Talk:Laura Loomer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reliable Sources

With respect to the Daily Caller, the perennial sources noticeboard merely lists its reliability as "no consensus." There are some circumstances in which the Daily Caller's reliability can, should, and has been questioned, but this isn't one of them: it is undisputed that Loomer actually was arrested; there's video and everything. It exults form over function to deem it unreliable in this particular case. --Weazie (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is also undisputed that this was an attention seeking stunt, what with the ponchos and sombreros. That's not a criticism, per se, that's just what she does; being extremely generous, this is civil disobedience. It's still a media stunt, though. Not every attention-seeking stunt deserves a mention just because it meets WP:V, and the longer this article gets, the more carefully we're going to have to assess these incidents. The way to determine which belong and which do not is by consensus, but the starting point will have to be high quality sources. Otherwise this is indistinguishable from WP:FARTs and WP:GOSSIP. By way of comparison, if Abbie Hoffman covered everything he was involved with which could be sourced in the same way this article does, it would so long it would crash browsers. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

False statement/source

It currently describes her as having "described immigration as a threat to American heritage.[9]".

This is not correct. According to the source she has said that she is a nationalist that is for the American culture and is against "migrants who refuse to assimilate". That is very different than immigrants in general. Fftsteven (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I cannot check your contention because the Ha'aretz article is behind a pay wall. What's interesting about Loomer is that she's Jewish, and not that long ago, people would be saying the exact same things she says about Mexicans about her people overwhelming the streets of the Lower East Side. And they're both wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• "“And I’m a nationalist; a lot of the people here are probably nationalists, because we respect our country, we want to preserve our country, and we don’t want our American patriotism, our Americanism in general, our heritage in general, to be overridden by migrants who refuse to assimilate.”[1]

She is directly saying that she believes that migrants are a threat to America. Nothing about the current wording suggests that she is opposed every single migrant, but that's neither assumed nor contested. If there are reliable sources discussing her views on those who.. agree to assimilate to Loomer's personal satisfaction? Whatever. If sources discuss any of this, let's see them. She is not regarded as an expert in migration, so her opinions are only relevant to the extent they are supported by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Activities?

@BeyondMyKen: Changing "Activism" to "Activities" seems worse; Activities is very vague, encompassing everything not sitting still, while Activism is, per our article "efforts to promote, impede, direct, or intervene in social, political, economic, or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society", which does seem to describe Loomer's activities described in this section. I'd be interested in hearing your arguments for the change, barring which I'd like to revert. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, rather. --GRuban (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The section on spreading conspiracy theories does not qualify as "activism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like maybe the "spreading conspiracy theories" section should be placed under "views" anyway - and maybe "spreading" should be removed from the section title? Most of the other areas in the "Activities" section are related to her various demonstrations. Nblund ^talk 20:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving? Fine, "Activism"? Fine. Taking out "spreading"? No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Spreading conspiracy theories are very much activism. They easily fit "efforts to promote, etc., reform with the desire to make changes in society". --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Chase - confirm or deny?

I ran across a Gateway Pundit story about Chase Bank here. So far the WP:RSN commentary on that site, though thin and apparently unsourced, isn't very positive, and I didn't see it mentioned when I checked www.lauraloomer.us , which I'd hoped would have been useful as a first-person SPS. Also, the nature and scope of the ban is not clear from that story. Tracking a bank ban based on ideology is obviously of great interest for documenting an "advanced stage of capitalism"... Wnt (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Loomer is not a reliable source, and Gateway Pundit is so incredibly unreliable (for stuff like this) that I suspect the only reason it hasn't been deprecated is because most editors know better than to attempt to cite it. There are all sorts of reasons other than ideology that a bank would suspend an account. If this is covered in reliable sources, it is worth mentioning. But this level of sourcing won't pass muster in a million years. Nblund ^talk 16:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree. By "confirm or deny" I was requesting if someone comes across those reliable sources please update the article. Wnt (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

Current article says her protest at Rep. Pelosi, was planned to express anti immigration. She might hold anti immigration views (do not know enough about her), but the protested stated was an anti illegal immigration event. Please add the word illegal to the article. 73.102.255.184 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Change: Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is a far-right[a] or alt-right[b] American political activist, conspiracy theorist, and Internet personality. She was a reporter for Canadian far-right website The Rebel Media during the summer of 2017, resigning that September.[1][2][3][4][5]

To: Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is a conservative American political activist and internet personality. She was a reporter for Canadian website The Rebel Media during the summer of 2017, resigning that September.[1][2][3][4][5] DonF18 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and this has already been discussed at length on this talk page. Please review the talk page's archives, linked near the top of the page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This change makes sense. Being a Zionist is the opposite of being far-right. wumbolo ^^^ 11:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Meir Kahane would beg to differ. Nblund ^talk 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We are not talking about a Zionist ideology, but about Political Zionism per se. wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The sourcing for "far right" is quite strong. I don't find any sources that dispute that claim, or any sources that support the claim that people who purport to be Zionists can't also belong to the far right. Nblund ^talk 22:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That cannot be denied. wumbolo ^^^ 23:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Content must be written from a neutral point of view."

Didn't know who Loomer was so came here to find out more. Wow. This reads like a propaganda rag. And the talk has hostile responses to reasonable requests, which just reinforces my opinion. You've got this sentence: 'In February 2019, Loomer traveled to Minnesota with far-right conspiracy theorist and fraudster Jacob Wohl, claiming to "investigate" rumors...' Aside from the hyperbolic descriptors for Jacob Wohl (again - don't know who that is but I could always click the link to actually find out), there's the quotes around investigate. What purpose do they serve other than more hyperbole? Seems like some adults should be put in charge of this page. I'm just going to take the simple approach of discounting anything written here because it's clearly not neutral, and from the talk page it appears that attempts to correct the bias are met with stubborn resistance.68.0.152.41 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You can open the citations yourself and see that it is the media's fault and narrative, as they cite Omar's statements as fact and Wohl's statements as lies. But here we have WP:BLP policy and WP:NOTGOSSIP, so I've removed the entire claim. wumbolo ^^^ 21:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That may be the case, but Wohl was indeed lying. And USA Today hardly qualifies as gossip. Sumanuil (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I do think that the claim about Omar is "gossip", but there's no prohibition on mentioning widely-covered conspiracy theories as long as we aren't doing it in a way that creates a false balance or gives them undue weight. In this case, it is useful context. Nblund ^talk 21:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

Add "Journalist" back to Occupation

She worked as a writer and reporter, which makes her a journalist. You need to check your moderator who removed it, because I have a feeling they did it for personal reasons, not for accuracy. 174.69.62.238 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Muboshgu who removed this [2]. Can you respond? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

ElHef, I see no evidence she is a "journalist". She is described as a "provocateur". She worked fo James O'Keefe, who is noted for attempting to entrap people on the left in his hoaxes. This is not journalism. The suggestion that she's a reporter comes from working for a few months for "the Canadian Breitbart". That's pretty weak, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the quick reply. @IP - please feel free to continue discussion here on the talk page. If you can provide reliable sources that directly support adding this information back to the article, you can reopen the request (change "yes" to "no" above) and it can be reconsidered. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Who she works or worked for is not relevant. Guilt by association is not allowed per WP:BLPBALANCE. wumbolo ^^^ 21:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, who she worked for is relevant to her Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not relevant to whether she is a journalist. Muboshgu engaged in WP:OR. Many journalists have attempted hoaxes, but we stick to WP:RS description. wumbolo ^^^ 23:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's nice. So, are you going to actually provide those reliable sources or just take your word for it? --Calton | Talk 09:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was the one requesting sources. wumbolo ^^^ 10:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Biased

This page paints Loomer in an unfavorable light and I believe is biased against her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsanator (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me on a first reading like it fairly accurately reflects what the reliable sources say about her. What parts specifically do you suggest are biased? Robofish (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I personally find the lead bias on 2 counts. The first being it calls her a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy theorist is someone who creates conspiracy theories, while Laura only tends to spread some of them, which is covered later in the article. The second being is the lead saying saying she is noted for “far right politics”. As someone who’s taken a good look at what she does, I can say with certainty she is not far right. Her work is mainly activism against illegal immigration and Islam, the first is a typical right of center idea while the second is right wing, but not exactly far right. Saying Loomer is far right also contradicts later portions of the article which state she has denounced it and is harassed by members of it. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The word you were looking for is "biased", not "bias". And the opinion you were looking for is that the article is neutral, and your complaint is POV and lacks all merit whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Further s cations of the article literally disprove the lead. Is that “POV”? If you want a neutral article that doesn’t contradict itself the lead needs to be edited Victor Salvini (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• further sections Victor Salvini (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, that is not the case. The lede properly summarizes the article, and the description of Loomer is suitably supported by citations from reliable sources. Your opinion is WP:OR, which is inadmissable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Long quotes

Our policy on quotations is to use them only for a specific purpose. Our policy on propaganda is that we don't include any form of propaganda. Our policy is to write in summary form with first person prose. What Loomer said about the event is trivial, not encyclopedic. Including a lengthy quotation with multiple sentences is against our policies. Please report objectively about things. The recently removed and then reverted quote removal should be removed from the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM is not on point here here, as it's about using too many quotes. What is applicable is WP:QUOTATIONS. Nothing about the disputed quote in this article violates that guideline (Yes, WP:Quotations is not a policy, and is therefore not mandatory, and neither is WP:QUOTEFARM for that matter. WP:Propaganda, which is also not applicable to this dispute, is an essay, si it is neither policy nor a guideline.

Loomer's statement is relevant, and indicative of her point of view. It is not presented for the truth of the matter, but because it's her opinion about what happened. Wikipedia's voice is not used to present the quote as being truthful or factually based. In pont of fact, there is no policy I am aware of that the quote violates, nor the only applicable guideline. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The value of the quotation -- which is 5 short sentences and about 50-ish words, 8 of which are repetitions of the reporters full name, "Oliver Darcy" -- is that it tells us precisely what Loomer said, without the danger that in paraphrasing or summarizing it, we might misrepresent her point of view. This is especially important when the subject of the article is controversial, and an acknowledged "provocateur." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What she said doesn't matter in the slightest because its trivial. Its not our role to document statements. Copy and pasting a quote is not an attempt to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. Why would anybody care to know what she said about that? Obviously she disagreed with it. That is not something we are likely to misrepresent. Her point of view on the matter is clear without the long quote. She wanted to confront someone she disagreed with. The article is about her, not her opinions on her misconduct. We shouldn't be repeating her propaganda here word for word. I should have linked to WP:NOTSOAPBOX instead. I don't want to know what she said about her removal from a conference. The article is for knowledge about her, not for documenting her statements or for her to justify her conduct. We don't need to read her statements to know she tries to be provocative. Likewise we don't need to read in detail about her conspiracy theories or what she thought about being booted from a conference. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Pure garbage

This article is pure garbage. It is full of sentences describing what was said. The first subsection in the Views section is a great example. Instead of providing an accurate summary of her views we get a parroting of what was said about her. That is not the role of an encyclopedia. All throughout the article there are quotations of her political views and copy pastes of what she stated or other people's descriptions of her. All of that does not belong here. We are not a soapbox. Instead we must report objectively about such things. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Parotting" is essentially what we do here. We are diallowed from performing orignal research or from editing from our personal points of view. What we can do is to report what reliable sources say, which is what you see in this article. If you have citations from reliable sources that say otherwise, they can be added to the article, but only if they fulfill our definition of what is "reliable". Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You have some fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. Inserting quotes is not reporting what reliable sources say. Anyone can copy and paste statements. All you are doing is repeating what was said like a parrot. Instead Wikipedians are supposed to write (create, construct, produce) a summary for an encyclopedia. We write in first person voice. We don't copy what was said about things. That is just commentary. Nobody is going to care what words were said by people describing Loomer's activities in 50 years. That is called trivia. You could write a whole encyclopedia and never once include a quotation. Inserting quotes is ruining this encyclopedia by reducing readability. This article is a perfect example. When you strip back what was said the article reveals just another angry person who likes to cause public fray with her speech and that is about it. This person is not really remarkable which is why it has been fluffed out with what was said. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I'm all in favor of paraphrasing some of the quotes if we don't lose meaningful information in the process. Nblund ^talk 14:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would object if the paraphrasing lost the tone of what was being said. Loomer is a deliberate provacteur, and the actual words she says are part of the provocation. Paraphrasing will often soften, simplify and make more polite what was hard, pointed, and rude, and by doing so looses the essence of the remarks. "General Sherman then decried the cruelty and destruction of war" is much less effective writing then "Sherman then wrote 'War is hell'." Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

Her Wikipedia page is just a campaign advertisement.

Change: Because of her effectiveness, Loomer was targeted by the Left and Big Tech, and is banned on nearly every single social media platform, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Uber, Lyft, Uber Eats, PayPal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Medium, TeeSpring, and even Chase Bank shut down her access to her online banking!

To: Loomer claims to be banned on multiple social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Uber, Lyft, Uber Eats, PayPal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Medium, and TeeSpring. She also claims Chase Bank shut down her access to her online banking. JPMorgan’s chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon states that "“Very directly, we have not and do not debank people because of their political views. We have not and do not. And we debank people ’cause they’re DSA, AML, KYC or unable to meet regulation-regulatory-type of requirements for them.” (source https://nypost.com/2019/05/25/jpmorgan-chase-accused-of-purging-accounts-of-conservative-activists/)

How is the next section factual? Change: Loomer, who is and always has been a loyal supporter of President Donald J Trump, has continued to fight for free speech and First Amendment rights for all Americans. Loomer is running for Congress in Florida’s 21st Congressional District where she is a resident. She looks forward to representing her constituents in Congress

To: Loomer, who is a supporter of President Donald J Trump, has continued to fight for free speech and First Amendment rights for all Americans. Loomer is running for Congress in Florida’s 21st Congressional District where she is a resident. 24.151.43.0 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done The recent addition of blatantly promotional content has already been reverted. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Leaning the lead

The lead is way tooo much overcrowded with misceallenous stuff. Can we cut it back, please. I tried it once, but was reverted by some of the big guys from Administration. Lovemankind83 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, what you did was to try to remove anything about all the platforms she's been banned from. That removed 2 whole sentences from a 6 sentence lead, and would have done our readers a disservice by not reporting one of the major aspects of Loomers "activism". The obvious purpose of that was not to "leaning the lead" (which is tiny, and doesn't need to be "leaned"), the purpose was clearly to hide important information about Loomer. In short, it was a POV edit, which is why I reverted it. (And, BTW, I'm not an administrator, and, also BTW, I recall that your user name before you were forced to change it was User:Hatemankind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I could see the lead not specifying exactly which companies have banned her, leaving such details for the body of the article (as suggested by WP:LEAD). But the lead should still reference her being banned, e.g., "Several social media platforms, as well as other businesses, have banned Loomer from accessing their services." --Weazie (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Julius Caesar play disruption

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

 Done Looks like Wukai took care of this in a copyedit: [3]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Rebel Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Selectively/misleadingly edited"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with Newsweek Article - Home Depot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked once they've been applied to a work: [4]. Once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright and similar rights, even if you later stop distributing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

If it's the best one we got per WP:s strict policies, it's the one we'll use. I've seen worse. If someone takes a better one at some political event, or if Laura Loomer wants to contribute a selfie, they can "donate" them here: [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bio section

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

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

Nothing in this is neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do have to concede this article is harsh. Does seem to lack balance. I understand she would be a controversial subject for sure, I guess there is just a lack of WP:RS for any WP:NPOV review of any of her activism?PrecociousPeach (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty—the problem is her activism is quite extreme, and RS treat it as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Far Right - Anti Muslim

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

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

Your sources are not reliable. You are a far left activist...not a source of valuable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalseWikiInfoFix (talk • contribs) 02:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@FalseWikiInfoFix: Are you really claiming all 87 sources on this page are unreliable? Surely you understand that such sweeping generalizations are impossible for editors to try to rectify. As for the rest of your comment, please see WP:NPA: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

SJW page guarding

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

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

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

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

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

Expressions like "X is left-wing" are often misleading, since the grammar makes them seem to be a statement about X, when they are actually statements about the relative positions of X and the speaker: in those cases, the actual meaning is "I am more right-wing than X". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Her birthday

Is actual May 21, 1993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup: Do you have a reliable source to verify this? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

her Parler account and her official website as well. Sorry, really don’t have actual besides this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fifTsTo1jo0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Found it on her Parler account. Can't for the life of me figure out how to get a permalink to the post, but hopefully someone better at using Parler than me can figure it out. I couldn't find the DOB on her official website, but if you have a link to where it is on her website I think that'd be better than a Parler post. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerical/copy edit request

Under "Career": I believe the first paragraph, "Loomer is a former employee of Project Veritas..." can be collapsed into the second where it redundantly mentions Project Veritas. That first paragraph is itself largely duplicative of the mention of Project Veritas in the introduction.

Under the Activism heading for 2015-2017: "Shortly after O'Keefe released the edited video, the university suspended Loomer for violating the student code of conduct rules and a professor shown in the video filed criminal charges against her for recording him without his knowledge." The bold is mine; the original just has no word there. 100.34.243.241 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! I've merged the first two paragraphs about Project Veritas and inserted the missing word in the activism section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

?This Wikipedia entry constitutes an ad-hominem, politically-based "hit-piece" unleashed against Laura Loomer. She is a U.S. citizen who is being criminalized for exercising her 1st and 2nd Amendment rights protected under the U.S. Constitution. Most of the remarks contained within have failed to be self-qualified as "opinions", "reports" and "claims" made by "some" (or most likleey) "a few" people whose obvious intent in this Wikipedia entry is to discredit her. Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard of attempted unbiased factual presentation rather than a sounding board for political extremists. 97.122.65.219 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please be specific as to which claims are not supported by reliable sources. You may find WP:RS a valuable read before doing so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary level of detail about Ilhan Omar

I am going to make some changes to this section. I have reviewed the archives (1 and 7) in order to familiarize myself with previous editor discussions.

First, I am going to reinstate the double quotes around "investigate" because Loomer, Jacob Wohl, and his friend Ali were not journalists, law enforcement, nor acting in any capacity other than getting exposure as provocateurs by going to Minnesota.

Next, I am going shorten the level of detail about allegations that Ilhan Omar married her brother for illegal immigration purposes. It reads too much like salacious rumor-mongering, and the Vox so-called explainer, stating that the story is largely not true is damning with faint praise. It is enough to say that Loomer et al were making baseless accusations of illegal behavior by Congresswoman Omar, and briefly, what they were. No one besides Vox and Business Insider were even willing to publish anything about it. We don't need to go into all that detail about why the rumor wasn't true, not in Loomer's BLP. There is no reason to believe it IS true! Yes, Donald Trump said so in a speech, but that is covered elsewhere in WP, and I will wikilink as needed. If anyone objects to my edits, let's discuss here.--FeralOink (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No objections from me on any of what you're suggesting, or to any of the changes you've made (thus far, at least, it looks like you're still working). Thanks for your hard work! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, GorillaWarfare! I just got done. This is what I did, and cross-mentioned in my article edit descriptions: Found a source that said Loomer and Jacob Wohl went to Minnesota together, as the existing ones did not. Removed Vox explainer about why Ilan Omar brother marriage wasn't true, for reasons stated above. Added a not-quite-WP:RS link to Daily Online UK because it was a straightforward interview of Loomer, providing her city and state of birth, parents' occupations, and that her mother was an immigrant to the USA. I didn't use it as a source for anything else. Added the confrontation with Jack Dorsey that happened today. Removed a few redundant overcites; would like to remove more, as the content of the article is rather brief compared to the extensive references and other sources (for someone else to do, as I am Loomer-ed out!) Finally, I changed the description of Wohl to "right-wing perpetrator of Internet fraud" or similar, instead of far right-wing activist. Here's why: As I was reading the sourced refs for him (same ref is included in Loomer's BLP), there's this quote,

"Wohl said he yearns for the days – before he was born – when conservatives would join in outrage over a scene in a sitcom and funnel that unity into other pursuits, like support for unchecked military actions. “You think about these incredibly large-scale wars that were just launched without congressional approval, and they were pretty damn good at carrying out the conservative torch, whatever it happened to be at the time”.

That sounds like ridicule of the right, not how one of their own would describe themselves. His BLP hover-over is something like "Internet grifter and troll", which I think is accurate! I watched the video where he bloviates about his non-findings on Ilhan Omar with Laura Loomer and the third guy, Ali. Wohl is REALLY mean to Laura, cuts her off, is just nasty. He extorts money from women, which is documented in his reputation-smearing attempt of Robert Mueller. I think he is a provocateur and opportunist with fickle political leanings. His BLP suggests that, idk... This is a lot of explanation for my use of 'far-right' versus 'right'. If you think it should be far-right again, that's fine with me.--FeralOink (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all this work, and for the summary! It all looks good to me, although I do think a descriptor like "far-right conspiracy theorist" is probably more appropriate for Wohl. I also wrote a substantial portion of the article on Wohl (which describes him in the lead sentence as a "far-right conspiracy theorist, fraudster, and Internet troll") and I think that descriptor is in roughly descending order of importance. "Far-right" is well sourced there to NBC and The Washington Post. His main activities, particularly these days, are attempting to seed conspiracy theories through unsavory means—falsified allegations against politicians primarily, but also things like robocalls. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

American far-right and anti-Muslim political activist,[a][b] conspiracy theorist

That headline is biased and unfair. It needs to be changed. We can describe many many leftists as conspiracy theorists and anti-semites... But you dont. She is not Anti-Muslim. She is anti Sharia Law. She is not a conspiracy theorist for asking questions on political topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.10.27 (talk) 12:21, August 18, 2021 (UTC)

Reliably sourced and accurate, sorry. ValarianB (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also not biased or "unfair". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

You should edit the "bans and removals" section to state that, by Loomer's own admission, she has also been banned from Cashapp, Periscope, Teespring, Stripe and has been banned from owning a firearm for life (all available on her website). Adam12992 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:ABOUTSELF. We'd need a secondary reliable source for that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Christian Nationalism

Loomer has said she supports Christian nationalism, despite denying rumors that she had converted to Christianity. So she’s in the odd position of being a Christian nationalist who is Jewish rather than Christian. [6] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AD07 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Many U.S. right-wingers are in support of of the Hindu Nationalist party, despite being neither Hindu nor Indian. Similarly they support Hungarian nationalism. Support for Christian Nationalism is a common political position among right wingers, hardly unusual.

It is unclear to me why Loomer's professed support for CN is worthy of noting in Wikipedia. The one reference is an interview with a Daily Beast politics reporter, who quotes her saying I'm in support of the Christian Nationalist movement. Has Loomer done something noteworthy in support of Christian nationalism? Perhaps including them in one of her attention-getting actions, or incorporating such support for CN in her regular message? No, she hasn't. Right now there is only a single almost throw-away quote in a minor interview expressing a position that is very common among right-wing activists.

If professed support for CN is added into the article, it goes in the Views section, not Early Life and Eduation where it last appeared. And it shouldn't include the unsupported claims that some people say she converted. -- M.boli (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Concur; in the section about her views, there's already a sub-section for her nationalism; adding "Christian Nationalism" to that would be easy, consistent, and giving it adequate weight. But is the Daily Beast a reliable source? Weazie (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you found the right spot to put a brief mention of Loomer's support for Christian nationalism. I'm starting to think it would be reasonable to do so. What changed my mind is that in addition to the Daily Beast interview she also posted her explanation for her position to a social media account.

Regarding referencing: The article has I think nine Daily Beast references already. The social media post as a citation for her own views is within the WP:TWEET guideline. (I had to improvise the Gab cite, I didn't see a Gab citation template equivalent to {{Cite tweet}}).

References

Request for more accurate terminology

Hi, I can’t edit as I can’t sign in right now and the page is protected. Can we change the non-WP:NPOV term “political activist” to a more neutral, and accurate “political extremist”? Thanks guys. 95.144.3.231 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisafBia6531 (talk • contribs)

Censorship

My last comment was apparently removed. This article is extremely bias towards an individual.

I used to give a lot to Wikipedia until I noticed a lot of unchecked bias in many articles. I would love to give again, but I need to see the bias removed. 2601:247:C500:817:81D8:E74B:C744:3A49 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your attempt at bribery to get the content you want would not work even if you did actually say what you want. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Laura Loomer is Jewish

https://forward.com/tag/laura-loomer/?amp=1 75.134.201.197 (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Already reliably sourced in this article. Completely unclear what the edit request could be. -- M.boli (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022 (2)

There is NO PROOF that Project Veritas edits their videos, it should not be allowed to be in the opening paragraph on this page. Jsiwicki19 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

NPR: O'Keefe 'Inappropriately Edited' Video; Exec's Words Still 'Egregious'

Project Veritas Video Was a ‘Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,’ Researchers Say – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Seriously biased and substandard citations

the opening premise of this thread is flatly false; closing soibangla (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see the first sentence that describe her as an anti-muslim. But the citations are merely opinions. No facts at all. Wikipedia should have better citation standards to not allow opinion to support biased statements in the article. Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Not mere opinions or biased statements. Loomer herself described herself as a proud Islamophobe as reported by CNN and in the UK newspaper The Independent. The Guardian concurs and stated: Loomer has called Muslims “savages”, described Islam as “a cancer”, and said on Instagram that Muslims should not be allowed to run for political office in the United States. In 2017, Loomer was banned from using ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft after she posted a series of tweets blaming all Muslims for terror attacks and saying that someone should create a ride-sharing service that did not employ Muslims. The citations describe Loomer correctly. That Loomer is anti-Muslim is easily verifiable from a multitude of sources. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC) the whole page is riddled with opinions and bs 2001:48F8:3034:10C0:62AD:4E8F:D1B5:5E9E (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Yet at no point did you provide any examples, how convenient. Perhaps you just don't like what you're reading? —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need 12 sources saying she is far right

Pretty sure we dont need all 12 sources pretty sure 2 or 3 will be enough Qwv (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet the "far-right" adjective is about the most edited (and reverted) part of this article. Its depth is intended to show that the inclusion of "far-right" is, in fact, WP:NPOV. --Weazie (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Far Left calling someone far right, really mature sources these are not. Every effective advocate of the right...becomes far right somehow. It is really weird how there is no spread. Example Tulsi Gabbard. 2601:248:C000:3F:8556:F274:5B18:D4F1 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Cheers. --Weazie (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Not every day that you see someone call The Washington Times and Fox News "far left". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's either "not cited enough" or "cited too much". We can't win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Using too little sources is why I still don’t feel comfortable using Wikipedia. Plus, if. 5th graders have to use a minimum of 5 different sources per paper, then a reference (Wikipedia) should be held to a higher standard. Especially for something stating either far left or right Nalvara9 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Accelerationism

Loomer has described herself as an accelerationist several times now, indicating she seems to be slowly embracing the idea of using bullets instead of ballots to change society. 2600:1014:B060:AC15:179:D3D5:909:4399 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated

Loomer clearly have left the republican party and did not see herself as a republican anymore...

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1663022524567891968 Thebeatles2020 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Her tweet says The Republican Party is dead to me. After the GOP Presidential primary in 2024 when I vote for Trump, I’m burning my GOP voter registration card & registering as an Independent. Emphasis added. Let's wait and see if she follows through with that, after the 2024 primary. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Another note...

The article also has to mention her criticism towards Desantis and plenty of other republicans because a lot recently starting around the time she got reinstated on Twitter. she began to criticized Desantis. Thebeatles2020 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Please notice that not many sources in this article are by Loomer herself. Most of her views in this article are here because secondary sources adopted them as significant. Thus Loomer's white nationalism, conspiracy theories, and anti-Muslim beliefs and activities are notable and included here. But absent any secondary evidence of notability her statements about accelerationism, DeSantis, the GOP, and whatever else she happens to harp on, are not notable and not included here. They might become notable in the future. -- M.boli (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hello,

In the section titled, 'Promotion of conspiracy theories,' I believe the following section, at the very least the word "false," should be removed from the page.

"In July 2018, Loomer promoted the false narrative that a man arrested with bomb-making equipment and illegal weapons had been a "leftist antifa terrorist." CNN reported that the man in question appeared to be a conservative based on his Facebook profile."

This excerpt is using a citation that employs the same flawed logic that it is being used to disprove. It claims Loomer promoted a "false narrative," but its basis on the claim being false is defended by a CNN claim that the man "appeared to be a conservative based on his Facebook profile." This is far from a strong defense, in terms of logical reasoning. Even the title of the citation is "Right-wing media called him a leftist terrorist. He appears to be a pro-gun conservative" which further supports removal of this excerpt. The title itself asserts that some media agree with Loomer and some do not--with this in mind, the narrative she promoted could not be decreed as true or false.

If the excerpt stays, to keep with the neutral viewpoint, it needs to be accompanied by a citation that properly proves her claim is false. TruthGiver1972 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added an additional source and rephrased it slightly. Normally I would avoid sources for this article which don't mention Loomer specifically, but since this has WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP issues, it seems acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Argus Leader piece does have a screenshot of the Loomer tweet where she called the suspect that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so it does. At least the connection is unambiguous. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks good.

There is one slight typo with the edit. "According to the man's his social media" It appears you wanted to type either "According to the man's" or "According to his."

Thanks again! TruthGiver1972 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed the typo. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

this line doesn't seem like it should be in the article

from the section on the Julius Caesar production: 'On June 19, Alyssa Rosenberg of The Washington Post wrote that she did not believe Loomer was genuinely offended by the play, but was looking for attention and to collect a $1,000 bounty that alt-right social media personality Mike Cernovich had offered to anyone who disrupted the production.' The speculations of one writer with no connection to the subject seems irrelevant and not notable. Clinton (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps in isolation it would be speculative or inappropriate. But it isn't in isolation. The quote provides additional context and seems appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation of Buffalo rainbow bridge explosion

So Loomer was posting information of the explosion and fearmongering on speculation, later disproven. Should we include this? Melofy (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I has been added already. See last paragraph of Promotion of hooey section. -- M.boli (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeh covered that one. She's been these last two months. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you! Sorry I missed it when skimming Melofy (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Spreading misinformation

@JPxG Thought I'd try put this straight, as there seems to be a misunderstanding. Misinformation doesn't spread like butter, it's more comparable to spreading like covid. Nobody ever said "what with a butter knife" when talking about the spread of COVID-19. Info: [7]

WP:RS clearly identifies Loomer as spreading misinformation [8] [9] Granted she's not in the "superspreader" territory like Jackson Hinkle, probably because she has less than 1M followers on X. But she spreads misinformation none the less, as per sources.

To really break it down, "spreading" means that Loomer is responsible for the false claims she makes that is shared by others. In sources provided, thousands of people re-tweet her misinformation, thus is spreads. She's not shouting in an empty vaccuum here...

Note I didn't revert the removal of "spread" in the bans an removal section, because admittedly most references provided don't reference "spreading misinformation", but merely posting it. Let's stick to the sources though, not our own personal opinions. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't mean a whole lot to say someone has "spread" or "promoted"; it's like being "linked" or "having ties to". It's perfectly fine to use illustrative language in a newspaper — that's what they're for — but when we're writing Wikipedia articles we should try to describe things in a clear and unambiguous way. For example, there are lots of headlines that include "Jon Stewart DESTROYS", "Jon Stewart EVISCERATES", et cetera, but in the article Jon Stewart, we say that he "confronted" John McCain, he "tweeted back facetiously" at Donald Trump, he "criticized" Crossfire, et cetera. It's certainly illustrative to say that someone is "spreading an infection" by posting stuff on Twitter, but I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to make literary comparisons. Of course people retweet things: that's how Twitter works. Every remotely popular tweet will be liked and retweeted. This is not something that needs to be specifically noted. Moreover: is there any evidence that people experience multiple organ failure or have to be put on ventilators or have limbs amputated because they saw a Tweet that said some random criminal nobody cares about from North Dakota was a leftist when he was actually a rightist? jp×g🗯️ 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeh as I said, let's stick to the sources: Loomer spread misinformation. If it's the same as saying someone is "linked to" to "having ties to", then it shouldn't matter accurately reflecting the WP:RS being use. Saying that Loomer is spreading misinformation is pretty clear, as clear as day. It summarises what happens; she creates false claims, she posts about them, others retweet/share her posts, and the lies spread. End of. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Viral phenomenon talks quite a bit about how information spreads. I don't see why this is an issue. It's not at all the same as the issue of clickbait headlines. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2023

It states she is "anti-muslim". (Can we stop saying phrases like this? Let's start calling it what it is.)

Being anti-muslim or ant-islamic is a religious bigot. Being anti arab it's called xenophobic or racist.

I request you change the anti-muslim to xenophobic or bigot or racist. Start using the correct labels for these people. 172.59.25.162 (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: all three of your suggested changes are less specific than anti-muslim, as none of them specify what group Loomer targets. Cannolis (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)