Talk:Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality

Breitbart
Breitbart News commented on this event. This media organization and their views are fundamental to current US government policy. I would argue that their perspective is necessary to include in this article, because this event is to a great extent a response to Breitbart's perspectives.

and and IP editor have removed the Breitbart info without explanation. I restored it. Why does anyone object? Is this not relevant?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  00:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't normally participate in Talk pages, but I edited Breitbart out because it is a fear-mongering website for right-wing reactionaries, not a news source. There are no basis for their claims in the news media that come from outside their own circle. We don't need more misinformation on net neutrality, even if it comes as an "opinion". Sirkh1 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how familiar you are with United States politics, but former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon is currently a senior advisor to the United States president. You call Breitbart a "fear-mongering website for right-wing reactionaries", but actually, some people say the ideology from Breitbart guides United States government policy like this one on net neutrality. If Breitbart were a WP:FRINGE view then I would say exclude this, but actually, I think they are one of the leading commentators in this particular discussion. I will leave this issue because I see your point, even if I am not convinced.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

AT&T
Didn't AT&T lied about supporting net neutrality? KPCSans (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So what was it?
This article still has the feel of an ongoing news event, but by now it is history. For example: "The group called it "the largest online protest in history",." One group!?…as if some drunk proclaiming his is the biggest...yawn. The claim that it was huge (and influential) really is it's claim to fame, and we need some perspective on this. As a casual observer; many are making that claim, nobody denies it. Also, what happened?…Who was affected and how, if anybody? Why are only corporate perspectives and not the powerful political perspectives and influences even mentioned? Yes these are covered in the main article, but Wiki guidelines suggest every article must be self contained, not a fragment (this includes "lazy hypertext" sloppy writing).

Gentle reminder: The Wikipedia definition of encyclopedic style is not "dry and boring." --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:8D35:860E:3EE3:5056 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

We need more support!
Our Way of Net Neutrality is still in danger!

We need more supports from other companies such as YouTube, Comcast, Xfinity, Time Warner, uTorrent, Disney, and any other companies and distributors you can think of! --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Student Evaluation
Aside from conversations about how to represent the topic much of the conversation on this page is about verifying the credibility of certain sources and information. There are debates as to why certain sources were taken off and both involved parties in the conversation give their reasons as to why they thought they were right but respected each other's opinion. There are also those that question the credibility of information in the article, such as whether AT&T really supported Net Neutrality or if this event was as impactful as it leads on to be. --GrantMcdermo (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)