Talk:Dana Loesch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Issues in need of a section header so that the TOC does not follow the first comments on the talk page

Reinstating Dana Loesch talk page

What is your problem? Why are you deleting everything? If you're not going to contribute anything, why don't you leave this alone while I'm working on this page? ProfessorLoesch (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is one of many comments, continued below, which are directed at other editors questioning legitimacy of article subject for WP. Also, there is important policy on Conflict of Interest, WP:COI and speciifcally WP:Autobiography to consider. IMO, this talk-page section and similar others below (with odd titles and disjointed content) should be merged per WP:TPG (talk page guidelines). -Anon 97.81.120.170 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cindamuse - you might recognize this as the "talk page"

yeah, this is where you discuss stuff that you have a problem with. Generally that's a good idea before you go deleting vast swaths of referenced material. ProfessorLoesch (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I eagerly await your input here. ProfessorLoesch (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, judging by the concerns with which you tagged the page, it seems like you're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, but I'll address them:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

Ok, so discuss them on the talk page guy...

This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since October 2010.

It has several references, which is pretty good for a page just started. Add citation needed tags if you want more, and I will fill them.

It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since October 2010.

Already has some, more to come. You're welcome to add some yourself if you want to get off your backside.

The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since October 2010.

Clearly you didn't bother to either plug "Dana Loesch" into google or simply read the page on Wikipedia.

It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since October 2010.

So make some specific complaints or suggestions.

It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy. Tagged since October 2010.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I'm not Dana Loesch. If you think Dana Loesch has time to fool around on wikipedia, then clearly you didn't bother to either plug "Dana Loesch" into google or...oh wait. ProfessorLoesch (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I came across this article working with NPP. I gave a quick review, copyedited to remove unencyclopedic content, and brought it into compliance with WP:MOSBIO. The edits were immediately reverted to ones that were nonconstructive and out of compliance. I alerted you of these edits on your talkpage and encouraged you to review the standards and guidelines for editing biographies of living persons. Rather than receiving a response, you blanked your talkpage.
  The article has issues. At the time that I came across the article, the attempt was made to establish notability through sources that lack independence from the subject. I alerted editors to the need for independent, third-party sources. Those were ignored. Maintenance tags were removed, unaddressed, which is contrary to policy. Notability cannot be established through the subject's own publicity and websites. As far as being wikified, I have done this, but you continue to revert these edits to your own. I believe that the subject may be notable and have not prompted for deletion, preferring to edit to present the subject as notable. It is to your benefit to accept assistance from other editors who may have a bit more experience than yourself at retaining articles. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang On

Seriously? I don't know why people seem to think Dana Loesch shoudn't have a wikipedia page...

• she's one of the original tea party founders, and a nationally recognized tea party leader
• she's a radio host
• she's the editor of one of the most popular conservative websites on the web
• she's appeared frequently on every major news network (except NBC I believe...don't think she likes them). She's appeared on CNN more than 20-30 times at least (just google it) as a political commentator. She was chosen as one of six political commentators by ABC to cover their election night coverage for the 2010 midterms.

Do I need to go on? I'd be happy to...

As you can see, I've cited this thing heavily.

I have to go for now, but I'll be back in about two hours. When I come back, I intend to expand upon her tea party influenceProfessorLoesch (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OF course you don't think there is a problem "PROFESSOR LOESCH"!!!!155.95.80.253 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

hilarious coming from an ip using the General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. address. go away troll. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues

While it's far from an exemplary article, it is referenced, and notability appears to have been met. Also, I see no evidence that this article is "autobiographical". Is there any objection to removing these tags? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography and Questionable Notability

Restoring proper tags. Article is almost certainly an autobiography, written by User:ProfessorLoesch of the same name. Also appears to be about a non major market radio host of highly questionable notability, though I will leave the decision on whether or not it should be nominated for deletion to others. Virginia80 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is obviously not an autobiography, nor is it a puff-piece. Loesch is clearly notable by Wikipedia's general notability rules. I've reverted all Virginia80's recent edits. Virginia80, please be much more careful in future if/when you edit WP:BLPs about people you oppose. In particular, please gain consensus on this page before making any more contentious edits to this article. CWC 11:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This article was developed by User:ProfessorLoesch, probably the subject, for the purpose of this article. The article needs to be evaluated in light of the fact that it was developed solely for self-promotional purposes. Additionally, in checking the few, mostly unnotable sources listed, she is not a graduate of the university listed; she dropped out. Her own web site cannot be a source for her (self-stated) relevance. I believe the article should probably be listed for speedy deletion, though (as mentioned in my previous edit note), I will leave that open for further evaluation. Virginia80 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Loesch has been on CNN almost every day since February 10, when she was hired. Eric Boehlert and MMFA has been slamming her in various articles on MMFA since the CNN announcement. For a media outlet, as well as someone like Boehlert who is also notable on Wikipedia, to react like this, I think the notability issue is more than covered. Groink (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems absurd that Dana Loesch herself would create a user account, using her own name, and then create a page for herself. The notability tag can stay, as it seems to be the subject of some valid debate. However, the autobiography tag is simply misleading. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed (again) the autobiography tag. The notability tag was already gone. As for the BLP ref tag, the article has ten listed and properly cited references. I am removing that as well. I think someone needs to drop the stick here. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the Loesch wouldn't have time? It seems people like her do what they do exactly to have plenty of spare time! But I have doubts if she even knows how to write, though. 187.115.243.66 (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly obvious that neither Dana Loesch nor her husband would register as Professor Loesch, even if they had enough spare time to edit here. In addition, "ProfessorLoesch" (now user DoctorFuManchu (talk · contribs)) explicitly denied any connection to DL here; per Wikipedia rules, we require some actual, ya'know, evidence before throwing any more nasty accusations. So, yeah, drop that WP:STICK and walk away from that poor dead equine ... CWC 10:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My WP:AGF has all but run out here. The same editor continues to disrupt this article. His or her edits are against consensus, and have been reverted by multiple editors. This editor has been asked to drop the stick. I believe the appropriate policy is don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. If this continues, I'm afraid further steps will need to be taken. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Others above are assuming that ProfLoesch was aware of WP:COI policy, instead of learning afterwards and backtracking, and they're using subjective terms like "obvious" when it's far from that. Seems reasonable to assume that User:ProfLoesch is the subject, or related, given the rhetorical style and dogged defense of early content that violates various policies. -Anon 97.81.120.170 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's sad that this has been revisited, but here we go:

• 1.)It is extremely, extremely unlikely that Dana Loesch ever had anything to do with this article.
• 2.)In any case, the issues that previously dogged this article have been addressed. Notability has been established; references have been provided. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

POV? Autobiography?

Look, I'd never heard of this woman until less than an hour ago, when I caught her in the last part of an episode of Bill Maher's show. I don't know her from Eve, and that's why I came here. So what do I see but a tag at the top which decries the article because it "may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" and for being "an autobiography, or [for having] been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject." So I look at the article, and I find that this "autobiography" is 187 words long, including section headers (but not including the infobox). What the hell? We're to believe that this is written by the subject? And are we to believe that the subject would create an entire section pointing out that she's a drop out? Give me a break. If that's POV, it certainly isn't because she wrote it.

So this really got my curiosity up. I did some investigation. Turns out that at the top of the list of editors working on this article[1] is an editor who has been "editing" for well over a year, yet has only 47 mainspace edits to his/her name in that whole time, nearly half of which have been to this article. And this editor has basically been shoving the theory down on everyone else here that this is an autobiography because was created by someone with a username that contained the same last name. Look, that doesn't even come close to proving it was written by the subject. Sure, it might give rise to the suspicion that the creator might have intended to create a hagiography, but the proof is in the pudding, and this (as far as I can see) is a very spartan, very vanilla article. (For the record, if this article changes substantially, this is the version that was most recently tagged as "POV". I think it's possible that there may have been editorial misconduct on this article, but the prime suspect is not whom the tagger would have us vilify.

So I want to see a list of specific statements that are allegedly POV, and/or a presentation of evidence that this article was created (or even has been substantially edited by) the subject. Otherwise, this looks like a total witch hunt to me. I think that if the greater community was brought in on this, the notion that this article has POV issues would be laughed off of the relevant talk page.

Having said all this, I do see one potential problem with this article. Does this woman rise to the level of notability necessary for an article? Damned if I know--I'd never heard of her until an hour ago. I'd be interested in seeing that discussion, and I very well am open to persuasion that this article should be deleted. But I have no tolerance for editors with accounts that appear to exist for one purpose, especially when they demonstrate such overwhelming prejudice. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow up comments. Now I've looked at the edit history in more detail. While I still stand by the substance of my comments, I will acknowledge that there have been a few edits that did appear to address the topics raised in the tags. For example, I approve of this removal of that "30 under 30" crap--that did look like it was from a self-written autobiography. And this edit did remove some non-encyclopedic material.

My point is, these problems have been addressed. But now it just looks like the continued tagging is blind antipathy. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see now I should have read this talk page before creating my diatribe. Obviously, I am not the only one who has a problem with the way this article is being handled. I suggest that an administrator be brought in to talk to the relevant people if there continues to be a lack of respect for Wikipedia procedures, including WP:CONSENSUS. Good night! HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the article, and excellent comments here. I also think that your welcoming message on the disruptive user's talk page was a nice touch. Hopefully there will be no more disruption here. If there is, the administrative assistance you suggested is probably the next step to take. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I will say that perhaps Loesch's criticisms of CNN should be returned to the article. As they've recently hired her, I think her previous comments about them merit inclusion here. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

An error in my edit summary

Earlier, when this article was being disrupted on a regular basis, I reverted a series of disruptive edits, with the edit summary: "revert vandalism". After reading our vandalism policy (and shame on me for not doing that beforehand), I realize that those edits do not qualify as vandalism. Please note that these edits were still disruptive and unacceptable. However, they did not rise to the level of constituting vandalism. My edit summary, as well as my accusations of vandalism were incorrect, and I apologize for these mistakes. I have left a similar note on the talk page of the editor against whom I made this incorrect accusation. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fifty lashes with a wet noodle!! HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Rejected Offer" edits

To the anon IP editor who has been repeatedly inserting the same edit:

I'm really baffled by your edits to Dana Loesch, and would like to discuss it with you in an attempt to avoid having you blocked. Your edits appear to me to be simple vandalism, but perhaps your intent in sincere. Here's what I see:

First of all, you write the following:

• However, the Tea Party immediately rejected the offer . . . To what offer are you referring? No "offer" was made to the "Tea Party" (more on that in the next bullet), and so there was nothing to reject. This makes no sense to me at all.
• . . . the broadcasts continued against the Tea Party's consent. The clear implication of this second part of the sentence is that the Tea Party is a singular entity, speaking with a unified voice, and capable of granting or withholding consent. This seems far from true to me; there are many people leading many factions of what is called the Tea Party, but as far as I know, there is no one person speaking for the Tea Party, and therefore no one can give consent to anything. If I am wrong, please explain it to me.

Secondly, at the end of your post, you place a footnote number, like so: . . . consent. [5] This is the item that looks most like vandalism to me, because it has the appearance of trying to make the reader believe that there is a source for the statement. But there is none. Your "[5]" links to no source. Maintaining good faith, I checked the article that the actual source with the footnote numbered "5" was linked (currently here[2]), thinking that you simply did not know how to properly footnote in Wikipedia. But I found nothing in there like the statement you added to the article. It is hard for me to avoid concluding that you were trying to be deceptive; perhaps others will see what I do not.

So I'm asking you to first, desist in reverting me, and second, explain yourself, either on this talk page or on my talk page or yours. But if you revert back to this apparent vandalism again, I shall have to have you blocked. For an explanation of why, please read WP:3RR. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Afghans and/or alleged Taliban fighters

Besides and despite that some sources taking a side in direction of them being Taliban fighters the Navy didn't say or confirm this as far as I know and there are sources like CNN [3] that don't go either way and also foreign reliable sources like German Tagesschau (in German language)[4] that calls them "alleged" Taliban fighters. Till this point is officially cleared one way or the other I think we should either just call them "Afghans" or "alleged Afghan Taliban fighters". The sources who "identify" the dead certainly are just taking a crap-shot as they please and it would be more NPOV to at least add "alleged" for now.TMCk (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to look here before editing. While earlier sources say "allegedly" and "appear to be Taliban" other later sources don't bother. Couldn't find a statement "confirmed to be Taliban fighters" but I guess that will come eventually after the investigation. CarolMooreDC 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Statements pertaining to breast cancer, birth control, bigotry, agism, and abortion

I note that my recent inclusions were reverted with the edit summary "not notable." I would remind editors that per WP:NNC, while notability is used to decide whether we should include an article on a particular subject, it does not determine which specific facts should or should not be included in articles because articles are supposed to be comprehensive by default. Therefore, I am reverting the deletion. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Trans-vaginal ultrasound quote

It seems there's been some controversy over whether to include a recent contentious quote by Loesch in this article, relating to the Virginia bill which would require women to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion. I think this does belong in the article, and this source should be acceptable:[5] If you disagree, please comment below. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that Loesch has repeatedly stated that various lefties (including, IIRC, Think Progress) have been busily lying about the bill and her support of it, I say not. Even someone like me who skims Big Journalism posts on that topic while looking for interesting stuff can tell that that Think Progress story is very deceptive.

Indeed, I think any paragraph about a conservative sourced only to ThinkProgress.org probably should be removed immediately per BLP. I've removed at least three versions of this allegation from this article. All had the obvious defect of failing to give Loesch's side of the story, perhaps because doing so would make it obvious that the entire 'controversy' is a beat-up reeking (IMO) of desperation. CWC 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it ought to be included. The user that has repeatedly removed the paragraph keeps referring to Loesch's column in which she misrepresented the facts regarding the legislation's specifics without citing any sources as evidence that the bill did not require a transvaginal ultrasound, even though her later comments clearly demonstrate that she knew that the reality, as reported by every single other news outlet (including MSNBC, The Telegraph, and local news is that the only way to determine gestation age during the first trimester is via a transvaginal ultrasound. Furthermore, the actual quote at issue here is inarguably evidence of her defense of the legislation as it stood at the time she made the comment. I realize that based on Loesch's often controversial statements, the inclusion of the disputed paragraph might appear biased, but after thoroughly reading through WP:BLP, I see no reason why this paragraph should not be included. She made the statement, it was reported on; this is biographical information and I therefore believe it ought to be included in this article, just like her comments regarding US troops urinating on dead Afghan fighters belongs in the article. She's made her career saying highly controversial things, and there's no reason why this paragraph should be omitted just because what she said was controversial.

Furthermore, CWC's description of people that disagree with Loesch's opinions as "lefties" demonstrates that the repeated removal of the paragraph in question here is politically motivated. I am not a "lefty" or a "righty" (although I do write with my right hand), and I think that if anything, the inclusion of her comments helps validate the existence of an article on her in the first place. As we've seen in the Palin wars, Wikipedia is not the place to insert one's political perspective. I am therefore replacing the paragraph. If anyone can demonstrate to me why there's any reason to remove it that is not entirely politically motivated, I will gladly cease my protests.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, here. CWC has clearly demonstrated a political motivation behind his repeated deletion of the paragraph in question. His dislike for any views that differ from his own is more than apparent - he casts aspersions upon using leftwing ThinkProgress as a source, but seems to think its rightwing counterpart BigGovernment is perfectly acceptable - and he is showing absolute disregard for the facts in play here, citing BLP without actually demonstrating that he's even familiar with what that means. I've reinstated the paragraph until such time as it can be explicitly demonstrated that it doesn’t belong here.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

1. Osiriscorleone, please don't lie about me ever again. Not lying about Ms Loesch any more would be helpful too.
2. You violated WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (a) by putting the disputed text back in the article twice and (b) in the preceding comment. Don't do that!
3. The relevance of Big Journalism is that she writes there, so it is a source (in fact, the source) for "Loesch says X". It's a polemical group blog, which is lower that Think Progress in the reliabity scale.
4. BLP says that the onus is on the editor inserting the controversial material, not me.
5. My use of the word "lefties" was only in summarizing Loesch's writings, not in relation to any Wikipedia editor.
6. Wikipedia articles should not track every controversy a person gets involved in, only those of lasting significance.
7. Look, it's not that hard: anything that relies purely on Loesch's opponents and does not give her side is a prima facie violation of NPOV and BLP.
8. My recent edits are based on core Wikipedia rules (NPOV, BLP), not my politics, both here and at Peter Gleick (a 'lefty'). Cheers, CWC 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not lying about anyone here. You said what you said, Loesch said what she said. All I've done is point that out. You took the disputed text out based on a political viewpoint, rather than getting consensus first, and from a quick review of your edit history, it's not the first time. Since there are now two voices supporting the inclusion of the paragraph (three, if you count the original author) against your one, it would appear that you are uninterested in getting consensus and would prefer to just strike the incident from the record. I've tried as hard as I can to help amend the paragraph so that it references reliable sources, because I think it's important that Wikipedia remain current and accurate. I've also tried to find any examples of her side of the story that doesn’t come from BigGovernment, but have found none. As for relevance, a simple Google search produces pages upon pages of coverage of Loesch's statement. Clearly this is as relevant as anything else she's said - at the very least, it's of as lasting significance as her comments regarding the US troops urinating on Afghan fighters.

Like I said, I'm not going to get into an edit war here. If you insist on censoring Wikipedia to fit your personal worldview, that's your right, and best of luck to you.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I took that text out because it was a BLP violation. WP:BLP says to remove BLP violations, then discuss. (It was also a NPOV violation, but remove-then-discuss only applies to BLP.) This is bordering on process-wonkery, but it's important. BLP also says it's OK to use un-fact-checked writing (eg., blog posts) by the subject of an article in certain circumstances: Loesch's claim that the law doesn't mention or require trans-vaginal ultrasounds would be perfectly OK to use in this article.

And if Wikipedia fit my personal world view, it would be a lot different ... the article on mulesing would be NSFW, for one thing ... hmm. Best wishes, CWC 00:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on how the paragraph violated WP:BLP. She made the comment, didn’t she? It was reported on, wasn’t it? It just seems to me that this merits inclusion just as much as the Marines incident does. And it's pretty clear at this point to anyone following this story that while the law didn’t mandate the use of transvaginal ultrasound directly, it did call for an ultrasound to determine gestation age, and only transvaginal ultrasounds are capable of detecting gestation age during the first trimester. Furthermore, Loesch was clearly aware of this fact when she made her comments, which demonstrates that she was lying when she claimed the law didn’t require the procedure. So basically what you're proposing is that we let the lie stand, since we'd be taking her at her word, even if that word is false. I'm used to this kind of laziness in the mainstream media at this point, but it's disheartening to see it in play here. It just seems to me that your opposition to including this paragraph is highly political in nature. You alone have decided that the inclusion of this paragraph is without merit, and since I'm not going to engage in the edit war, your manipulation of the facts will stand.

Osiriscorleone (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a third opinion here would be a good idea, and have created a section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dana Loesch. In the meantime, as the text is disputed on BLP grounds, it shouldn't be restored to the article until there's consensus to do so. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you! Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

The preceding discussion was basically continued at the BLP Noticeboard. See WP:BLPN#Dana Loesch (until it is archived). Cheers, CWC 10:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Now archived here. CWC 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add a POV tag

I am disappointed about all of Loesch's public statements which have been deleted from the article, not because there is any doubt that she said them, or that they were highly controversial and thus should be mentioned in the article introduction per the WP:LEAD instructions, but because her supporters would prefer that people not know she said them. Please add a {{POV}} tag to this article. 71.212.247.96 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are for non-controversial changes or ones for which there is a clear consensus. As this is an editorial matter, please discuss on the talk page like normal. Feel free to reopen this request if a consensus to add the tag emerges. — Bility (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that those statements were removed based on the consensus developed here on this talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The accusation that these statements were removed "because her supporters would prefer that people not know she said them" is just plain silly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you see as evidence that there is a consensus? I see arguments on both sides in line with editors' political predispositions, with no evidence of consensus. All of the actual deletions were done by the same editor. 71.212.228.14 (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversial statements whitewash bias

Loesch has made several very controversial statements this year which have been picked up and critiqued by the media. Many of them are in the article history but have been deleted from the article; not because they lacked sources, but in an apparent attempt to sweep them under the rug. For example: [6], [7], and [8]. Please note that all of those deletions have been from the same user, so I am listing this on WP:3O, and have added a {{POV}} tag. 71.212.228.14 (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the controversial statements, and am leaving the POV tag on because they are in dispute. I hope that the WP:3O process can help resolve whether it is proper to include the statements. I should also note that according to the page ratings from the article feedback tool at the bottom of the page, more than 40 users had given the article low scores; e.g., 1.8 out of 5 for "Trustworthy," 1.6 out of 5 for "Objective," and only 1.3 out of 5 for "Complete." 71.212.228.14 (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted all 71.212.228.14's recent edits, as required by WP:BLP.

71.212.228.14, please read WP:BLP very, very carefully before editing this article again, or indeed any other article about a living person. Please understand that controversial claims in BLPs must have excellent sources; please read WP:RS. Neither Media Matters (a dishonest and deeply hostile propaganda organization) nor Russia Today(!) are at all acceptable here. The NYT blog item only mentions Ms Loesch once, being primarily about Rush Limbaugh; in order to mention her tweet about Sandra Fluke, we would need a RS which provides more context. The other sources you used say precisely nothing about Ms Loesch!

Look, we understand that these rules about sourcing and BLPs can be hard for new editors to grasp, especially for people used to the freewheeling world of political blogs and web forums. As an encyclopedia, we need to be much pickier than other websites about what we include in articles; experience shows that our rules, when followed properly, work surprisingly well. Regards, CWC 12:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Two questions: Which particular part of WP:BLP do you think prohibits including the controversial statements Loesch has been making? Is the fact that she actually said any of the statements in dispute, or are you only complaining about the political positions of the sources reporting them? 71.212.237.20 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today is completely usable as a source (it is reliable) but if the information is not mentioned in the source then either find a source that does or don't write it the statement/claim at all.Curb Chain (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll point out that WP:BLP is not the only policy that touches on this matter. And it has nothing to do with political positions. As a threshold matter, unencyclopedic content doesn't belong; sources are only part of the picture. If reliable third parties give little to no coverage, the event is likely not of any enduring biographical or encyclopedic significance. Practically speaking, the bar is raised when the subject is a commentator: the comments should be easily identifiable as particularly noteworthy. Otherwise, to include trivial information about non-events would present WP:UNDUE weight. Along the same vein, but slightly different, is the issue of topical relevance (compare WP:COAT). There is a difference between coverage of controversial statements and coverage of the underlying event. If a commentator comments, the subject of the comment is the topic, no matter what the commentator says. Nothing inures without third party coverage. I'll close with this: don't accuse others of whitewashing. It's not reasonable to do so. Nor is it reasonable to characterize your reinsertion of text as removal by a single editor; see this and BLPN archives for an actual editorial consensus. And nobody cares about page ratings. Best of luck. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Employer in infobox

Our article tells readers that this person is employed by Andrew Breitbart. Can one be employed by a dead person? I'm not trying to set up a joke with that question -- but I'm sure some good ones are possible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I'm having trouble finding whether she is still editor-in-chief or not. Meanwhile, I've provided an archive url to show that she has been, and cleaned up some language like "since" and "the late." The entire section needs to be referenced better. JFHJr (㊟) 23:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing tags

I have removed the "POV" tag, as there is nothing remotely POV-good or bad-about Loesch in this article. Also, I am about to remove the "primary sources" tag as well. Our policy says that "primary sources may be used for simple, straightforward facts" (my emphasis). If someone is able to replace these references with secondary sources, then all the better. But as the primary sources are being used in line with guidelines, there is no need for the tag. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Loesch's Television appearances / Tea Party affiliation

This article continues also to utilize vastly inflated phraseology used to inflate Loesch's perceived importance. She has no connection with and is not a regular contributor to HBO, etc. And the fact that she is a purported voice of the Tea Party but was kicked out of (or resigned from) the only Tea Party she belonged to needs to be referenced (along with a citation of the statements of the organization regarding how they were placing the interests of the movement above her in choosing to part ways). Virginia80 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

false October 15, 2010, March 11, 2011, [9]. Fox and friends 9/8/2009 [10], ABC this week [11] She has appeared on all of the networks I listed multiple times, why did you delete it? Did you even make an attempt to find a source before deleting, if so, where did you look? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wording of the text on SLTP

Virginia80, I see that you've promptly changed the text back again regarding Loesch and the St. Louis Tea Party, from this:

In December 2011, Loesch left the organization after she and Hennessy disagreed on which Republican to support in Missouri's Second Congressional District, with Loesch backing the establishment candidate of Ann Wagner and Hennessy favoring Ed Martin.

..to this:

In December 2011, Loesch left, or was removed from, the organization. "As a local Tea Party organization," Hennessy said, "we need to focus on the grass roots going into 2012. At some point, though, one party must cleanly break the tension. In this case, the board has moved in the interest of the movement."

In doing so, you've obscured the specific reason why Loesch left the organization, resorting to quotes instead which 1) do not tell the reader what the difference of opinions was about between Loesch and Hennessy and 2) pushes the material away from WP:NPOV towards something which implies Loesch was "removed" for some mysterious reason. WP:BLPSTYLE says that BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement, and that they should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. If an editor isn't able to write in that style, he or she needs to reconsider just exactly what their motivations are for editing here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. The organization's press release on her firing/separation is most definitive reference and that quote describes why she's gone. Virginia80 (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, that quote does not describe why she left. Nor is there a press release on her "firing", which shows your inherent bias in your choice of words. The first mention of the press release speaks of how "The St. Louis Tea Party benefited from Dana's rising stardom and talent...", but you seem intent instead on cherry picking the quotes to imply she was ousted under mysterious and unfavorable circumstances while suppressing what actually happened. This is a WP:BLP, perhaps you should read up on that policy before making further edits to BLPs. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A rising star on TheBlaze TV

Today, she was guest host for an hour for Glenn Beck and did a fantastic job. Glenn Beck continues to hire great talent for his budding Conservative-value network, TheBlaze TV. Prior information on her page here is getting old. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at 'history' of the article, I see current editing is reflected, not so much on TheBlazeTV. BUT the portrait-picture does not do her justice, going back to 1978. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

National Syndication starts January 27th

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2746880&spid=24698

Radio America is a long standing radio syndicator who used to syndicate G Gordon Liddy and currently syndicates Riger Hedgecock, Peter Shiff and Dr Joy Browne, among others. That should settle any remaining doubts about notability.24.74.37.142 (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Watts comment on Loesche

This is in reference to this sentence which you added on 4 February 2014: The founder of Moms Demand Action Shannon Watts, referred to Loesch as "yet another gun lobby apologist who makes up facts and spins data to suit her own agenda." Sure, it's sourced to a reliable source, and in my opinion, the statement might even be true. However, just because something can be sourced to a reliable source doesn't necessarily mean its appropriate for inclusion in an article, especially on a BLP. As a stand-alone comment with no apparent context other than to disparage the subject, what policy based argument are you making for its inclusion? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the statement is based on a WP:RS and located in the appropriate Controversy section so I guess the question should be the other way around: what policy based argument are you making for it's removal? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the controversy? A person's BLP is not the place for a person to have their personal attacks against the subject of the BLP. Arzel (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I also removed two other sections as well. Piers Morgan banning her from his show is simply not significant for her bio. The MMfA issue appears to be limited to a blog post against her. In a larger context, controversy is supposed to be integrated into the article for BLP's. Arzel (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the statements back. All of them are reliably sourced and many public figures have a controversy/criticism (and sometimes both) section in their articles: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn_Beck, etc. We could open an WP:RfC if we can not come to an agreement about the content. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is not the issue here Gaba; its a question of whether or not the content is appropriate. Sure, there are other biography articles that contain "controversy" sections, but it's not the preferred way of doing things. The lede from the WP:CRITICISM essay states it well: Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons. Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

In my opinion, much of the material in your recently added "controversy" section can be in the article, but it needs to be phrased neutrally and incorporated into the main body in a way that meets the spirit of WP:CRITICISM. I will take a stab at making those sorts of adjustments in my next few edits on the article. However, the sentence regarding Watts commentary on Loesch isn't likely to fit in anywhere. It's just a disparaging stand-alone statement, with no explanation as to its relevancy or why it would even be a "controversy" here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've incorporated the material in a series of edits, with some rephrasing, one item at a time. My final edit was to delete the Watts statement entirely, pending a consensus here on why this stand-alone disparaging comment should be included. For both Gaba and Arzel, what do you think of the way the article looks now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Akin stuff is from a blog, it is not reliable other than reliable opinion. There is nothing to indicate that it is significant in the least. Arzel (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing significant about the Morgan stuff either. Morgan publicly states that he is banning her from his now cancelled show? Who cares? It means nothing in the larger sense of her career. If anything Morgan did it to try and drive up his poor ratings at the time. None this stuff meets WP:WEIGHT requirements. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm mostly OK with AzureCitizen's edits although I believe the comment by Watts is notable enough to be reintroduced. If one takes into account the overall notability of Dana Loesch as a public figure, this episode is an important one to me. The Akin comment made the rounds all over the place and definitely needs to stay. The Morgan incident, same comment as with Watts. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed the weight issues. This article is not about Akin. It doesn't make what Loesch twitted significant. What you think is important is not relevant, it is what is actually important with regards to her career. Unless you can provide some rational for violating WP:WEIGHT with much of this, then it needs to go. You simply don't have enough relibale sourcing to indicate any significance. Arzel (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What Loesch twitted was not significant, the media reaction was. We have not only the MediaMatters article[12] but the incident is also discussed in Slate[13] and The Huff Post[14] among many other smaller sites. If you'd like you can open a section at WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of these sources or we could open a WP:RFC to see if this info should remain in the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You have still not addressed WP:WEIGHT. It is no surprise that MMfA, Slate, or HuffPo would try to make a big deal about this. They are all ideologically pre-disposed against her. The fact is, she made a tweet which got the left in a twitter and it has had zero impact on her career. Arzel (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have, by presenting three reliable sources that comment on the issue sharing the same viewpoint. If you have other WP:RS commenting otherwise then present them and we can work them into the article. I've reverted your removal of sourced content, that you feel that "They are all ideologically pre-disposed against her" is irrelevant. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of blogs does not make something significant. These are blogs that do little than rant about conservatives on a daily basis, by your logic everything they bitch about it worthy of inclusion. That is not how BLP's work. You have not established any mainstream significance to these extremely minor events. If they were significant they would have resulted in a lot of mainstream coverage. This has not happened therefore this is a violation of undue weight. Nothing you have said resolves that primary dispute. Arzel (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask this in another way. Why is the Piers Morgan dustup significant? It had no effect on her career, especially now that he no longer even has a show. What exactly are you trying to convey to the reader with this?

Why is the Akin stuff significant? She made one tweet which the leftosphere tried to imply was a defense of Akin's comments. There is not additional commentary or response from Loesch. It was not picked up in mainstream reliable sources. The closest was a blog in Slate. What exactly is the controversy? That someone would dare to not attack Akin? Arzel (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Akin: it's not just a couple of blogs, MediaMatters and The Huff Post are certainly mainstream. It was also not just "one tweet" by the way, she made at least a dozen of them on the issue. It was also an event significant enough for her to write an article about it. "If they were significant they would have resulted in a lot of mainstream coverage" that would only happen if Loesch were a high profile public figure which she is not. The amount of media coverage is definitely significant given how significant she is as a political commentator. You can't expect the same coverage that for example O'Reilly or Limbaugh would have gotten for saying the same thing because those are high profile right wingers and she is not.

Re Morgan: on this one I don't have a strong position. As with the issue above I believe it was a significant episode given the significance of the person as a public figure but I could understand how others would see it as a minor event. How about this, if just one editor besides you comments here agreeing that the bit on Morgan should go I'll remove it myself. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

MMfA is not mainstream, unless you a liberal, just as MRC is not mainstream, unless you are a conservative. Neither are mainstream. The breibart article actually undermines your position on this. She clearly criticizes Akin in that article and basically destroys the argument that MMfA has made. The fact that this exists and you know about it and have not included it into this article makes it hard to believe you are approaching this from a neutral point of view. Additionally, the bar for sourcing is not lowered because the person is lesser known, which appears to be your argument. Arzel (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea what MRC is but I disagree, I take MMfA as certainly mainstream. You are free to use the Breitbart article to include information about the incident if you wish to, I did not because I don't think there is relevant information there other than Loesch excusing Akin some more. Also, please WP:AGF and leave innuendos aside. I never said the bar for sources is lowered, that would be against WP:RS. What I said is that a figure of little relevance in a given scenario (political in this case) could only be expected to achieve little media coverage (under normal circumstances of course). Otherwise the whole article would need to go since nothing she ever did has garnered massive media attention. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2015

The recent edits by DrFleischman are characteristic of bad faith editing and editorializing while also taking the page citations out of compliance. The overt bias demonstrated repeatedly at this page is beyond harmful to the veracity of WP and what should be the common goal of facts. Stop removing citations because you don't believe the source is up to your standards of what constitutes a news gathering organization. If MMFA can be used then certainly The Blaze, Breitbart, Red State etc... can also be used as they have all broken stories and are widely accepted. It's suspect that these citations are removed when the RiverFront Times is allowed to stay and when the points about this subject weren't even promoting or detracting, just historic facts. This action is what makes people hate wikipedia. Way to make everything worse. Mach7X77 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review our policy on personal attacks and consider whether you wish to retract portions of your comment above. As for your substantive concerns, I can't respond meaningfully to such broad-based accusations. You'll have to identify the specific edits that you believe were incorrect and explain why. But first I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources. These aren't my standards; they're established by a consensus of this community. If you disagree with them you're welcome to contribute your two cents at the appropriate talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policies and what I described are not personal attacks but rather pointing out your own admitted bias and the faulty nature of your edits. The Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Accuracy In Media, etc... all have long histories of professional journalism and online publication and are widely considered mainstream news sources. They meet every criteria for citation usage. I think you should reevaluate your rant editing and reintroduce the citations that you destroyed with your biased editorializing. Mach7X77 (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is neither collaborative nor helpful. Please identify the specific edits you object to and we can discuss them. That way we can understand what's in dispute and what's not. And if you were honest that you're familiar with WP:V and WP:RS and you still seriously think that Red State is a proper source here then I have no choice but to question your competence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What is neither collaborative or helpful is intentional and admitted bias being entered into a WP page and removing citations that take a page out of compliance. It is not in keeping with WP guidelines. Me agreeing with your editing bias is not me attacking you. Red State, regardless of what you or I feel about it is a news organization that is widely read and accepted that has an admitted viewpoint. That does not make it an unreliable source of information. they have broken national news stories and have been a part of the national dialogue for years. Your feelings and attributions to them as mere "blogs" belies the facts that they have paid writers, researchers and lawyers, that their stories have been used and have influence on the national news cycle by every major news outlet. Again, I strongly suggest that you leave your bias at the door and allow the factual information and accounts of this woman's work and accomplishments to stand without omission and biased word choices. Mach7X77 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that RedState is a reliable source, then I suggest you take this up on our reliable sources noticeboard and see how much support you get from the broader community. Best of luck to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is well known that most of us editors on WP are progressive in nature and despise the political right in the US but we have to admit that with all the scandals, omissions, false reports etc... for years from every news source that the criteria would be such that no news source would be listed as reliable. I find their reporting to be biased but it is an admitted bias and doesn't change the facts - only how they are presented. In order for the country to move forward and find real consensus between the sides, I think it is imperative that we give the right their due or we will die by the same sword we have unfairly used against them for all these years. Do we want a pure homogenous, leftist Wikipedia? That doesn't sit well with me. More voices means better, more honest discussion.Mach7X77 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a place for you, my friend: it's called Conservapedia. In fact, the standard applied to RedState here is the same as that applied to other sources, political and apolitical, and it has nothing to do with ideology. If you were honest when you said you had read WP:RS then you would have noticed that. Check out WP:RSN and its archives, where decisions are made about specific sources. You'll see there are plenty of conservative sources that are deemed reliable, and plenty of liberal ones that are deemed unreliable. If you are really going to cling to the notion that RedState is a reliable source then I suggest you start a discussion about it at RSN. There you will find close to unanimous consensus against you. Go ahead and chalk it up to liberal bias, and then head on over the Conservapedia for a more pleasant experience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Best selling author

The fact that Loesch's book was on Politico Bookshelf's "best-selling nonfiction political books" for a week is not a basis for describing Loesch as a "best selling author" in her lede and infobox. That's a peacock term and highly misleading. This is nothing like being on the NYT bestseller list. I would support the inclusion of this information in the paragraph about her book, but the text has to actually say what best sellers list she was on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, no fan of Loesch and certainly not her book but facts are facts. There are many "Best Seller" lists that are not the NYT which recently changed its practices from top 100 to top 50. As a book nerd and industry professional I know HOMG missed the NYT list by 500 books to Russel Brand who was in the 50 slot. In the not too distant past the book would have been a NYT "Best Seller" for weeks on end. According to scans it is still selling over 500 books a week which is alarming. I see no need to split hairs over which list it is, On the political non-fiction lists it was a top 10 and was listed as a best seller by every retailer. I concede your point about the placement in the paragraph about the book. I'm trying hard to give you some ground and cooperate. You will note that I removed the sentence about the grassroots group entirely.Mach7X77 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the "best selling" label is the most egregious WP:NPV violation in the article right now. This isn't a horsetrading show; it's a matter of making the article comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. the "best selling" label may be technically correct, but it is misleading, and placing it so prominently in the article gives it undue weight. I am tagging it; please do not remove the tag without first obtaining consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mach7X77, Thanks for removing "best selling" while this issue is being resolved. I really appreciate it. Wikipedia policy is that when there's no consensus for the addition/removal of content, we generally fall back on the content as it was before the dispute arose. If you wish to press this issue and you can't convince me that "best selling author" is appropriate (and frankly I have little hope for that), then I suggest you try dispute resolution. I think this particular case is perfect for requesting a third opinion (3O). If you wish to go that route I'm willing to assist you in setting it up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Fanpov tag March 2015

The recent addition of a series of obscure awards throughout the Career section gives the article a fan-oriented POV. Less notable awards should be omitted, and the article could use a more general balancing with negative material, which there is plenty of out there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm no fan of Dana Loesch but I am a woman. The distinctions listed are higher accolades than many which are included in other living persons biographies on WP and they go unchallenged. The idea that the awards didn't have an impact on her notoriety and rise is foolish. Further the inclusion of particular distinctions of her political persuasion may be considered by some (myself included) as negative material. It is how you view it. The facts are what they are and introduction of "negative material" invites the inclusion of actual positive material. I think the facts are what they are and are always neutral. WP practices instruct us to only include neutral facts in the spirit of consensus. Mach7X77 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what much of that means. I stand by the tag and I believe the inclusion of the large number of obscure awards gives readers the impression that we're going out of our way to puff up the piece and make Loesch look good, whether that's your intention or not. Please do not remove the tag without first obtaining consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand what that means then I cannot help you. You have already demonstrated that you don't understand the qualifications that publishers use for a Best Selling Author. Your insistance on questioning sources and adding your bias to this is beyond the bounds of working towards any consensus, it is antithetical to consensus. Much has been changed to your satisfaction and you seem to want to drive for some odd sense of dictatorial type editorial control over the page. The awards and distinctions are not obscure in any way and are central to the story of any rising media personality. Your insistence on them being obscure doesn't make Nielsen, AIM, Biz Journal etc... obscure. If you aren't wanting this to be an actual biographical page then perhaps you should start an "I hate Dana Loesch" page on facebook. The biographies of thousands of other people on Wikipedia feature far more obscure awards and distinctions as this page. Obscure would mean that they weren't journaled or heralded on many sites. Your tone is personally insulting to me and anyone who would present an accurate, thorough and fair biography and also seem to be anti-feminist in nature. There are thousands of other pages that need your immediate attention if your personal criteria that you use on this page is consistent. I have to wonder what your end-game really is here. There is no consensus for the tag and it will be removed every time you introduce your bias. If something makes a person look good or bad in YOUR EYES isn't the qualification of its inclusion or omission, facts are just facts, omission is bias and conjecture is forbidden.Mach7X77 (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of your comment seems unproductive. I only have 2 things to say:

1. These awards and distinctions are obscure for the very reason that they're not journaled or heralded on many sites. We should only be considering independent, reliable sources as others have self-interested reasons to puff up the notability of awards. This is a pretty common type of analysis all across Wikipedia. Show me the independent sources demonstrating the notability of these awards.

2. Do not remove the tag until consensus is reached. Doing so is contrary to the tag and accepted tagging procedures. The tag expressly says the article may be non-neutral, it doesn't say the article is non-neutral. I am re-adding the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Do not add a POV tag without consensus - it IS against WP practices and standards, you show me the sources and consensus that the distinctions and awards - which are factual and listed across the internet in regards to Mrs. Loesch - are somehow obscure and not journaled when they are. You are like the guy that said Loesch wasn't even notable enough to have a WP page to begin with. Ridiculous.

2. You are not the sole arbiter of what should hap[pen on this page. I have compromised for the spirit of consensus, your edits seems to be from a hateful point of view.Mach7X77 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

comment by confirmed sock of Mach7X77

Not sure what is meant by "obscure awards" when chronicling a person's rise to prominence. The awards show a shift from popular thought writing to a more conservatively focused writing. I think it's important information. I'm wondering why the Post dispatch let her go with an award winning column... Was it based on her ideas? I also find it interesting that someone would claim this is a "fan POV" when there is very unflattering information included in the biography; college dropout, banned from shows, Breitbart spirit award (not a good feather IMHO). I see no reason to flag this page. I'm ambivalent towards Loesch and this page is balanced as is. A tag like that should not be added without consensus. While I'm not a feminist by any means, I have to agree with Mach7X77 on this.Mordor2 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

TheBlaze

I'm pretty confident that TheBlaze isn't a reliable source. Here's the edit in question, which says that Loesch is of mixed Native American ancestry. TheBlaze is a very ideological outlet with no reputation for accuracy. Please remember that the party seeking to include content bears the burden of establishing the reliability of the source. This is especially important when we're talking about sensitive details in biographies of living people. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As someone who makes it a point to consume, process and journal the worst of right wing media I can assure you that TheBlaze is one of the most straight forward. Their opinion and editorial pieces are listed as such and their straight news is AP sourced like everybody else. Again, the idea that you would split hairs over source veracity on a biographical piece which references recordings of a broadcast where Loesch speaks about her own heritage speaks volumes about your perception. Further Mrs. Loesch speaks often of her Native American ancestry on her twitter feed and her radio show especially in conjunction with Elizabeth Warren's claims of Native American history. Exclusion of this information strips the reader of historical background of this subject which instructs us about their views - whether we agree or disagree with them. The reader is to decide what to make of it. I'm beginning to view your bias as hostility towards the subject and as such, I think you should excuse yourself from this editing process. As I have stated, I am no fan of Loesch or her politics but we do no good when we don't fully allow the facts of their life to be known. I read the awards and it tells me that she is a celebrated ideologue in a political circle I disagree with. Not sure how you can see that as being from a "fans POV.' The idea is ridiculous.Mach7X77 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't need any assurance from you. I need compliance with WP:RS. Reliability is evaluated on an article-by-article basis. Just because The fact that TheBlaze uses AP content for some of its articles has zero bearing on the reliability of its other articles. If Loesch writes frequently about her ancestry as you claim, then you should be able to find another source that satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF. You see, I have no problem with the content, just the source. Find a reliable source and you get to keep the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidently you have not read, nor comprehended the very simple language of the WP:RS because your combative editing. If you actually did any research you would know about Loesch's NA history, the article is completely reliable on this because it is an account of an interview with the audio of her actually saying it with her own voice. Your insistence on anything different is counterproductive and very much outside the sprit of WP.Mach7X77 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

comment by confirmed sock of Mach7X77

TheBlaze is used frequently across WP. On non-controversial points and biographical topics an article that uses the subjects very words is a fine source. If the question was the integrity of some in depth expose', then perhaps you check the source for further verification. You don't just reject it out of hand. I find the edit war here to be based on someone who ideologically despises Loesch and wants to obscure or destroy her WP page - vs - someone who ideologically despises Loesch and wants her full record to stand as reasons to despise her.Mordor2 (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC) }}

I've been unable to find any reliable sources supporting the contention that Loesch is of Native American ancestry, so I've removed this content per WP:BLPREMOVE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

SouthleftPalm, can you please explain this re-revert? I cited WP:NPV and WP:CIRCULAR -- can you please explain why these don't apply? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ping SemDem as well since they're clearly the same.--TMCk (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

about statements and classifications

this talk page and article are deeply puzzling. This woman apparently is deep in crazy conspiracy theory territory. She today accused the Clinton Family of murder (of Vince Foster) and suggested an author she interviewed would be murdered, too.

Nothing of that sort can be found in the article which portrays her as a serious conservative commentator.

If I understand the lengthy talk page right, she has a very long history of similar statements which somehow keep getting scrubbed from the article whenever they are inserted or referenced. The result is an objectively wrong and misleading Wikipedia article.

Why is that so? How do the "scrubbers" justify removing that kind of content on ongoing basis? What can we do to change this unfortunate state of affairs? Wefa (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

add a comment now? which statement got the most coverage? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wefa, I don't know about the history of this article, but if you add statements that are verifiable, neutrally presented, and sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion then I will support you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wefa, the problem with the Vince Foster comment is that, at least so far, it hasn't received coverage in by reliable, independent sources, which is what's generally expected to establish noteworthiness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr F, this just shows that the sum of many parts does not make a whole. mediamatters, dailykos, wonkette, nationalmemo and a whole batch of leftwing blogs may all not be reliable sources for Wikipedia - but the matter of Loesch's comments is, in this case, completely uncontested. This issue specifically highlights why it is such a problem that especially mediamatters keeps being excluded from the reliable sources category - even if mediamatters were partisan as hell (they aren't, but certainly not neutral either), their reputation for the factual accuracy of their sourcing is undisputed.

Wikipedia has an essential problem here - even in court you can establish facts by simply stipulating to them without contest/objection. But WP only recognizes things that the mainstream media not only considers printable but also newsworthy. Thus WP more and more becomes part of the problem instead of the solution. Wefa (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your concerns are legit, but the problem is that they assume Wikipedia must present all uncontested facts. That's not true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it only presents summaries of the facts, and that means excluding details that are deemed to be not sufficiently noteworthy or otherwise unencyclopedic. This is a policy that was set up long ago by community consensus. If you wish to convince editors that Media Matters is a reliable source, then the appropriate place is probably WP:RSN. If you wish to change the policy on encyclopedic content, the appropriate place is probably WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your conclusion errs. Wikipedia does not need to present all uncontested facts - but it should not be bound by the news media's judgment about which of these need to be presented, either, because this judgment is neither geared toward nor serves encyclopedic objectives. If Wikipedia has an article about Dana Loesch (and it has), its foremost objective should be to give an accurate picture of that person. And if Dana Loesch keeps sputtering crazy conspiracy theory and other right wing unhingedness, then Wikipedia should not portray her as a well respected conservative commentator just because her colleagues in the centrist journalism business do not think it to be newsworthy that Dana Loesch - again - conducted herself as an unhinged right wing loon (what else, apparently, is new?).Wefa (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and encouraged to add reliably sourced, noteworthy content that shows Loesch is an unhinged right wing loon--no contest there. I just object to this particular issue, which hasn't to my knowledge been covered by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. just noticed: The fact that the community around this article rejects mediamatters.org as unreliable, but keeps a lengthy quote from the NRA's "American Rifleman" is beyond bizarre.

And accepting "Accurcay in Media" as a source (currently reference nr 14) while rejecting mediamatters as unreliable also doesn't exactly exhibit sound judgment. AiM is essentially Mediamatters' conservative counterpart Wefa (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The NRA quote is used as opinion rather than fact and is properly attributed, and the AIM reference is used as a primary source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. So, can we include the mediamatters transcript of Loesch's show as primary source, too? Wefa (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If Loesch or Radio America published a transcript (not sure if they have), we could cite that transcript, but only for points that are noteworthy. The AIM award is noteworthy because it was covered by Politico. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dana Loesch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022012043/http://www.riverfronttimes.com:80/content/printVersion/952862/ to http://www.riverfronttimes.com/content/printVersion/952862/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Conservatives Against Trump

To the unregistered editor who keeps adding a sentence about Loesch's article entitled, "Conservatives Against Trump," do you have a link to the article? And could you please include an explanation of why this article is more noteworthy than any other? Even better, consider including an indepenedent secondary source talking about Loesch's article. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am now a registered editor. Here is the link to the article:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination. It was noteworthy because, as a Republican/conservative in the media, she actively worked against the nominee of her party during the primaries/election and then changed her viewpoint after the election.Marksa3 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the talk page discussion! The problems are two-fold. First, Loesch did not write an article called "Conservatives Against Trump." She contributed one short part to it of many. Second, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about a conservative speaking out against Trump during the Republican primaries. Many did. Perhaps we should simply say that Loesch opposed Trump during the Republican primary season? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Her opposition is noteworthy in that she has greater access to the media than the average conservative/Republican as a contributor on cable news channels, radio and in newsmagazines.Thus, she could have had a much greater impact on the election results. She did not vocally support Trump until he won the general election, like many in the "Against-Trump" movement. However, I will go along with your suggestion.Marksa3 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC) One more thing: It is important that those Republicans/conservatives in the media, who joined the "Against Trump" movement, be called out as such, since there was no similar movement directed at any other Republican candidate during the 2016 elections; Moreover, the Republican base should be reminded of those power brokers in the party who did decide go that extra step "Against Trump", now that Trump has won the presidency.Marksa3 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Marksa3 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does not need to "call out" anyone for anything. Doing so would be making a political statement, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. We need to steer clear of any form of political activism. Scr★pIron^IV 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Marksa3, you said you would go along with my suggestion, but then you revert back to the version ScrapIronIV and I objected to. I don't understand, please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

NRA video

I think this section reads as non-neutral and WP:SOAPBOX-y since a blockquote of the entire ad seems undue and promotional. I think this material needs to be excerpted or paraphrased, or a combination of the two. However I'm struggling to come up with an appropriate wording. Perhaps someone else can help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, don't struggle! Just leave us with more, rather than less (and probably false), information! It's a q u o t e! -lifeform (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion quoting the entire ad is not out of line in this case. It's helpful, to see exactly what Ms. Loesch said, and why there was a significant negative reaction to it. So I don't see it as non-neutral (i.e. I do see it as neutral). "P.S." In the interest of full disclosure, I happen to think that she's an idiot, and some readers of this article might agree when they read the full quote. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think what I'm trying to say is that including the full video text in the article informs the readers of her views, but does not advocate for her views in the voice of Wikipedia. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 05:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not her views. The NRA's views. She was acting as a paid spokesperson in a video produced and published by the NRA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't even think that section should be included. It is a non issue and a fake controversy. There is non-neutral and WP:SOAPBOX going on. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How is it a non-issue, or a fake controversy? It's a real controversy, according to the cited third-party references. It certainly seems worth mentioning in the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I just rewrote that entire section, here. I removed the entire block quote of the video narration. I added several quotes from critics of the video, and from Ms. Loesch. These quotes are all in the cited references. I also added two references, one from the Washington Post and one from Fox News, to add to the two existing refs, from the New York Times and Business Insider. I hope that this new version of the section will address everyone's concerns, so I've removed the "undue weight" tag. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added two more references -- from USA Today and The Wrap -- here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but seriously you put a Black Lives Matter opinion on the topic and a former Obama speech writer? That is even more non-neutral and WP:SOAPBOX. None of this belongs in an article about Dana Loesch. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what I found in the coverage from the mainstream news sources. Those people, among others quoted (including a U.S. senator) are denouncing the video, so they're not neutral about it, but the article is neutral in reporting the video controversy, based on reliable third-party references. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I've tried to find find similar third-party sources (newspapers, etc.) with quotes from notable people other than Loesch herself defending the video. I'd like to add a couple to the article. But so far I've been unsuccessful. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mudwater, I appreciate your changes, but don't we need something about what the video said? Something in between nothing and a blockquote of the entire ad. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Yes, that makes sense. I've added a description of the video, based on the sources, here. I think it's pretty good, but if you want to try to improve it, feel free. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, thanks. I think it could use some consolidation of the criticisms. I'll work on that as my time allows. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Commentary about NRA video

I attempted to remove the Black Lives Matter comment and the former Obama speech writer as they don't belong. It's non-neutral and really shouldn't be in the article. Black Lives Matter has its own contorviseral ad which actually calls for violence, so its ironic there is one of the them commenting on this ad in the first place. Let me know what you guys think, but a terrorist group and a no name shouldn't be in a article about Dana Loesch. As I said before, the other views other than these 2 are good enough. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say both should be put back. WP:NPOV dictates that the section itself be written from a neutral point of view. The section is about a video that received substantial criticism, so of course it will be about critical, non-neutral views. That's as it should be. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You really feel a black lives matter and former obama speech writer belong in this section? I'm just dumbfounded, I guess this is the state of Wikipeida in 2017, oh well. Other than that its an excellent write up..but this is too much to overlook AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. The Mackesson and Favreau comments seem somewhat noteworthy, Mackesson more than Favreau honestly, but haven't there been more noteworthy critical comments that should be used instead? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If you look through the references for the section, you'll see that the Mckesson quote is the one that's mentioned the most. Loesch also responded to it directly, though that's not currently mentioned in the article. With that said, I see no reason to remove any of the quotes. They're all mentioned in the sources and they're all by notable people. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

How about adding this into the article , goes over in detail of the 'protest' of the ad and the hypocrisy.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I am opposed. It's not about Loesch. It doesn't even mention her. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert of sourced content

With acknowledgement to the discussion above, an editor removed a quote by Loesch where she said it is "'incredibly ironic' that these groups claim to be inclusive and support free speech, when that actually couldn't be further from the truth". The editor's edit summary stated "out of scope - not about Loesch or her video". Huh? The entire third section of the article is about the Loesch video, and the entire second paragraph of that section is focused on criticism the Loesch video, where criticisms made by specific groups are included. WP:NPOV seems to suggest that Loesch's opinions should be included and are not out of scope, particularly when the quote was taken from an article titled Loesch Hits Back at Black Lives Matter & 'Discriminatory' Women's March Activists. Renaming the section "National Rifle Association video and aftermath" may reduce parochial reverts and allow the section to expand. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about this. I have to agree with the edit summary, it's not about the video. Can't we find a quote from somebody halfway respectable, besides Loesch herself, defending the video? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy if Loesch responded and defended the video or herself--but the quote I deleted wasn't that. It wasn't a defense. It was Loesch attacking ad hominem Black Lives Matters and the Women's March organizers for being exclusive and not supporting free speech. That's not about the video and it's not about Loesch. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP violations by Moosol

Moosol, please stop adding unsourced content to this article. All biographical information about living people must be sourced, or it will be immediately reverted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Partial indigenous ancestry?

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/06/18/what-the-woman-a-lot-more-native-american-than-elizabeth-warren-thinks-about-the-redskins-decision Dana Loesch says she is half Native American. You have her ethnicity as white. Spradling7500 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reliable source for this info? The Blaze is not a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Conservative news websites are not banned en toto from WP refs.

1. The Washington Redskins website hosts a clip of journalist Megyn Kelly's description of Loesch as of Nat.Am. ancestry (1 min. into video. Clip on YouTube.)
2. TheBlaze (particularly privy to what Loesch, who hosted a show for its TheBlaze TV, says about her racial make up/ ethnicities as 3/8 Nat.Am.)
3. "...my documented ancestors, one of whom died on the trail..."
4. Twitter

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I don't support her or the NRA, but I think a video of Dana Loesch in person saying she is 3/8 Native American and discussing her Cherokee background is sufficient evidence that she did in fact say those things (it should be phrased that these are her statements about her own ancestry as many people's are). I think an article written by Dana Loesch is also sufficient evidence she said those things, as are tweets from Dana Loesch's official Twitter account. I think it would be unreasonable to not accept the sources below:

1. Video of Dana Loesch personally discussing her ancestry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umv9aJWOcO8
2. Article personally written by Dana Loesch: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/08/warren-sorock/
3. Tweet from Dana Loesch's official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/618981625536212992
4. Another tweet from Dana Loesch's official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/dloesch/status/391376818403422208

--Anon 19:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done-->An applicable WP guideline is here: wp:TWITTER. Diff to previously removed text now wp:PRESERVEd is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Loesch&diff=826967454&oldid=826848427--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In this vlogpost, Loesch implies she is not enrolled in one of the three Cherokee tribes (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in NC, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in OK, Cherokee Nation in OK). With regard her mixed race, Loesch, in her book Flyover Nation (p.176), writes with regard to her (Missouri) grandfather: "... My grandfather's nickname[...]stuck with him through his life (and even in the town's phone book and on his headstone) [and was] due his beautiful golden brown skin. ..." LINK. At the start of the page, Dana's great-aunt points her to relatives' records [mostly Cherokee, forced to emigrate from Georgia to Oklahoma] with their place of deaths given as along the trail.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Dana's published book is a wp:RS

A user removed sourced material about subject's claimed ancestry (see removal's edit summary here: DIFF). Penguin Books editors, thru providing their oversight to Loesch's self-identifications within her book published by them, ensure it as solidly reliable sourcing for Wikipedia's purposes, per wp:RS. At this point the ball is in the deleter's court to address arguments for info's inclusion at this talkpage's sub-section immediately above. See wp:BRD.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the reliability of Loesch's book in this context. The issue is one of verification. Can you please identify a single reliable source that says expressly that says Loesch is 3/8 Native American? If you cannot then this material must be removed immediately. Repeated reinstatement of this content without consensus is a BLP violation that would subject you to administrative sanctions. Please obtain consensus before reinstating. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet within your Wikigamesmanship you make the bizarre claim (on my talkpage) that Loesch's self-identity "defames" her, a claim ( if it were truly genuine instead of merely laughsbly strategic(!)) would be at best laughable and at worst numbingly illogical, in its subtle implication of some type of racial bias on the general Wikipedian community's part. I do call your wp:BIAS against political consevatives, as per wp:SELFPUB, Loesch is an expert on Loesch.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You're not listening. Please provide a link to a single reliable source that says expressly that says Loesch is 3/8 Native American. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

She says 3/8 herself on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umv9aJWOcO8

Ah, I see you removed the 3/8 claim, thank you. But we still have problems here. Please identify which source says a Cherokee ancestor died on the Trail of Tears. Loesch's book only says ancestors were removed from their land during the Trail of Tears. Then there's the broader question of whether this is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Fine, so she's said she has an Irish grandfather and some Cherokee ancestors. Who cares? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And which source says Loesch has claimed some indigenous ancestry? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Listen. You can't even be some WP cabal if you're but on a one-editor crusade. Quite the contrary, sir/ma'am, Dana doesn't say her ancestors were only [? sic] removed from their land; she specifically referenced such neglectful treatment en route that ended up resulting in partial genocide. Perhaps it's true you as an individual editor "don't care" about this issue within her family history. (Perhaps even some other contributors here don't care either; see wp:SYSTEMICBIAS.) Be that as it may, what determines what may be considered noteworthy is that the subject herself can be seen to so greatly care and that journalists/book editors/opinion page editors care...including Megyn Kelly, et al., within meticulous sourcing you've decided to wholly delete instead of responsibly and conscientiously tweaking the text this sourcing supports.

1. "records show my ancestors’s losses on the Trail of Genocide" -- link D.L., July 1, 2013 opinion @ RedState
2. "My ancestors were placed on the trail of genocide by your party." --link D.L., Oct. 6, 2017 (wp:self-published) tweet
3. "[...S]ome of my ancestors were removed by [edited: the Democratic party's founder Andrew] Jackson's soldiers during the Trail of Tears. During one family reunion, a great-aunt once pointed out death records of ancestors whose untimely end was noted as being on the trail by those overseeing their brutal forced relocations. -- D.L., in Flyover Nation (2016; pp. 175-176).
4. "[...I]t was Democrat Andrew Jackson who rounded up the Cherokee and forced them away from their homes and lands on the Trail of Genocide[... ...including my documented ancestors, one of whom died on the trail[...]." --link D.L., June 8, 2012 opinion piece, Big Government (i.e., Breitbart)
   Per wp:CONSENSUS please await editor reinforcements agreeing with your exclusion of this sourced info subject believes an important component of her self-identity, counter its sourcing in ehole, or bow to the vast majority of editors in this thread who agree some material or another about her racial make-up ought stand. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice. - An editor is deleting a large block of text including its sourcing, citing an imprecise error somewhere or another therein. Minor errors require fixing or tagging. Perfection is not required; a foundational principle of the project is that it is to be built incrementally. In the current case, a single editor opposes the remainder of us within this compound thread who support verified mention of the subject's professed racial make-up. I'll go ahead and restore the text this one editor disputes, per wp:FILIBUSTER; WP:Status quo stonewalling (concerning when an editor pushes a viewpoint all other participants disagree with, blithely charging that the constructive addition violates some principle they will not deign to comprehensibly explain to their opposing disputants).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC re article mention of subject's oft reference to her indigenous ancesters' plight during forced migrations (Closed.)

The primary argument here for noninclusion has appeared to be that such mentions by the blp's subject, found accompanying political commentary published at partisan opinion platforms (Breitbart, FNC, TheBlaze, the conservative imprint at Penguin Books, her own web platforms such as on Twitter), render such sourcing wp:BIASED, therefore no such sourcing ought be resorted to within a blp. The primary argument pro-inclusion has seemed to be that, despite considerations of partisan media, within the spirit of wp:SELFPUB, a subject is a reliable source about herself.--07:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include - It seems we can WP:V that she has said this about herself, multiple times. As long as we attribute this to herself I do not see the problem. It is a WP:SELFSOURCE of sorts, but it seems important for her own narrative given the amount of times this has been repeated. Penguin Books presumably verified she wrote it.Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit of a straw man or a misunderstanding. The reliability of the Penguin Books source isn't in dispute. The trouble with that source is that it doesn't verify the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I appreciate you starting an RfC, but this format is going to confuse a bunch of editors and probably won't yield a meaningful consensus. Do you mind if I redo it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually is the RfC really necessary? The sourcing could be cleaned up a bit, but with your most recent edit I'm ok with the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Do please place the diff under question in the lede off - which I assume is this.Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand what this RfC is about. I don't have any strong objections to how this material is currently presented, so Hodgdon's secret garden, can you please either clarify exactly what material you want added in addition, or close the RfC? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, DrFleischman.  Done--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal life

An editor accidentally blanked this: Dana Loesch#Personal life [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Loesch&diff=828318100&oldid=828317908 Diff] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting me? I already said it wasn't an accident. The other editor simply moved stuff to a new section and it didn't seem like an improvement. WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply here. By continually reverting me you're just adding redundant material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Also the photo of the husband is inappropriate. The article is about Dana Loesch, not her husband. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I give up. Taken to ANI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blanking_of_article_section_Dana_Loesch#Personal_life --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)