This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You just deleted an entire event from this article. The video the Daily Beast references is the source of the quotes. Also, your edit was within hours of my "Keep" vote on an article you were voting delete. I certainly hope this was not a retaliatory edit on your part. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the BLP issue that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was talking about; nevertheless I don't think this material is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. So an alt-right activist "ambushed" a CNN reporter on the sidewalk and asked him a loaded question. Who cares. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman:@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: It wasn't one "gotcha" question Loomer asked, it was a series of questions she asked before Cuomo closed the SUV door on her. The section has value because if a reader links to the Daily Beast article and it's subsequent links, they will see Loomer was confronting Cuomo over CNN tracking down an anonymous Reddit user who created a video meme of Trump body slamming and punching a man whose head was replaced with a CNN logo, that Trump re-tweeted that gained national media attention, generating much debate and had extensive coverage for days. Both the re-tweet and the subsequent fallout coverage of CNN, a billion dollar news organization, for tracking down an anonymous Reddit user who was the original source of the video meme. CNN basically told the Reddit user that should they repeat the same behavior, that CNN would make their identity public. Loomer was confronting Cuomo as to why they attempted to extort the Reddit user, why Cuomo had deleted a controversial tweet as to if CNN should expose the Reddit user, and did CNN not consider the Reddit user's video meme as free speech. As to unreferenced quotes, the previous version states that according to the video as reported by the Daily Beast, a video that was the centerpiece of their article, that video was the source of the sections quotes so it was not unreferenced as alleged. I didn't want to get in a edit war with Hullaballoo so I took the higher road and used only the articles wording and not the exchange caught on video. Even though I am curious as to what drew Hullaballoo's attention to Loomer's article, since it's highly suspect "The Big Bad Wolfowitz" deleted the section within hours of us having opposing opinions on another article that is in AfD Cllgbksr (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of WP:AGF is just as defective as your understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS. Linking to a page that links to a page that accesses a likely doctored primary source is not a reference, and probably not a reliable source. Given that I've been editing in this area for a long time, it's more likely that your first-ever !vote in a porn-related AFD was intended as retaliation for my position at Talk:Van Jones, which led to consensus against including another instance of the alt-right ambush fake journalism you try to promote. Can't you keep yourself busy enough going to libraries and ripping "Julius Caesar" out of Shakespeare's collected works? Aren't there pudgy Russian operatives with bad, bad haircuts who can keep you busy promoting treason? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My vote in AfD had nothing to do with your back and forth with that user or any other user, I felt the article passed muster. I should be offended by your disparaging comments casting me as either alt right and/or a Russian sympathizer when you don't even know me, but it's going to take more than a sarcastic WP user to get under my skin. You talk about having left WP b/c of aggressive editors when it appears you are the aggressor. Your comments were uncalled for and I want them retracted from this talk page. I personally don't approve of Loomer and her tactics but it's not my place to judge her or any subject I write about. I have no problem talking with another editor as it relates to WP policy but when I get personally attacked that's where I draw the line. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about Merriam-Webster? Here’s their definition: Anyone "reject[in]g mainstream conservative politics and espous[ing] extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism." I bolded "typically" because it doesn’t preclude exceptions. According to this New Yorker article, for example, there has been a branding war between two branches of the alt-right since Spencer rose to prominence. Some formerly proud alt-right members would now prefer to be called "the alt-light, or the New Right, or civic nationalism, or American nationalism, or one of a few other variations." Question is: Do they get to control what the rest of the world calls them? Like it or not, for now they're stuck with the label. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman: It was a direct quote from the source. How ist that misleading? I don’t mind paraphrasing the quote, but it needs to be correct. Your version implies that the campaign merely 'thinks’ it complied with the law while the direct quote indicates certainty, i.e., checking. The attempt obiously failed; I’m sure that if the attempted entrapment had led to anything quotable/watchable or even remotely doctorable to make it quotable/watchable, we would have seen it, if not on Fox News, then on YouTube or wherever Loomer or her then employer, Project Vertitas/O’Keefe, go public. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
