added (please respect the BRD process) appears to be improper synthesis. Which cited source explicitly says Loesch was a politically engaged Democrat as a young adult? Which source explicitly says she began drifting rightward and immediately after the September 11 attacks? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, it's possible that the entire sentence is verifiable, but you're taking a whole bunch of disparate content and throwing it into a single sentence with a whole bunch of sources, making it extremely difficult to verify. I suggest we break the sentence up into its component parts and provide separate citations for each. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. Go for it! <smiles>--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that it's extremely difficult for me to unpack the content and sources you put together, so I'm asking you to do this yourself. My inclination would be to delete the sentence outright. Remember that you have the burden of demonstrating verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Disputed text

A contributor believes a non-minor (owing the degree of care WP requires @blp's) fix would help @ the text below.

A Democrat who campaigned for Bill Clinton's reelection as a young as college student,^{"In Remembrance of 9/11". Dana Loesch Radio. Retrieved 2018-03-08.}

Loasch began questioning her political leanings after the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal^{mummyblogger piece in Aussie newspaper} - ^{nyt piece} - ^{Dana Loesch (2016). Flyover Nation. p. 134.}

and after the September 11 attacks fully embraced conservatism.^{nyt piece} - ^{Mike Bruce (2018-02-27). "Dana Loesch: From mummy blogger to gun rights guardian". Thenewdaily.com.au. Retrieved 2018-03-08.}

Please indicate if you believe any/all 3 sentence segments' assertions are supported by attached citations.--19:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• All supported. - Dana on talk radio says she campaigned for Clinton 's re-election; numerous citations as appended verify subject's doubts about liberalism bcs of the Lewinski matter; ditto rgdg impact on her politics due the 9-11 disaster.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are you replying to yourself? I thought we were having a discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I'd signed this query that opens this sub-section via five and not the usual four tilde-es...in trying for it to have something approximating a tone of neutrality.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have verifiability concerns about all 3 segments:

1. The Dana Show source doesn't say she campaigned for Clinton while in college. We can just drop the "as a young as college student."
2. The Flyover Nation source doesn't say she began questioning her political leanings. It simply says she became angry at Democrats. (Remember that interpretation of primary sources is not allowed; we must stick closely to the source.)
3. The New Daily source doesn't say she fully embraced conservatism after 9/11. It says she became a fully fledged Republican. That's not the same thing.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, user:DrFleischman.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

IMHO WP need not be so exacting in avoidance of "noncontroversial" interpretations or syntheses. That said, come to think of it, since you are an editor here who disagrees with them this proves they in are by very definition "controversial." Hmm: Maybe I'll just throw out primary sourcing altogether and closely paraphrase some secondary sources then, I think(?). Again, thanks for your clear communications of your concerns here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Our difference in perspectives is likely the result of our contributions largely being in different parts of the encyclopedia. Most of my editing is in American politics, which is particularly prone to controversy. In this space, if something can be challenged, it will be challenged. Regardless, BLP imposes a higher standard than non-biographical content. Notice the intro of WP:BLP: "We must get the article right." Contentious, poorly sourced material must be deleted outright. That doesn't mean that non-contentious poorly sourced material need not be fixed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest proposed draft:

While at Webster, Loesch was a Democrat actively in support of Bill Clinton's reelection.^{"Dana Loesch's Political Views Show The NRA Spokesperson Wasn't Always A Conservative". Bustle.com. Retrieved 2018-03-08.} Due to the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Loesch became less sympathetic toward Democratic politics^{nyt pc (see in abv list)} and after the September 11 attacks she fully embraced conservatism.^{maiden feature article coverage @ the st louie alt. weekly riverfront times}

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I made some minor changes in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Political philosophy

May be an official Tea (actual political) Party member in MO(?) or TX(?) or else a Libertarian Party member(? or, ------?). May ascribe to Libertarian conservatism/Fusionism(?).

1. From Jan. 21, 2016 transcript of interview of Loesch by Megyn Kelly: "You know, I would say this, first off, I'm not a registered Republican. Because I haven't thought that they were conservative enough for a very long time."
2. "An erstwhile Democrat who votes Republican but prefers 'conservatarian'...." -- "[Loesch] made headlines for helping to organize a 'buycott' of Whole Foods in support of its libertarian CEO...."

- Feb. 24, 2010 Riverfront Times
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Used to be Dem
2. In 2016 said she was not registered GOP

• -->Tweaks to infobx field (DIFF)
  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1. "Because she doesn’t call herself a Republican (she uses the term conserva[-]tarian), she is often at odds with people on the right (don’t get her started on Mitt Romney), as well as the left." - Mar. 20, 2012 TheDailyBeast
2. Charles C.W. Cooke, The Conservatarian Manifesto (2016)
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Journalists, politicians etc.

@DrFleischman: - regarding your revert - the "Your time is running out. The clock starts now," quote is directed towards all the groups (Hollywood, late night hosts etc), not just journalists. You can read the provided source and another one. They quote her. To X, to Y, to Z, your time is running out. That's what she is saying. starship.paint ~ KO 03:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources more carefully. They both expressly say the "time is running out" comment was directed at journalists. Both quote her saying, "To those who bring bias and propaganda to CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times… your time is running out. The clock starts now." That doesn't include Hollywood, late night hosts, etc. Loesch directed other comments to those groups. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• @DrFleischman: - please. Read Bustle - they quoted her saying "time is running out" to all those groups. It's a gigantic sentence with many fragments. USA Today: NRA spokeswoman warns media, Hollywood and athletes 'time is running out'. Sky: America's National Rifle Association has warned celebrities and media outlets calling for increased gun control that their "time is running out". The Blaze: New NRA ad warns media, politicians, and ‘every Hollywood phony’ that their ‘time is running out’. starship.paint ~ KO 01:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

TheBlaze isn't reliable. Neither are newspaper headlines. Beyond that the only source that appears to make the connection (saying that she was referring to Hollywood and athletes with that statement) is the Sky News source. But then, strangely, it goes on to quote the full sentence: "To those who bring bias and propaganda to CNN, the Washington Post and The New York Times, your time is running out." That's not a gigantic sentence.

Look, we could go on and on all day but I don't think we're going to get very far. I only want the article to reflect the sources, and most of the sources seem to agree with me. I suggest you put together your best argument and submit it to WP:BLPN. Please let me know if/when you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

College Degree

The source article for Ms. Loesch's college studies states "Loesch attended St. Louis Community College at Meramec before transferring to Webster University to study journalism. She dropped out after meeting her husband-to-be, Chris, then a graphic designer who sang in a local punk band, wearing black eyeliner and nail polish." It is relevant to her education history to include the schools she attended, what she studied, and the fact that she left her courses when she met her husband (that information has been in the article for some time now). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• How could it not be relevant to mention the schools she attended and her course of study? When someone dropped out of college and is a public political figure, we should be careful to avoid disparagement in the article about the way that fact is represented, but its a relevant fact.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

relevant how? you suspect someone will assume a degree was awarded? do they also assume it was a doctorate? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

whether someone obtained a degree is obviously relevant to a discussion of their education. A wikipedia article is not a resume that tries to minimize facts perceived as negative, it attempts to be a fair unbiased and clear statement of the facts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about people mistakenly thinking she earned a doctorate, Darkstar1st. She transferred from a community college to Webster, so she was probably working on her bachelors when she quit the program. Dropping out of school because of marriage happens to plenty of young women, needn't be interpreted as disparaging, and is obviously relevant in covering someone's college education history on their BLP. For example, the Rush Limbaugh BLP mentions that he left after one year of college because he "flunked everything." Can you see now why that's notable and relevant in a subject's education history? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

understood, good point. my personal fav is steve jobs, btw i am a dropout as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Virginia80, the source citation specifically says "She dropped out after meeting her husband-to-be, Chris..." What's your rationale as to why we should obscure this information by shortening it to "dropped out, period"? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "dropped out after meeting her husband..." seems designed to cover over or justify the fact that she has no degree. Plenty of people meet their spouses in college and complete their degree. The two sentences should be properly separated unless there is some compelling connection, and then that needs to be explained. She is a college dropout period. Virginia80 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've separated the issue of her college degree from the TV and TP issues in order to make this easier to comment and work out. At present, I can't see how the text "dropped out after meeting her husband" implies we're covering something up or hiding the fact that she has no degree. Whether its combined in one sentence or split into two, dropped out means that she dropped out. Maybe you could try and flesh out that rationale a bit more? If you're saying the sentence implies that the reason why she dropped out was because of her husband, and that that is somehow incorrect, I would urge you to carefully read the source citation, where you will find that the author specifically wrote "She dropped out after meeting her husband-to-be, Chris..." Why should we ignore what the cited source says in this regard? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That "source", a very obscure newspaper, cites the timing of it, I suppose, based on how she represents it. It is not a reason. And if it is a reason, then that specific reason needs to be cited. The two sentences should be separated. One is education. The other is personal/family. Virginia80 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I question labeling Webster as her "Alma Mater" in the side panel and tagging her as an alumna of the university. While technically the terms can reference a school someone "once attended", even Wikipedia's own definition of alma mater specifies "from which an individual has graduated", and the definition of alumnus/alumna is "a former student and most often a graduate of an educational institution". Here, the implication is that she graduated from the university, which neither the article nor the sources support. (I also question tagging her as a person of Cherokee descent, as that is entirely unproven by any of the sources--her claims in each of the sources are presented without a shred of verifiable evidence--but that is an argument for another section.) Cleothemuse (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

When the conversation thread above was taking place in 2012, the article looked very different then (see this version). An entry for the Alma Mater field was recently added earlier this month, seen here. Something should probably be tweaked in the present day infobox to show that she attended Webster University, but is not a graduate per se. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Added in that she was a dropout. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I had this page cached before Azure and Emir had commented and went ahead and blanked the alma mater field. I agree with Cleo that typical usage is that alma mater means where you graduated from, not where you attended. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Account of Students Rushing the Stage.

Hello,

I would like to edit the bit where Dana Loesch is charged that she is lying about her account at the CNN Town Hall taking place on February 22, 2018. Dana is a friend of mine and I am here to bring balance to conversation. Loesch said students and people tried to rush the stage and shouted "burn her" and other horrible statements. She was escorted with security out of the auditorium. A video from Miami New Times claims she lied about the event in question. However, it only shows her exiting the auditorium <ref>http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/videos-show-nra-spokeswoman-dana-loesch-lied-about-town-hall-crowd-attacks-10115716-10115716<ref>. It does not provide footage of the stage where Dana has said this happened. Also an important detail should be noted; an audience member shouted "You're a murderer" during the Q&A between Emma Gonzalez and Dana <ref>https://www.dailywire.com/news/27443/watch-dana-loesch-called-murderer-cnn-gun-control-james-barrett<ref>. The most important thing I want to point out is CNN's Jake Tapper defended Dana's account of the incident through Twitter <ref>http://therightscoop.com/idiot-editor-of-thinkprogress-mocks-dana-loesch-over-cnn-town-hall-jake-tapper-rebukes-him/<ref> He whispered to Loesch if she needed an escort but she had armed security to protect her. I'm doing this because I feel her side is misrepresented by people who are biased towards her and the NRA doing what they can to discredit and smear her. Please understand I don't intend to make this political, I'm doing this for the sake of integrity. Please correct this piece. Thank you!TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Before getting to the merits, thanks for explaining your connection to Loesch. What's your connection to ViriiK? It seems extremely odd that you and they would object to the same content within 2 minutes of one another when this paragraph has been untouched for over 3 weeks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you getting all conspiracy theory on this about whom I may be connected to? You wrote the byline "falsely" injecting your personal opinion which was not true as pointed out by Jake Tapper, the man who not only hosted the town hall but escorted Loesch out. ViriiK (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Doing a bit of research on Tim Elfrink, the article who claims that the video proved Loesch wrong that people were supposedly attacking her as he claimed she said but unfortunately I don't see that to be the case. Jake Tapper however confirms the Loesch's both Dana and Chris' version of the story. When Elfrink makes a statement like "Guess it's hard to turn off the gaslighting switch", he isn't being neutral here. She also never said that people attacked her as the Elfrink suggested. Her statement in full is this "There were people rushing the stage and screaming, ‘Burn her,’" and Chris Loesch said "When @jaketapper leaned over to my wife and asked if she had an escort and told her she needed to get out of there and a woman rushed the stage while others pushed forward yelling all sorts of nastiness and threats, yes. We held our heads high and walked with ARMED SECURITY!". So I take issue with the whole idea that her statement was "falsely" as you injected in this. ViriiK (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Another note. I also find it insulting that you said "undid 2 good faith revs by ViriiK" and then go out of your way to accuse these people of asking what my connection is to these people in an attempt to keep the POV edit. ViriiK (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the link I provided in the beginning of this thread. I do not know Viriik personally. I brought this to the attention of Chris Loesch, Dana's husband. I showed him a screenshot of this article and he shared it to his followers.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand you, DrFleischman, are responsible for the paragraph in particular. I have no personal connection to Viriik. I have brought this issue up on Twitter to Dana and her husband Chris. I gave Chris a screenshot of the paragraph and he published it on his Twitter. A couple people on Twitter have said they would appeal it as well so Viriik may be one of these people. I formed this account just today for the sole purpose of bringing attention to this issue.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I just removed the paragraph and provided a link to an article showing Jake explaining. I realize it is a partisan source, but I will try to find more. For the time being, I felt it was best to remove the disputed paragraph, as it is in question and this is a biography of a living person. I think it should stay off the page until it can be sourced better, or a conclusion can be reached.Mikist4 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You can simply use Jake's tweets on Twitter. They're provided on the site I shared.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Three thoughts:

1. I've added a {{recruiting}} tag to the top of this page, and I'm hoping you all read our policy on meatpuppetry. I'm not suggesting any of you are necessarily doing anything wrong, but it's important to familiarize yourselves with relevant community standards.
2. Regardless of what's decided here, the content has been up, stable, and reliably sourced for weeks, and so it should remain up pending resolution of this discussion. To flag the fact that there's a dispute here I'm going to restore it with a {{disputed inline}} tag.
3. Editors have pointed to Tweets by Jake Tapper and The Right Scoop to dispute the content supported by the Miami New Times. Twitter and The Right Scoop may be your sources of preference, but they cannot be used because they're not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia core policies of verifiability, neutrality, and no original research can be summarized in a very simple way: we follow the reliable sources, and if there's a conflict among the reliable sources, then we describe the conflict with appropriate weight. In this case someone will need to find a reliable source that's at odds with our content. This has nothing to do with bias or personal opinion; it's just how Wikipedia works.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for others in this thread, but I am not a meatpuppet. You say "our content" as if you are an administrator or have some sort of power on this site, yet your page mentions nothing of that. I have a long history (5+ years) of editing on Wikipedia. I created the entire page for House of Cards. I'm quite aware of how the guidelines work, and how those guidelines change drastically when discussing biographies of living people. In your list, you linked to nothing to a lot of topics, but none of them were to Wiki's guidelines on biographies. I'm assuming good faith and that you simply forgot to add that, and aren't trying to deceive newer editors. The paragraph in question is in dispute and can only be sourced by objectively written articles. Any topic that only can be sourced from partisan sites should be left out.

UPDATE: A quick glance at Wikipedia's page on reliable sources yields this quote: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Mikist4 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the blatantly POV push, no, it should stay off until it's balanced out. I don't see any relevancy to the biography though out of all the many topics of Dana Loesch that are out there. Come up with a better edit than your unfortunately what I view is a non-neutral point of view when you said "falsely". Elfrink has already demonstrated NOT to be neutral when he made the gaslighting comment regarding the Loesch's. The video that Elfrink uses shows EXACTLY what the Loesch's described being escorted out by security. At no point did either of the Loesch's claim that they were attacked by anyone as Elfrink suggested. Go look for the quote that Dana Loesch made and point to me the part where she says the audience as Elfrink claims that people were supposedly "Attacking Her". This is her quote. "And it was over 5K people. I had to have a security detail to get out. I wouldn’t have been able to exit that if I did not have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming ‘Burn her!’ And I came there to talk solutions.". Where in that quote is what Elfrink claimed that Loesch said that people attacked her? Jake Tapper did confirm that people did rush the stage and made a hostile environment for the Loesch's, both Chris and Dana. The fact that it went uncontested for 3 weeks is not an excuse either. ViriiK (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Another thing, this is one of the failings of Wikipedia I would argue is a secondary source (being Jake Tapper) literally disputes the event that occurred while a non-neutral "gaslighting" (Elfrink's words, not mine) secondary source has more credibility apparently. In WP:PRIMARY, the rule states that we should rely on "reliable, published secondary sources" which I find Jake Tapper to be reliable, no? I'm not using the Loesch's words here. I'm using Tapper's observation and actions. The Loesch's made the statement, Tapper confirmed that it happened. Did that make Loesch's statement false? No, it did not. Did an editor of a local newspaper in Miami think Loesch lied based on his observation of an interpretation of two videos? Yes. Did he embellish some details of Loesch's statement surrounding the event? Yes, he did when he claimed that Loesch said people attacked her in his byline. ViriiK (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to explain the source you are using. Dana has said they tried to rush onto the stage. The video in your source doesn't even show the stage. It shows her literally about to exit the auditorium. This video does nothing to prove she lied about the event. This is an attempt to discredit her and her positions in this sensitive debate over guns by the author of the piece. I would like to add Wikipedia (granted I may use it a lot) is not a reliable source in itself and yet people go here for quick, easy to grab information for whatever they want. I've noticed you yourself have said Blaze News is not a reliable source in the history section. Is it because they are right-wing? Do you have a bias yourself? Would you show the same integrity with sites such as the Huffington Post? Jake Tapper is a journalist for CNN and he was the host of the event this incident took place; he has defended this account. To even not allow a conflicting source to this account in an article meant to be informative is disingenuous to the audience. The credible sources you claim should be provided are all against Dana Loesch and her stance on guns. They're not going to bother defending a spokeswoman for the NRA to give them any credit or paint them in a positive light because they are not on her side. I will work hard for this correction. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, a few follow-up points here:

1. I did not accuse any of you in this discussion of bias, POV pushing, trying to deceive anyone, or doing anything wrong. I expect the same courtesy. This is not a battleground, it's a collaborative environment. Let's have a civil discussion about how we can improve the article without the personal, nasty rhetoric.
2. Jack Tapper is not a reliable source. Nor is Dana Loesch. Nor are their tweets. Nor is The Right Stuff. Nor is the Daily Wire. Reliable sources must be published, reputable, and fact-checked. Tapper is a reputable journalist but his tweets have not been fact-checked. Generally speaking it's the reputation of the fact-checker, not the author that's most important in deciding whether a source is reliable.
3. In light of the above, can anyone please identify a reliable source supporting their position?
4. I don't know why some of you want to dwell on media bias, comments about TheBlaze and the Huffington Post are completely beside the point. Does anyone have a reason why the Miami New Times might not be a reliable source? Does it not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you show with other reliable sources that the claims in the Miami New Times article are false? Dailywire and RightScoop are obviously not RS. There so much text and OR above... all you need to do is quote something from a reliable sources, and we can remove the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Guess it's hard to turn off the gaslighting switch" is not reporting, that's editorializing. When Fleischman used the word "falsely", that became extremely biased despite all the evidence to the contrary becaues the source in question was an editorial, not a news report. This is literally in WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Except that entire paragraph presents an entirely one-sided view of how one may interpret it despite a well-known reporter, Jake Tapper, corroborating what the Loesch said. ViriiK (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Saying "falsely" was just following the reliable source, no more, no less. We don't say Loesch was gaslighting. I agree that would be going too far. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Then why do it in the first place? We have provided evidence contradicting this and you persist on keeping this point on this article. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Because your evidence is original research. You need to find a reliable source that contradicts it, preferably a secondary source, not tweets and your own personal interpretation of a video. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh right! So basically the same thing Tim Elfrink (he is the Managing Editor of the Miami New Times) did when he saw Dana merely walk out of the exit. Perhaps he happened to confuse the exit of the auditorium for the stage, is that it? That's HIS personal interpretation of a video and somehow you think so as well. Tell me exactly where you saw the stage in that video. Have you even seen the video? TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You implied I was in cahoots with some other user at the start of this discussion and associated me with a "meatpuppetry" ploy. I have, however, conversed with the other user on this page who is experienced and maintains you are in violation of the guidelines you have tried to use with me. He maintains the policy that this is a biography and you are publishing contentious material in it. I have also been in touch with Chris and we will make sure this libelous detail does not go uncontested. You have dismissed The Blaze in the history of this page as an unreliable source with no good reason for stating so. And now you're bringing in Daily Wire for no reason at all. This Miami New Times piece IS biased and written with the intent for political and activist commentary. We will happily go to appropriate administrators to settle this if we must.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Blaze is in no way a reliable source for contentious material. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you or anyone else of meatpuppetry, and if it came off that way I assure you it wasn't my intention and I apologize for the confusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit break (rushing the stage)

• Comment: I assume the dispute is over this material: diff. I don't see anything undue about it; that's what sources reported. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The part that's untrue about it is Jake Tapper's own statement that disputes the entire interpretation of one unfortunately biased reporter due to his "gaslighting" comment he made himself on Twitter. When it started a blogger, Ian Millhiser, took issue with Chris Loesch's statement on the event that occurred shortly after the townhall and Jake Tapper responded to Ian Millhiser by confirming that it happened exactly as Chris Loesch described it. For some reason the "gaslighting" reporter chose to mislead the readers by claiming that Dana Loesch said they were attacked when they said nothing of the sort in any of their public statements both after the town hall and at CPAC. The editor who put it in used the term "falsely" which implies that Chris Loesch and by extension Dana Loesch made the whole thing up despite being fully corroborated by Jake Tapper. Are we going to argue that Jake Tapper is not a reliable source anymore? The whole paragraph is immaterial anyways and is barely notable due to how underreported it was. ViriiK (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I get the whole discussion about Secondary Sources but the problem is ONE single source makes the claim and it's extremely hard to dispute that even though that the primary characters (Tapper, CLoesch, and DLoesch) do match up to what they know happened. If there was more than one secondary source from more a neutral party other than the "gaslighting" reporter, that would work for me. But unfortunately that's not the case here. ViriiK (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yahoo News —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that corroborates her statement and Jake Tapper's. ViriiK (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But again, that's from Deadline, not Yahoo News, which if you look at the author at the top of the article. I did link to a similar Deadline article in another post. ViriiK (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right, that's a reprint of Deadline Hollywood, which is considered reliable. But how exactly does that source corroborate Loesch's statement? It certainly seems like it corroborates the New Times' version, not Loesch's. Also here are multiple videos, not just one, that appear to back up the Miami New Times and Deadline Hollywood. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Again the statement by Loesch is what matters. However the "video" as you cite shows her walking outside of the stage area. None of them show her on the stage. CLoesch's statement involves the part of her at the stage and so does DLoesch. The problem is New Times claims that Loesch supposedly says that the audience attacked her but neither of the Loesch made that claim in their statements both on Twitter AND at CPAC. The statements by the witnesses written by the "gaslighting" writer also supports this argument. They actually talk about her walking out of the room after the stage thankfully backed by the video. I'm still trying to find the notability of this being included in the article especially given how poorly supported this issue is. Deadline included the statement from CNN which didn't deny Loesch's version and Tapper independently confirmed that what CLoesch said is correct about the shouting and someone attempting to jump the stage. However New Times omitted the statement from CNN and made interpretations off of a video after she was already off the stage. ViriiK (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You lost me there. But how about watching the whole video? Like the second part where it shows Loesch on the stage and then shows her leaving? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's review. I stated "However the "video" as you cite shows her walking outside of the stage area." At no point in the video ever shows her at the stage. In New Times' video at exactly 0:02, she is already off the stage. In the second portion of the video at 0:26, she is also off the stage next to the stairway. At no point do I see her physically ON the stage. Now what did CLoesch say? "When @jaketapper leaned over to my wife and asked if she had an escort and told her she needed to get out of there and a woman rushed the stage while others pushed forward yelling all sorts of nastiness and threats, yes. We held our heads high and walked with ARMED SECURITY!" DLoesch repeated this at CPAC. Tapper then confirmed it that event did happen as CLoesch described it. Feel free to look at the video yourself from the New Times which they describe her as "NRA Shill". Edit: Now in the other page at regarding the Page, you said that the Daily Mail did not contradict the New Times as I told you the timeline of the video even though the DM says that she was NOT on the stage at any point in the video as I explained earlier in this paragraph at either 0:02 and 0:26. Thankfully I read that part which you seem to have missed. ViriiK (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're focused too much on Chris Loesch's tweet, which differs significantly from what Dana Loesch said verbally at CPAC. At CPAC Dana said, "I wouldn't have been able to exit that if I did not have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming 'Burn Her!'" Videos were made public that, granted, did not begin until Loesch was just offstage. However they don't show Loesch having any difficulty getting to the exit, nor do they show the crowd rushing the stage, on the stage, or yelling, "Burn her!" Based on these videos, two independent reliable sources say that Loesch's verbal comments at CPAC were wrong. They do not say anything about Chris Loesch's tweet, nor do we. What Chris Loesch, Dana Loesch, Jake Tapper, or anyone else tweeted after the fact is unreliable, and using it to remove reliably sourced content would be inconsistent with our policies on verifiability and original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I personally don't think Loesch was gaslighting or lying. It was an extremely tense scene, and a loud and disorienting scene, there were people jeering at her, and she probably misheard the jeers and was legitimately scared for her life. Her comments at CPAC were exaggerated and off somewhat, though not terribly so, which is always true when people try to recollect fight-or-flight moments. Add on top of that that there's obviously no love lost between her and proponents of gun control and I can totally understand why she would say something like that and then try to walk it back after she was called out by the media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You said having any difficulty. You're adding more details that do not exist. That's not what she said. "I wouldn't have been able to exit that IF I did not have a private security detail." Is it a possibility that she could have had difficulty leaving without a security detail? MAYBE but we won't ever know that because Jake Tapper guaranteed she got one per his own statement. No, two witnesses cited by the New Times said that her comment was wrong despite providing no evidence of such and the editor went out of their way to misconstrue what she said by claiming she supposedly said that the audience was "attacking her" in their own byline as well as calling her an NRA shill and attacking her for "gaslighting". Of course Tapper is "unreliable" due to how Wikipedia's system work regarding contentious material that we know is false and allows Tapper to be completely disregarded. There's a reason why Ian Millhiser didn't dispute Tapper any further when Tapper shut down that angle rather quickly. ViriiK (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I will have to research further but regarding RS, it is one thing to exclude Tapper's tweet as a citable source, which I support; it is another to dismiss his claims and those of the other main participants to incorporate contradictory statements of fact sourced to two borderline RS – a Miami New Times article with a clear POV and Deadline Hollywood, assuming the latter qualifies at all – which I do not. While article content must be based on RS, the scope of sources we use to evaluate what RS claims to include is broader. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: False statement about gun control town hall meeting?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following paragraph, or something substantially similar to it, be included in the article, between the two paragraphs of the "2018" subsection?

After a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy that month, Loesch said she had been verbally attacked, falsely claiming, "I wouldn't have been able to exit that if I did not have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming, 'Burn her.'" However video footage revealed that Loesch had calmly left the stage while people yelled, "Shame on you!"

Sources
Elfrink, Tim. "Video Shows NRA's Dana Loesch Lied About Town-Hall Audience Attacking Her". Miami New Times. Retrieved 26 March 2018. de Moraes, Lisa (February 23, 2018). "NRA's Dana Loesch Calmly Left CNN Town Hall As Attendees Chanted "Shame On You": VIDEO". Deadline Hollywood.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

(Please vote with Include or Exclude, or if you think the story should be covered but in a substantially different way, please consider voting with Change.)

• Include. The NYT is a reliable, independent source. I would not put it in the lede, but it is reasonable to include it in the article as an example of the fraudulent narrative of persecution that Loesch has unquestionably worked to build. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • JzG It's not the New York Times, it's the Miami New Times. Huge distinction. ViriiK (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • ViriiK: I believe this editor has WP:HOUND-ed me here after reverting my edits in other articles. In his rush to "oppose me" he did not review the sources before voting. The !vote should be discounted. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe I am an admin and have every right to review the contributions of POV-pushers. In other news, you have edited fewer than 400 articles in three years and have fewer than 3,000 edits in total, with a recent return from hiatus uncannily like that seen among GamerGate trolls in the past. My stats are 43,612, 104,528 and pushing 14 years. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

JzG, I'm not trying to dismiss you or anything but are you confusing me for James J. Lambden? Yes, I did return from a "haitus" which I don't think James J. Lambden did. I was quite well aware that you are an admin. I just hoped that you did notice that the source here is the Miami New Times, not the New York Times which it is easy to get confused by the naming scheme since they both use "New" and "Times". I had gotten confused by that earlier which I thought he said New York Times in a discussion when my brain filled in "York". Which then Deadline links to the Miami New Times when they cited Tim Elfrink's tweet of the Miami New Times that has the video. I was familiar with the aftermath when Jake Tapper discussed it and confirmed it was exactly how the Loesch's described it. ViriiK (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The accusation of hounding was made by Lambden against me in reply to you. I have not looked at your edits. I came here in response to a posting at the admin noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The idea of Dana making false accusations or create a sense of persecution is incorrect. I've known her for years and I know the kinds of threats she has had to endure since the start of this decade. They are very real. As one of the users pointed out, the source is not the New York Times, it is the Miami New Times. If you review the footage as we've discussed in this thread, you'll see it does not back up the claim made by the author who comes from a biased perspective. CNN's Jake Tapper defended Loesch's account of the incident and no other major news network has picked up on this detail. Not the NYT, not CNN, not even MSNBC. This false detail is used to discredit her image as a public figure and spokeswoman of the NRA which (I guess you know by now) is in the middle of a polarizing debate in our country. People will use this site easily for their information and it's this kind of intellectual dishonesty which gives it a bad name in many circles. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: You might want to strike or update your vote to reflect that New York Times is not cited. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include - I think we can probably do without the 'However', but I could be wrong. I think the content should be included and I'm fine with the current wording even if I think it could be improved. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Exclude I've already made my cases and the "reliable" sources is extremely poor if not there due to the editor of the New Times article demonstrating their obvious biases (NRA Shill, "a blatant, malicious lie", "attacking her", & "gaslighting"). Jake Tapper has already stated that it is exactly what happened. Keeping this material in with the byline of the source "attacking her" as they claim Loesch said when she did not to supposedly have happened. The problem I have with your addition is the "falsely" part. Due to Wikipedia's flaw in using sources, Jake Tapper is now disregarded. DrFleischman kept inserting things that was not the case for example believed that the video showed her on stage when it did not. The video shows one part of the timeline which shows her being escorted out with security but it does not show her on stage at any point which the Daily Mail recognized this but again Daily Mail which I know can't be used The footage does not show Loesch on stage at the end of the Sunrise, Florida event – the point in time at which she said she was threatened.. The New Times misleads the reader by saying leaving the stage BUT they decieve the reader for those who do not watch the video by saying shows Loesch walking off the stage but that is not the case at 0:26. She is next to a stairway. Another example was DrFleischman misleading when he said However they don't show Loesch having any difficulty getting to the exit but that wasn't what she or Chris Loesch said. DLoesch said I wouldn't have been able to exit that IF I did not have a private security detail. Is it a possibility that she could have had difficulty leaving without a security detail? MAYBE but we won't ever know that because Jake Tapper guaranteed she got one per his own statement and from CNN's statement to Deadline. ViriiK (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't where you vote, buddy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Comment made earlier, when the participant had placed their vote in the wrong place.

• Exclude We’ve discussed this again and again in the talk. I am keeping Chris and Dana in the loop so we can stop this libelous smear job. Evidence has been presented contradicting the biased narrative of the articles you quote as Reliable Sources. You have tried label me as associated with some kind of conspiracy against you. I will not stop. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — TheTBirdusThoracis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Exclude - per WP:BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I'm not comfortable insinuating that Loesch is a liar based on the biased sources provided. This particular CNN Town Hall event generated a lot of national coverage and if this specific incident pertaining to a well known figure such as Loesch was really that noteworthy and relevant, I'd expect to see stronger (and more) sourcing than what is being provided here - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. And the videos that Tim Elfrink has proffered to support his allegation that she lied, do not in any way prove his allegation that she made false claims about her version and/or recollection of the incident. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – Before voting I would like clarification as to whether Deadline Hollywood, one of the two sources, is RS. I found only one comment on this source at RSN in the context of Desperate Housewives. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. This is well sourced, but clearly undue on the page. I would also exclude phrase "She criticized the FBI's response ..." in the previous paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that, we have a horrible tendency to give the last word to people in these situations, but where they are caught bang to rights that is a very bad thing to do. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Undue based on coverage of reliable sources. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include (as nom). The proposed content reflects the two reliable sources, which are established and reputable. I see no rationale for removing reliably sourced content based on it being "undue." In general, non-neutral content should be re-written, not removed outright. And this material is certainly noteworthy. This town hall meeting received lots of press beyond those two sources. Examples: CNN here, here, here, here, here, NY Daily News, Vox, Washington Post, Slate. Perhaps the paragraph should be expanded to be more broadly about the town hall meeting and include material from those sources about what Loesch said, and not just about her departure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There you go again. None of the articles you have posted in this comment (which could be considered more credible and reliable) address the incident you have sought to smear Dana Loesch with. Some are opinion pieces like Vox and Slate who are more left than CNN and that's saying a lot. Dr. Fleischman is obviously trying to get this through to a more naive audience. No major Reliable Source have addressed this incident. You have no argument. You have been told time after time after time again about policy from others in this Talk but now you are trying to backtrack and try to include the entire town hall which was clearly designed to paint certain Americans as the enemy including Loesch. I find it funny you now try to frame this as trying to re-write, instead of outright removing it when you dismissed The Blaze outright. Why not rewrite the articles written by the Blaze? Would that make you feel better? TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheTBirdusThoracis: Just to start with, I agree with you about not including the content in question, but you really need to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, you have an admitted Conflict of Interest, it might be best to stop trying to bludgeon everyone who disagrees with you. Zchrykng (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The townhall on Live TV hosted by Jake Tapper is significant, no one is debating that. The departure from the town hall is not which one biased reporter did write on it and provided no evidence that she lied. The video provided which I found on YouTube easily only shows AFTER her statement which you unfortunately chose to misinterpret and used Elfrink's words. Deadline did not provide any significant additional info into their reporting since they are using Elfrink's material. So it's really just one source with the guy calling her "NRA Shill" and misquoting her. ViriiK (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You have made your point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think I have. What about Jalen Martin now? You're probably going "Who?" He's an MSD '18 survivor which he was interviewed by NRA TV corroborating Dana Loesch's story. The point I'm making is that the way you wrote it casts a SIGNIFICANT amount of doubt that it went down the way Elfrink thinks happened. So why are you adamant on keeping the offending material as it is? ViriiK (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Change or Exclude - My general opinion is that how it is written currently doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Not sure how to improve it at this point, but if this is the only option, I think it should be removed. Zchrykng (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude both - the whole CNN Town Hall "The Students of Stoneman Douglas DEMAND ACTION" 7 days after the even seems not a major action of her or major impact to her personally so should not be in her BLP. Going down further into that she was jeered and shouted "murderer" at or felt threatened and arguing over details seems even less so, but if it is then WP:NPOV requires it to be all views and the whole story -- not just 2 cites to the editor Tim Elfink opinion of whether it happened during the last 30 seconds, and it needs to be from her testimony to have it labelled as her claim rather than his comments or portrayal stated as her words. Seems that everyone agrees about it being huge crowd in the arena and hostile with jeering and shouts as well as the parts people may differ on. (Yes, I can hear "murderer" and "shame" shouted on the you tube, and a lot more indistinct yelling.) Whether there was a "burn her" I wouldn't rule out or say that the word "murderer" could not have been mistaken for "burn her". But just do not need to go into all this for a BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include: Loesch is a public figure and she chose to discuss the incident in a public speech, essentially smearing those who were present at the townhall. She was then called out for it. Loesch is known for making provocative statements, i.e. The NRA's Dana Loesch claims that 'many in legacy media love mass shootings' because 'crying white mothers' are good for ratings. So this is neither exceptional nor unusual. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct about one thing, it is neither exceptional nor unusual i.e. it is undue. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think what K.e.'s saying is that it's neither exceptional nor unusual to include this sort of verifiable content in our articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I figured that is what he meant, but the other is true as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's both. It's not exceptional for Loesch to say these things, and it's due in the article since that's in part what she's known for. She spoke about the event publicly; it was not an off-the-cuff remark in the heat of the moment. BLP policies do not protect Loesch public speech here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue from where I sit, just a undue problem. PackMecEng (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude: the applicable policy is WP:REDFLAG which says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Adhering to this policy takes on added significance because this is a BLP. The Miami New Times is an infamous leftwing rag. We cannot have such poorly sourced claims in a BLP.– Lionel^(talk) 07:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. I don't think anyone suggested that the confirmations of Loesch's story by Martin and Tapper should be added to the article, so it doesn't matter whether they're RS for that purpose. We can use them to evaluate whether Miami New Times is RS for this case. Thanks to James J. Lambden for saying something similar in the earlier thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. Especially with the way it's written. Doesn't even attempt to be neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Much of the include rationale as I read it is, essentially, "It's our job to show this person for who she really is. And by the way here are two sources to satisfy WP:V". That's the definition of POV pushing as I understand it, and we have policies specifically designed to prevent it. Deadline Hollywood? Not exactly Tier 1, or even Tier 2, even if they are under the edge of the "reliable" umbrella. "The site is updated several times a day, with entertainment industry news as its focus." So 50% of our sourcing consists of a website specializing in entertainment, the other 50% a local newspaper so highly regarded that I had never heard of them until 15 minutes ago. All other sources: Silence. Exclude per WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. The Miami New Times is not the New York Times. The term falsely is editorializing. If a solid news source says it was false, OK. If the false aspect is included, it must have another sentence after it with evidence that it was false, again, from a solid news source. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that sources had to be "Tier 1," "Tier 2," or "solid" in order to be used. I thought our policy was reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A sources reliability is not binary, they are a spectrum. Which for a BLP should be taken into consideration. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Can you point to somewhere in the relevant community standards for that? The only related policy I'm aware of is WP:REDFLAG. But this doesn't seem like a particularly exceptional claim. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"sources" plural? You only have ONE source. Deadline piggybacks off of Elfrink's work by linking to Elfrink's tweet. They did no reporting themselves separately on the stage quote while Elfrink misleads the reader on how it played out contradicting Tapper's statement. They modify the earlier article with CNN's statement after Tapper's twitter statement. ViriiK (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Commenting on general policy matters only: WP:RSCONTEXT. For example, the New York Times is considered to be RS for most things but it is not a preferred source for medical claims per WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That is the part I was thinking and the overview section in WP:IRS which mentions sources on a spectrum. Some sources are considered higher quality in certain situations. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but multiple editors are saying that the New Times source may pass the reliability threshold for this content but is still not reliable enough. I do not believe that's consistent with WP:V. And the New Times is a highly reliable outlet, having its reporting having been cited approvingly by other reliable outlets such as Politico, the Tampa Bay Times, Slate, and Fox News. It doesn't matter whether Mandruss has heard of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, my position wouldn't change if it were The New York Times and Deadline Hollywood. I don't put highly charged, inflammatory content in BLPs on the basis of two sources to the exclusion of every other news outlet in the universe. I look at the total RS picture, not just the part of it that serves my purpose. I highly recommend that approach, and I shudder to think what this encyclopedia would be like if we included everything reported by two sources of this caliber. I doubt you'd like that either. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you're mistaken. I support the inclusion of all material that satisfies our community standards, regardless of how it reflects on anyone or anything. No matter, I appreciate you further explaining your position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. DrFleischman, our "community standards" include this policy language: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." That is from our policy What Wikipedia is not. Our essential policy on Biographies of living persons states: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The intent of the proposed language is to portray Loesch as a liar. The source is a highly opinionated article in a weekly Miami paper, repeated without any original reporting by another source. That is a single source. The phrase "editorial judgment" is critical here. Wikipedia is not a place for combative hyperpartisanship. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, we actually have evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the content should be excluded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, what's the evidence to the contrary? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Statements by Jalen Martin and Jake Tapper about the incident. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, sorry to pester you about this, but can you please provide links? As best as I can tell this is little more than the say-so of a couple of editors. Tapper did tweet something but it's not clear what he was referring to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? Yes, it was clear what he was referring to. I already gave you the run down on this which you continue to flippantly ignore me. I'll repost it for you again.

1. Chris Loesch at CPAC talked about this: Chris I agree a hundred percent and I want to start off by saying we were in a crowd of over 7,000 people we were told and what I thought would be a fairly somber obviously some anger and you know some emotion coming out because these are people who have been through a terrible tragedy and I can't diminish their feelings on that I understand when you're grieving you want anger the the big problem that I had was their grief was being co-opted these children's griefs being co-opted into some sort of hobble together movement that has now been well funded and I I felt like I'm seeing kids who who may have problems with their own views later in life saying things that they might come to regret later in terms of defense but the hypocrisy was that there were magnetometers at every door you could not get any guns in there and the whole place was protected by SWAT teams and security who are heavily armed and the week after the shooting the sheriff is going to show up at their school with armed guards to make everyone feel safe and to be safe the hypocrisy of all that is pretty stunning but overall I've never been in a place where I felt the anger manifests itself in utter hatred for our beliefs in our defense of the Second Amendment and it was actually pretty dicey and we had to get out of there fast because it could have blown up and gotten very dangerous which you can view it here at this timing at around 1:40.

2. Daniel Dale attending CPAC reported on this using the word "dangerous" that Chris said.

3. Ian Millhiser from American Progress & ThinkProgress Justice tweets out (now deleted) "Will someone please give these snowflakes a safe space? [shortener link removed]". The shortener link by Millhiser goes to Daniel Dale's tweet that I just linked in #2 which you can see the shortener link here at Twitchy.

4. Jake Tapper in response to that deleted tweet says "I don’t think that’s fair, Ian."

5. Ian Millhiser responds quickly back to Jake Tapper in another tweet (now deleted) "What was your impression of the level of physical threat facing Loesch in a room full of high school students and their teachers?"

6. Jake Tapper responds back within minutes "i don't know but Chris's description is accurate and I made sure she was escorted out of the room."

That's it and this isn't hard to see why your edit is 100% wrong and should not be included at all. I take Jake Tapper's words over a editor over at the Miami New Times where Elfrink intentionally misrepresented the Loesch's statements.

As for Jalen Martin, a survivor of the MSD shooting and yes he's a verified student that attends the school which he was also at the town hall, he was on a podcast with Dana Loesch describing his experience:

DLoesch: before we get going I and I'm so sorry that I didn't see you as we were as I was getting off the stage because it was pretty crazy and I know there were a lot of people saying stuff somebody told me that somebody said burn her and I heard something to that effect when I was stepping on the what did you hear

Jalen Martin: horrible language I mean I really don't know if I could really say it on here but you know there were people saying earn her and shame on you and then there were a lot of curse words and different names that I don't know if I can really sail in here but um

I don't care if this is "Original Research" to you. I'm not arguing for it to be included into the article. I'm arguing to keep your edit out of the article because it's factually wrong. ViriiK (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what ViriiK wrote, which I believe is adequate for excluding the content, DrFleischman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you appear to have been suckered. The "evidence" that Tapper substantiated Dana Loesch's version of events doesn't appear to exist except on a right-wing blog, and the "evidence" that Martin substantiated Loesch's version of events was an interview with Loesch, put out by NRA TV, in which Loesch put the "Burn Her!" words in Martin's mouth and he didn't say anything about anyone rushing the stage. In fact, in the interview Loesch conceded that she didn't even hear "Burn Her!" but that she heard those words from someone else after the fact (0:37). So even if we go into the original research, it doesn't appear to support your !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so Jake Tapper didn't say it himself is what you're saying in response to Ian Millhiser who quoted Daniel Dale reporting on Chris Loesch's statement at CPAC? You're really being obtuse on this now, are you? I get that you're emotionally invested in your factually wrong edit that you want put in. You made the accusation that she made it all up with the "falsely" claim based off ONE SINGLE source. ViriiK (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And yes, it did exist especially since Google cached it. Yes, it's a conspiracy by "The Right Scoop" that somehow they managed to get Google to cache the tweet that I correctly quoted. ViriiK (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your change because it's not an extended discussion. It's an extended discussion to his vote. It's also the fact that the below discussion is closed. Do you acknowledge that Google cached the tweet? Or are you going to disregard me as usual? ViriiK (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that Google cache link, that's helpful. However it doesn't appear to bear your version out. Tapper rebutted Miilhiser's criticism of the Loesches, not his version of events (which isn't mentioned in the Twitter thread). And Tapper only corroborating Daniel Dale's tweet relaying Chris Loesc's description, which doesn't say anything about "Burn Her!" or rushing the stage. All it said was that the Loesches had to flee because "it could have gotten 'dangerous' for them." I don't think that version of events is disputable from the video footage... but it also means that Tapper's tweets in no way refute the Miami New Times article. Now, please stop disrupting the RfC so we can move extended discussion to the 'Extended discussion' section--or are you so contrarian that we can't even agree on that? The survey section is supposed to be just the !votes and direct responses, so that a newcomer can review quickly without getting bogged down. Understand? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I will not agree to move this part down to the extended discussion because I came to help Cullen on this which you opened the door on this and now you want it moved away. I want them to see it and for your misrepresenting the facts. Yes, you have misrepresented a number of the facts.

1. The Elfrink videos that they got from eyewitnesses only shows what happens OFF THE STAGE. Dana Loesch's statement talks about what happens ON THE STAGE. Especially we know that Elfrink isn't neutral here with his "Guess it's hard to turn off the gaslighting switch". Do you need a google cache for that too?

2. You claimed that the Daily Mail "corroborated" Elfrink which is not even remotely true. They literally said in their article The footage does not show Loesch on stage at the end of the Sunrise, Florida event – the point in time at which she said she was threatened..

3. You told me "how about watching the whole video? Like the second part where it shows Loesch on the stage and then shows her leaving?". If anyone doesn't notice the problem here, it's because Elfrink's videos never actually shows Loesch on the stage at any point in either eyewitness videos since there are only two videos. That's because either DrFleischman made it up or was wrong. This is from where I assume that DrFleischman concluded that the whole thing was told "falsely" by Dana Loesch using the one single source to corroborate that.

4. Then you later admitted that the videos did take place offstage. But you changed the focus to "However they don't show Loesch having any difficulty getting to the exit". However you completely disregarded what Dana Loesch said at CPAC. She said I had to have a security detail to get out. I wouldn’t have been able to exit that IF I did not have a private security detail.. What that means is if Dana Loesch had not had a security detail, it is possible she would have had difficulty but we will never know not even Elfrink. This security escort was guaranteed by Jake Tapper when he said "I made sure she was escorted out of the room." in the latter part of his tweet.

5. You later claimed "then try to walk it back after she was called on it by the media." When did she ever walk her claims? I've seen no indication that she backpedaled on her CPAC statement nor do I see any indication that Chris Loesch did either of his CPAC or Tweet. The only media that called her out for lying was Elfrink with two off-the-stage videos. Deadline didn't do anything and just linked to Elfrink. In that same edit, you said "I personally don't think Loesch was gaslighting or lying" but your edit said "falsely claiming" which means "knowingly makes an untrue statement". So that is very contradictory. ViriiK (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note I find this admission by ViriiK troubling: "I came to help Cullen on this". It appears that there might be a violation of WP:MEAT occurring. You have been supporting Cullen328 pretty strongly in this discussion, ViriiK. ViriiK and Cullen, what say you? Just for the record, I'm not accusing, but I am curious as well as concerned and would like an explanation. I think it goes without saying that as an admin, Cullen would not want to have a history of such a vio, which is why I'm looking for some answers. Thanks,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This talk page is on my watchlist. Dr questioned his claims and I already been debating this contentiously for quite some time. I don't even know Cullen. Feel free to IP scan me or cross reference any edits with Cullen. ViriiK (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But... you said specifically that you "came here to help Cullen". Now you are saying you are not connected to him in anyway? Can you see why anyone would be confused by that contradiction? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Because I did help him with the links when Dr said this. Yes, there is no connection between me and him. Since you cited MEAT, Cullen has never solicited me at all. I simply saw the interaction between Dr and Cullen because I do have Dana Loesch and the talk page on my watchlist. Please, I can't get any more simple than that. I have a bigger case of MEAT against Dr since he's gone to solicit opinions to try and sway the consensus vote here, here, here, here. Should I say I injected myself into the conversation between Dr and Cullen then? That works too. Either ways, it helped Cullen not have to provide the same information I already did. ViriiK (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be preferable, however, per talk page guidelines, you can't change something that's already been mentioned and now is being discussed. I'm going to accept your explanation as it is and chalk it up to misspeaking. Thanks for clarifying. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Your accusation is false, Winkelvi, and I ask that you withdraw it. I came here because the Feedback Request Service bot asked me to on my talk page. I have had no previous contact with ViriiK whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Your accusation is false, Winkelvi, and I ask that you withdraw it." I was very clear above when I stated that it wasn't an accusation, it was a concern: "I'm not accusing, but I am curious as well as concerned and would like an explanation". That in mind, there's nothing to withdraw, Cullen328. ViriiK stated above that he misspoke, and there's no reason for anyone to disbelieve him, in my opinion. Given that he said he came here to help you (which is the very definition of WP:MEAT), I think you can understand why I was (or anyone would be) concerned. It was worth asking about and getting an explanation. What was muddied is now reasonably clear. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

He already made his decision stating that he thinks this should be "Exclude". We already know that Dr is "Include". Maybe Cullen had less info on the facts and read what I've written when he brought up Jalen Martin since I first mentioned him. I didn't misspeak because I did help him with those links which obviously were dismissed by Dr when he claimed we were "suckered" by "The Right Scoop" although I didn't use "The Right Scoop", I used Twitchy which Twitchy is notorious for preserving the original Tweets with their respective links. Thankfully Google had cached that same link. I had the luck of actually watching the Ian Millhiser / Jake Tapper go down that night after the town hall so the twitter interaction event was pretty clear to me and was not made up despite his claim of being "suckered". You already know my edit history here. ViriiK (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC template has expired. Does anyone intend to ask for a formal close? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Done. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

Focus on content. Possible meat puppetry can be raised at WP:ANI or WP:AE --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Note to closer: Two participants in this RfC, TheTBirdusThoracis and ViriiK, have acknowledged being were recruited here by Chris Loesch, Dana Loesch's husband. TheTBirdusThoracis is a personal friend of Chris and has been in contact with him over this dispute. TheTBirdusThoracis has a COI and their comments should be considered accordingly. To be clear, I'm not accusing these editors of meatpuppetry or suggesting that their input be completely ignored, just reminding the closer that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that consensus isn't determined by counting votes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC) I think it's ironic since you are the one who created a survey to try and include the story in this article again.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @DrFleischman: Just commenting on your statement that ViriiK “acknowledged being recruited here by Chris Loesch”, if you are using the linked diff as proof of that, it is extremely weak. No dispute about TheTBirdusThoracis though. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 17:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC) You're right, I don't think ViriiK explicitly acknowledged this, although he didn't contradict TheTBirdusThoracis's account either, and the timing is unambiguous. The content was stable for a month before ViriiK, TheTBirdusThoracis, and a third editor began edit warring shortly after Chris Loesch tweeted about it. I've stricken the "acknowledged" language. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Great, thanks. There is enough strife on this article without accidental false statements/accusations. Though, I will point out in the interest of WP:AGF giving the benefit of the doubt, it is possible they ended up here from something like recent changes, which is how I ended up here. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Incredibly unlikely, given the timing. I never accused either of these editors of acting in bad faith. I think they've both been pretty upfront. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, wasn’t trying to say that you were accusing them. I have revised my statement. Fairly sure you are correct in your assessment, just want to give them the benefit of the doubt. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 17:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC) I have not acknowledged anything except I am buddies with Chris and Dana. Nobody recruited me to do this. I started this TALK after reading the article myself. I informed Chris of your detail. He informed his followers of this. This whole issue started with me and me alone. This is my first time on Wikipedia and I formed my account to start this talk because I know it is meant to smear Dana Loesch and it was protected. I came here to appeal against the inclusion of false story. There is no conspiracy here. You (DrFleischman) have insinuated I was part of a meatpuppetry plot in the very beginning. Your very first comment towards me asked if I had anything to do with another account who I did not know about until you mentioned his Username.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC) By the way, I wrote the appeal first before I informed Chris of this. Nobody recruited me so I ask you to retract your charge. I came here with my own free will. Whoever came to this talk after my first statement came of their own too. It is both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to accuse Chris of coordinating us.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC) I reject the assertion that I was recruited here by Dana Loesch and Chris Loesch. I stated that I saw the offending material and knew that was incorrect because I was well aware of the interaction between Ian Milhiser and Jake Tapper which I've repeated many times over. ViriiK (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC) If you want to actually look at the link that you linked my name in which is this edit, look at the Jake Tapper and Chris Loesch link that I linked in the comment. They are dated in February of 2018. Jake Tapper's tweet was directed at Ian Milhiser which he deleted which his tweet was mocking Chris Loesch that I also linked. ViriiK (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC) I would love to know what was it that I was "pretty upfront" about since that obviously contradicts your previous sentence. After all, you do not want to interact with me after you "banned" me from your talk page while deploying DS against me. So how am I to assume that you are exercising in good faith when you will not return the same to me? ViriiK (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Ok now I am accusing you of bad faith. The evidence is conclusive that you were recruited. The content is stable for weeks. Then Chris Loesch tweets about it at 11:18 am on April 26. Discussion ensues about changing it. You remove the content 12 minutes later citing one of his prior tweets. Come on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Wrong. I already told you. The interaction between Jake Tapper and Ian Milhiser is clear. All of this interaction took place in February 2018. Jake Tapper / Ian Milhiser interaction. Ian Milhiser was responding to a tweet put out by Daniel Dale (DD) which Daniel Dale was commenting on a tweet that Chris Loesch tweeted out prior to that tweet by DD. Then Jake Tapper came in and stopped Ian Milhiser which he deleted those tweets. So you have zero evidence that I was recruited despite all of my edits using those events that took place in February 2018. I'm the one that initated the whole thing because I do read about these events. Now why was Dana in the news that day on April 26 that day when I made the edit? I was watching about the whole Ronnie Jackson thing going down regarding Tester's comment and Loesch gave a statement on the entire thing that which wait for it, I wanted to check something out at her Wikipedia page. I know, you can pretend to do 1+1 is 3 but it doesn't make it so. It's not my problem that people notice these things especially on the recent page. I have no control over what the Loesch either CLoesch or DLoesch do. I like to be well aware of the things that goes on. Unless you want me to be uninformed and be a sucker to blatantly false edits? ViriiK (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Implausible, given the timing. We're clearly not going to resolve this, so let's move on. The closer will have to decide what to do with this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC) I know you are not going to be convinced because I know you don't exercise AGF with me given your interactions with me. I've respected everything you requested of me staying off your talk page, stopped pinging you, and yet you won't return the same. I want to know one thing from you. Is the Miami New Times article that Deadline piggybacks off of misleading given Jake Tapper's statement? Or is Jake Tapper simply making it up or wrong? Skip the Wikipedia BS for now since I'm not talking about reliable sources. I want to know which holds more weight with you. I'll admit that I'm highly biased towards Jake Tapper given his reputation for trying to be very neutral reporter for both sides of the political spectrum. ViriiK (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Huh? I haven't pinged you or posted on your user talk since making those requests. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC) It looks like you have some explaining to Dr. Fleischman. It seems you have been reaching out to people in different articles to participate in your little survey. What was it you accused me of before? Pot meets kettle.TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Proof of Dr Fleischman recruiting people to this Talk. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=839485422 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=839485364 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=839485280 TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC) I noticed that you recognized the video events shows the offstage aspects in which you know her statement was talking about the onstage part. The security detail started escorting her when she left the stage. After all, there were only Jake Tapper, Sheriff Israel, Dana Loesch, Emma Gonzalez, Kasky, and the other students on that stage. It's clear that she wasn't referring to any of them but the audience which they were seated offstage and the term "rush the stage" is not a new phenomenon which that occurs when the primary subject is on stage while someone unknown attempts to get on the stage for example Celine Dion. Are you going to answer my Jake Tapper question? ViriiK (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @TheTBirdusThoracis: To be fair, those pages are closely related to this discussion, and asking for other eyes is common practice in these kinds of disagreements. There is nothing nefarious about putting a neutral notice on those pages. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @Zchrynkg: But this is exactly what I was accused of from the start of this whole nonsense. This guy accused me specifically of meatpuppetry. It's all in the very beginning. It's ironic, no? TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @TheTBirdusThoracis: See WP:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC attempting to recruit people who agree with you is meatpuppetry, placing neutral RfCs is not. It can be a subtle distinction at time, I know, but it exists for a good reason. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC) I think it's a little cheap doing this after a week especially given that he recognizes in his RfC comment that the event described by Elfrink happened when Loesch was offstage rather than the statement that Loesch was making occurred when she was onstage. Taking myself and Bird out, I can see the outcome so far. ViriiK (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC) But see in the part where it talks about bias. That's the problem. These are people who made edits on Stoneman Douglas, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Control. What side do you think they'll likely be on, right? I appreciate you trying to be fair. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC) If you can think of other places on Wikipedia the notice should be placed, I would be happy to help you spread the message around. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC) There are plenty of gun rights folks patrolling those pages. And neither you nor Chris Loesch did anything wrong by attracting people to this article. The more perspectives here the merrier. It's just that off-wiki recruiting can sometimes skew the consensus, so the closer should be careful in these sorts of situations. That was the purpose of my comment to the closer, not to accuse you or anyone else of any wrongdoing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Then show some honesty and retract your statement about me being recruited because it is false. You have no proof to support your claim and no good reason for it. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 23 57, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Actually I've had trouble finding proof that anyone even attempted to recruit. Is there a url?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Recruiting isn't a crime and doesn't require intent to recruit. Chris Loesch tweeted to complain about this article and multiple folks replied saying they were going to come here to change the article. That's recruiting. Do you want a link for that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC) I asked if there's a url i.e. a link that shows an attempt to recruit, which you said has happened. If your evidence is Mr Loesch's tweet, yes point to that please. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC) [2] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Then I too have a request for the closer: please evaluate whether that tweet justifies DrFleischman putting a notice at the top of this page saying "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Huh? That's not what closers do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC) You said "multiple folks". Who are these other person or people? Feel free to list them. I see the comment by CLoesch later on stating that they're not allowed to edit their own biography because of Wikipedia barring them from doing so which I understand. He states a fact in the opening tweet that Jake Tapper confirmed their side of the story which that interaction was already documented by Twitchy with the now-deleted Ian Milhiser tweets on the day of. I suspect you are referring to me as one of them because I used tweets from CLoesch, Jake Tapper, Daniel Dale from February 2018 to discount the claim by Elfrink since I did watch the town hall back in February AND I also did see Jake Tapper discuss the event that played out regarding the audience. The issue is that there are not multiple reliable sources that backs the claim that you wrote up. There's just one, Elfrink. Deadline didn't write anything on it and just links to Elfrink. Deadline had another article later on that has the CNN statement about the security escort which appears to corroborate exactly what Tapper said. Thankfully I've taken an interest to ensuring that the edit you want to put in must be substantiated by other sources other than Elfrink. Since the edit fails the test, I don't see any reason why it should be included given how biased and false it is knowing Jake Tapper's statement on the entire thing. I can only assume that you think Jake Tapper is not someone reliable since you've avoided that question even though I already know that he can't be sourced that way per Wikipedia rules. Since I doubt there's going to be any new sources in the future discussing this particular event, I don't see in any foreseeable case that it should be included. I get that you're invested in your edit which it's totally a human move to do so and I don't blame you. ViriiK (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC) DrFleischman (talk · contribs) I made some comments here earlier but looking at page history it appears TBird removed them. I would restore but it has proven difficult for me on a phone. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I deleted those comments because really they were not going anywhere and you repeated yourself with "Could we remove falsely" in the Extended Discussion. I've seen your history on your Wiki page and I know what you're all about. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.