While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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 Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City 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
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
You must follow the
bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are
aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be
sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all
edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to
the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your
edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
I want to know why a rebuttal against walkaway has allowed an OPINION as to size and effectiveness of this movement. Walkaway is a movement, there are people who have walked away. Is Wikipedia about facts or opinions? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.5.74.106 (
talk)
01:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
"There's nothing notable about this "movement"" is an opinion and doesn't constitute ground for deletion. I landed on this page looking for objective information about #WalkAway. Removing it will create a situation when something that objectively exists is silenced on Wikipedia.
Dmitri.zimine (
talk)
02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The Walkaway campaign has 350,000 members on its Facebook page, thousands of Youtube hits, its been covered by NBC, Washington Times, Fox, CSPAN. It seems more than significant enough to at least warrant a Wikipedia page.
Publius0024 (
talk)
05:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Effect
To say that the DP's success in the midterms was an EFFECT of the WalkAway campaign is absurd. If this section should be here at all, it should be titled "Effectiveness." ANd even then, it's hard to say what the effect of the campaign actually was. Perhaps the Democrats would have taken even more seats were it not for the campaign, or not lost seats in the Senate.--
2600:1700:9580:3FF0:7449:CA44:5462:9428 (
talk)
21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This article does seem very biased. From what I can see online this a genuine campaign sincerely representing many former Democrats rejecting its move to the far left. This article seems to be written with the sole purpose of minimising the movement.
Anton Gramsci (
talk)
15:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Hard to minimize something with zero relevance. This was NOT a movement, ot was a failed GOP astroturf campaign involving maybe a few dozen people. No reason to promote it. At most, it deserves a subsection on another article.
46.97.170.78 (
talk)
13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I suggest to add an item about the WalkAway campaign's official website. How about adding this draft paragraph near the bottom of the article? With reputable sources. If someone is wondering, no I am not affiliated with the WalkAway campaign. I'm a volunteer contributor to Wikipedia.
Please add this organization's and Brandon Straka's source of finances
It is vital when talking about political organizations or movements to show sources. The financial aspects tell show truth about these groups. Please add this information to legitimize this page.
101.108.125.133 (
talk)
01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Should this article exist?
This was a subsection under
Russian web brigades and that is all it should be. Nothing justifies giving this fake astroturfed "movement" it's own article. Especially now, that the subject matter lost all significance.
46.97.170.78 (
talk)
13:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"Russian-astroturfed" hypothesis is already reflected and referenced in the article. If some people honestly expressed their experience, removing their voices on the ground of Russian/other interference doesn't appear objective or reasonable. PS. Using anonymous Romanian IP 46.97.170.78 doesn't carry sense of neutrality.
Dmitri.zimine (
talk)
02:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
From the page About: " The #WalkAway Campaign is a true grassroots movement ... ".
Saw the same claim on the Tea Party site, when it first appeared. Could not find any grass or roots, then - not a single real human associated with the site. Did find in the site markup that it was prepared by a web outfit that did jobs for the Koch organization. (This is all unsubstantiated, as at the time I did not save evidence.) Tried poking around the names offered on the site, and also not finding real folk - then and now.
Are Astroturf sites notable? Yes, as they can have significant effect. As with other propaganda sites, proof beyond doubt is (of intent) not easy.
There are some real people involved. But we should note that they show signs of being at least partially astroturfed when the reliable sources emphasize that aspect, yes. --
Aquillion (
talk)
16:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Inclusion of direct quote from Straka
This is about the inclusion of a direct quote from Straka clarifying that the $10,000 donation from Alex Jones and Info Wars was accepted and encouraged:
WalkAway received a $10,000 donation from
Alex Jones and
InfoWars.[1][2] When questioned about whether WalkAway accepted the $10,000 donation from Jones and his company, Straka replied, "Yes, we did! And we are so grateful to Alex and everyone else who has helped to contribute to the success of our campaign."[3]
As
Doug Weller points out, per
WP:REDDIT, self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.
Criticisms of this inclusion include:
i am pretty sure that using reddit comments as a source is not allowed
Don't necessarily see an issue in this case with using Reddit as a source. However I question how relevant including this quote into the article is. I see potential
WP:ADVOCACY issues here. Wouldn't it suffice to state that it has been confirmed by Straka, and using Reddit as source?
NJD-DE (
talk)
22:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
There are two sources using the words "connected to Kremlin-linked Russian bots". Evidently one is citing the other, or they are both citing a third. They should not be presented as independent. Where did this rather striking phrase actually originate?
Equinox◑05:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On January 8, 2020, Facebook closed the Walkaway group page, which had more than a half million followers at the time. The page was replaced with a message from Facebook saying the page had violated its terms of use.
change to
On January 8, 2021, Facebook closed the Walkaway group page, which had more than a half million followers at the time. The page was replaced with a message from Facebook saying the page had violated its terms of use.
Jonvah (
talk)
05:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It says "According to its website, the campaign "encourages and supports those on the Left to walk away from the divisive tenets endorsed and mandated by the Democratic Party of today."
@
Doug Weller: Good point. I've tried to improve the lede a little so as not to rely on the self-description from the campaign's website. What's still missing is context on why they were banned.
Robby.is.on (
talk)
16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That, or the description at the Facebook banning is misleading and manipulative. "when Facebook and other social media platforms increased their enforcement of terms of service that ban the incitement of violence." - unless there is proof that this movement itse≈lf is generally inciting violence (there isn't), this looks more like propaganda than anything else. "They wouldn't have been banned from Facebook if that's all they did" - you know what, next time someone complains of domestic abuse, tell her that he wouldn't have hit her if she didn't deserve it. Can you now see the absurdity of the argument you used?
2A02:2F07:D704:1C00:3872:33B:7421:5EFA (
talk)
20:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
IP6, are you suggesting that Facebook did something other than enforce their Terms of Service, in this instance? If so, do you have a reliable source supporting that assertion?
Newimpartial (
talk)
20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Is there any real relevance to this line in the 'Political Activities' section: "On September 5, the campaign held a rally in Dallas, Texas, during which a Black Lives Matter counter-protester was arrested on at least ten outstanding warrants"?
I'm not sure why this specific rally is important enough to be mentioned, let alone why a random counter-protestor being arrested is important to the article in the slightest.
Would you consider it an important incident in your life if you or someone you know gets arrested? The answer is probably yes. If not, why not?
In that same way, the detail of anyone getting arrested at any social event is an important incident in the history of the group organizing the social event. Someone getting arrested at a rock concert is worth mentioning on the band's entry. Someone getting arrested at a baseball game is worth mentioning on the stadium's entry. Someone getting arrested at a sermon is worth mentioning on the church's entry. The Westboro Baptist Church entry contains two incidents of arrests for nonviolent activity and one incident of arrest for violent activity.
2600:1012:B126:E6A0:BDE1:9AD7:671A:4F6C (
talk)
18:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is so much disinformation in this entire article. How about to start, there was at least 1000 people at the rally in Beverly Hills in October 2020.
206.251.77.125 (
talk)
21:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It was noted and criticized for using astroturfing methods of gathering support, by counterfeiting a popular movement of people who have left the party.
Really inappropriate to use claims made by Hamilton 68 as evidence of Russian influence given that Hamilton 68 has been exposed as a misinformation campaign popular with security state war criminals to smear marginalized voices.
Very traumatic for Libyan people victimized by western aggression (I have lost many family to Western War criminals) to edit the page for accuracy and then to have a western person change it back to support war criminal propaganda.