Talk:WalkAway campaign

Should the article be deleted?
There's nothing notable about this "movement". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How come you'd heard of it, then? Chi Sigma (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you added it to the 2018 election article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at your edit history, and that's a lie. Chi Sigma (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I definitely think its notable, should not be deleted. -- Eruditess (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * You sure are biased. It’s no wonder most people don’t takes wikipedia seriously anymore.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:5CB1:1E2B:21B9:132E (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Similar to Diversity Group if black pastors
Cohen corralled the southern preachers for Trump. The similarities might be noted. Wikipietime (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Official website
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.



Francewhoa (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * "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)

This article is still relevant, even if based simply on posts on Twitter using the hashtag #WalkAway continuously Bytemaster (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia track Astroturf sites?
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.

This is a tricky area for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbannister (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. 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."

As 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

And

Reddit is not a source

As to avoid edit warring, I will refrain from editing this section until a consensus is reached here. My Wiki Alter Ego (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Two quotations with identical wording
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
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)


 * Yes check.svg Done Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead description is very misleading
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."

They wouldn't have been banned from Facebook if that's all they did. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Can we lose the sourcing to Reddit please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Relevance?
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.

139.222.148.164 (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-NPOV wording

 * It was noted and criticized for using astroturfing methods of gathering support, by counterfeiting a popular movement of people who have left the party.

It was noted by me that "noted" is a weasel word that implies objective truth. Hotpine (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hamilton 68
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.

Wikipedia should be for truth not for propaganda. 2603:7000:9340:8BDD:D891:594A:3E42:917B (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources – WP:reliable sources – for your claims? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Straka rally and attack on the Capitol.png