This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Am I missing something here? The article states, "She has described herself as being "pro-white nationalism" and a "proud Islamophobe". The linked footnotes c and d then go on to state every one _else's_ description of Loomer, i.e. everyone other than herself. So I could be generous and say that this was an overlooked grammatical error, but I created this new topic because this is nothing more than political bias passed off as encyclopedic knowledge. At a _minimum_, the Wiki statement should be revised to say that, "Many people describe Loomer as..." I don't know this Laura Loomer person, but because I saw news articles on her, I navigated to her Wiki article, and that was a mistake. What I found was an opinion hit piece, not unbiased encyclopedic work, so I can't trust the rest of the article. What has Wikipedia devolved to? Maybe Wiki should stay out of politics... Way to go, Wiki... 67.60.105.162 (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a serious remark. Many of the provided references quote Loomer on these two points, and tell us where the quotes came from. -- M.boli (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide the relevant quote? I read through the NPR article and their referenced material and haven't been able to find any source where Laura Loomer has described herself as a "pro-white nationalist". 71.28.168.77 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the 'self-described' quote that I found in the Forbes article - Loomer, who is Jewish, has openly called herself a “proud Islamophobe” who supports “pro-white nationalism.”
That quote is not Laura Loomer's - it is Sara Dorn's.
Am I still missing something? Please copy and paste _Laura Loomer's_ self-described identity as a white nationalist, and provide a link to that source. Thank you. Keplic (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loomer, who is Jewish, has called herself a “proud Islamophobe” who supports “pro-white nationalism.”. The quotes are Loomer's words. Dorn is quoting Loomer. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the "pro-white nationalism" quip was uttered by Loomer in an interview conducted by Brett Stevens's neo-Nazi Amerika.org podcast "Nationalist Public Radio". It sounds bizarre, but I'm not making this up] [1][[2]. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks to your reference, Bri, this link is the closest I have found as Laura Loomer being "pro-white nationalism":
(I can't seem to find the original audio or a transcript from the Brett Stevens podcast itself.) So to whoever has editorial control over this article, all of the footnoted sources purportedly proving this allegation about Laura Loomer should be removed and replaced by the one above. Up to now, the sourcing method used would be akin to Wiki stating as a fact that Kamala Harris is a self-described "chameleon on policy positions", as proven by an assertion from both Joe Rogan and Fox News that "Kamala Harris is a self-described chameleon on policy positions", without providing the underlying source of their allegations.
@Keplic:, I don't think we should use angrywhitemen.org as a source. It looks like a blog w/o editorial control. Other sources have done their own consideration of the statements on the record and we are relying on them. Daily Beast is one of the two sources currently used in the article, and you might be able to challenge it specifically – see WP:DAILYBEAST. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thread is a unserious excursion away from reality.
"Pro-white nationalist". The NYT reported this quote in its own reportorial voice, meaning they are reporting it as fact. Yes the Times noted the "pro-white nationalism" comment was "brought to light in 2021 by a blog called Angry White Men that tracked white supremacy movements," but the Times article did not they relied on the blog's reporting. It is trivial to find the recording yourself here. A reliable news source reported it, we can even check ourselves if we want. If the quote is appropriate for the article there are no sourcing objections to using it.
"Proud Islamophobe" tweet has also been reported by reliable sources. Apparently the tweet been deleted, but if you want to check you can find contemporaneous publications which contained the tweet (now broken) and accompanying text quotes. (This is why linked-to tweets are often accompanied by a text transcript.)
Wikipedia is working as it should. These two quotes are in the lede because they are reliably sourced accurate characterizations of two important aspects of Loomer's notability. In other words, the "proud Islamophobe" quote is in the lede not because she tweeted that once, but because Islamophobia is a main component of what made Loomer famous. It wasn't an errant meaningless one-off, it was an accurate self-characterization of herself, backed up by a lot of reportage and reference.
This whole thread is way off track. Wikipedia is working as it should. The article accurately states two reasons for Loomer's notability, sourced by reliable sources and illustrated with her own quotes. -- M.boli (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! The original source of Laura Loomer's self-described "pro-white nationalism" quote has been un-earthed. Thank you, M. boli. The link to that recording is what should be footnoted, while the seven second-hand links should be removed. Why I am being such a stickler on this? Because this is a politically charged topic, and the media's assertion (from either side) of a fact can not be trusted - we must drill down to the underlying source. Otherwise, this practice is tantamount to allowing hearsay evidence in a courtroom instead of putting the original source witness on the stand. I value Wikipedia, and am just trying to keep it honest. Thank you for your service. Keplic (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
