Talk:Daily Kos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Armando Issues

That section of the article really needs to be cleaned up. I have no issue with the content, but as of right now, it is a personal narrative, which is highly relevant, but isn't quite encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyduva (talk • contribs)

• There was some discussion of this before, and it's a controversial subject. I'm staying out of the regular page itself, because as a Kossack, I know too much about the nature of this battle, and do not feel I could be NPOV. From what I can tell, the individual who started this stuff was either an individual banned from Kos for spreading Armando's information in retaliation for posting a diary that used certain dubious sources (the whole Jason Leopold-Truthout-Fitzgerald-Karl Rove thing had highlighted the problems with using dubious sources, and this individual's diary, which made the recommended list, used even more dubious sources that were based on completely inaccurate findings and events. Armando responded to that, and the individual responded by finding and posting Armando's information. After he was banned for doing so, it seems that the individual came over here and posted the information. After this, someone (the individual?) alerted a blogger over at NRO, who posted it. The story itself is a result of one individual's malicious actions at anger over being banned. There was actually a discussion of this mess before, where I questioned what criticism there had been. All of that, along with the individual's talk pages, have been blanked by the person in question. The BLP issues are still being resolved, and need to be resolved, because the purpose of these edits was of malicious intent. Jlove1982 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it would be inappropriate to reveal Armando's identity on this page because (1) he wishes to remain anonymous, and (2) his personal info is not encyclopedic in an article about this web site. That said, I think it's important to mention him, and mention the controversy. I believe the current version ([1]) handles that quite well. I also think that the additional "Critics point to" sentence would be inappropriate, because it doesn't source what critics say this. Sarah crane 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Considering the, Sarah's edits, in my mind, are quite acceptable. Armando is notable enough to be mentioned in the way DarkSyde or others are in the page, but not his personal information. The criticism part is not appropriate for the reasons you mentioned, in the lack of sourcing into who these critics are or if they exist beyond the first person. Jlove1982 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your current article is clearly false and unverified. It reads:

"Deriving from incidents of his own self-identification during appearances on NPR and other outlets"

This is FALSE. I did NOT self identify. You have NO evidence of this. As the person who knows, I am the only possible source.

"his name and other details were published in venues including publications of Stanford University, this wiki, and the conservative National Review."

This is false. There was ONE Stanford online publication, for a legal conference in April 2005. It has been a dor mant site for over a year. It led to no one knowing or publishing the information. It did NOT list my clients or provde a link to my firm. It is a dormant untrafficked link that no one would see UNLESS they were looking to out me.

This WIKI was used by a malicious troll to post completely irrelevant information and now that malicious act is used to justify the disseminaion?

"As a lawyer, Armando is concerned that ethical issues would arise if he were to continue blogging while representing nationally-known companies including Wal-Mart"

This is completely fabricated. I never wrote that and I do not believe it.

Finally, if I am notable, surely it is not SOLELY for being outed. If this is supposed to be my daily kos obituary, the obituary write needs to be fired. I am notable mmostly for being a jerk. Even the most nota ble aspect of this occurence is not covered - the malicious outing of me by a troll and by NationalReview.

This article is simply not even close to being worthy.

The article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

Sorry. I don't know how to use your system and am only concerned with mentions of me. Full disclosure, I think and thought for a very lon g time that this is just the type of thing Wikipedia can not do well and what will cause you problems forever. You need to avoid these subjects, particularly as they are really of no importance in the big picture.

Armando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

• • Being one of the most prominent bloggers on one of the most prominent political blog sites is notable, I would think. Blogs had a big impact on the 2004 election and will likely have a growing impact on future political events, don't you think? Current events always get more attention here, but I am sure our editors can add more information of past activities, where perhaps an Armando diary entry broke a major story in the past. Any suggestions? NoSeptember 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm relatively unfamiliar with the system here, but can anybody demand that his entry be fashioned a certain way? If Charles Manson wished to have his entry focus exclusively on his association with the Beach Boys, would you have to follow his wishes? Responsible parties here are being bullied by this loser and his attempt to become a martyr by karping about his "outing," which he effectuated himself over a year ago. If this guy wants to whitewash history he should do it on his own time (or, it seems, WalMart's) and not on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.127.230 (talk • contribs)

NOTE TO ALL EDITORS: The initial entry made on this controversial topic was reviewed by two wiki administrators, deemed to meet wiki standards of being from reputable sources including NPR, and was allowed to remain up on wikipedia. Since that time a National Review printed an article and took note of the revert war on wiki over the issue. This matter has now been sent to the wiki foundation for review -- PLEASE NO MORE EDITS until they decide how to proceed. This is a very controversial and emotional issue for all involved and its best to give this some time and let cooler heads review matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

From Armando: As the insulting editor's comment provided just above clearly indicates, this article is not posted on Wiki due to anything notable, but rather as a continuing vendetta against me. The clear evidence is presented by that comment. The smear is what they want.

And let's be clear, the National Review noted nothing. Persons with a vendetta against me have been shopping this non-story for two weeks. National Review noted nothing. Persons with an axe to grind, possibly this editor, sent this to the National Review, which only took interest when it was struck with, in its own words, "Kos fever."

Is it not notable that before this outing smear campaign commenced there had never ever been any interest to post an article about me or my personal situation in this Wiki, or ANYWHERE for that matter?

You'll excuse me but what might make for a notable article is one discussing thw use of Wiki to carry out personal grudges.

I submit that the editor's comment above makes it clear that Wikipedia should delete ALL references to me. Otherwise it will be ave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

NOTE TO ALL EDITORS: The initial entry made on this controversial topic was reviewed by two wiki administrators, deemed to meet wiki standards, and was allowed to remain up on wikipedia. Since that time, National Review printed an article and took note of the revert war over the issue. This matter has now been sent to the wiki foundation for review -- PLEASE: NO MORE EDITS -- until they decide how to proceed. This is a very controversial and emotional issue for all involved and its best to give this some time and let cooler heads review the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

How do we know it's being reviewed by the foundation? And who are you? (You didn't sign.) The foundation can protect the page if they think it's important, but the page isn't protected, so your call for no more edits seems to be just you opinion. Sarah crane 20:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why revert back to the current version? Accurate info re: Stanford, NPR, etc. has been left off. Maybe next we should have a Neil Armstrong entry that doesn't mention he walked on the moon. It's a shame that you're letting this Armando guy dicate what's allowed to be said about him. If that's the rule, then I'm sure there are more than a few folks who'd like a crack at writing their own histories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.127.230 (talk • contribs)

There's still the issue of the malicious intent of these edits. Neil Armstrong's moon visit was a public event. Armando's personal life and work is not. Armando the blogger is notable to the dKos community, but his actions outside of that are not, in particular his clients. The intent of making these edits was to discredit Armando in the dKos community (which backfired), and to bring about the sort of contention that was brought about as a result. Anything involving National Review occurred as a result of actions taken here as a result of the actions of someone who used certain edits for their own purpose. Therefore, the controversy is notable, but his personal life is not. Jlove1982 22:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jlove, this is patently absurd. I recognize your allegiance to this fellow as a "Kossack" (your term above, not mine) but this is not an Armando Llorens-Sar testimonial website. Of all six billion people on earth, I fail to see why this one should have the power to write his own history on this website. This controversy resulted in the number one search on Technorati, and thus has become a public event. To the Wikipedia community at large, this is a test of your credibility. This project was started precisely to remove the writing of history from the hands of a few powerful editors. If you place this power squarely in the hands of the people who are written about, you've actually taken a step backwards from the Encyclopedia Brittanica days. And to Armando himself below, you state that "The current version is unacceptable to me." In short, tough luck. Surely there are thousands who feel their representation on this site is subpar. If you're so certain you've been wronged, why not let the facts be discussed openly and allow readers to make up their own minds? How very illiberal of you.

Actually, it's not absurd. I have stated my own status as a member of the Daily Kos community and of this one, which is why I refuse to edit on the page itself unless it's something non-controversial (you'll see I made an edit to add Harry Reid after Harry Reid posted on Kos... as Reid did post on Kos, this is not controversial in any way). I believe in the nonpartisanship of this project. At the same time, the edits made in the beginning and in the aftermath were not made to do so. The edits were not notable initially, and they only became notable because they were posted here. The individual spreading the information has a vendetta with Armando because of a horribly sourced article and a banishment. Armando did not dissemnate his information (save for a few pages that until recently, one would have to be looking incredibly hard through Google to find). That, last I checked, is original research. So that's my issue. The controversy should be acknowledged, as that has become a public event because of NRO and Technorati. However, Armando's work and clients, beyond a mention that he happens to be a lawyer in Puerto Rico (as it is mentioned at Swords Crossed), should not be. The edits were made to cause controversy, and nothing more. Finally, I'm not saying that Armando should have the right to dictate what's here. If any of us did, that would be a problem. But the edits themselves were based on original research. The controversy is one thing; the edits themselves are another. Jlove1982 22:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Armando did not dissemnate his information (save for a few pages that until recently, one would have to be looking incredibly hard through Google to find)." At least you admit that he "outed" himself. You might claim the "outings" were hard to find, but you nor he can plausibly deny that the original information--regardless of how obscure--came from Armando himself. And I'll note as a logical conclusion that the information couldn't have been that hard to find, because someone found it. Finally, I dispute on your implication that only "non-controversial" information can be included on Wikipedia. The proper way to proceed is to reference the controversy and provide all facts related to it, not to censor it.

Can someone explain to me why personal information for Bill is allowed here, but the Armando information is not? What kind of dog Bill has can't possibly affect his status as a contributor. The only difference looks to be that Bill doesn't mind his info being here, and Armando does, in which case I was not aware Wikipedia instituted a new policy of unilateral self-authorization of entries. I'll bet there are plenty of facts George Bush and Bill Clinton and O.J. Simpson would like to strike from their entries as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.127.230 (talk • contribs)

Bill's information does not reveal his personal identity. It's part of the personality that makes Cheers and Jeers so. Armando's is designed to discredit him in the community, using nonnotable information found through original research that only became notable because of its placement on this site. The only reason it is notable is that the edits made here were picked up by National Review's Media Blog as the result of an email. So, in effect, it's letting malicious edits turn into self-perpetuating notability The edits are the notability themselves; not what they say. In fact, while the edits are notable, what they say is not. "Outing" an individual goes who does not want to be outed (and until recently, you had to dig a great deal to out Armando) goes against everything in the blogosphere on both sides of the political spectrum. If Bill was outed in this same way, I would be here defending his right to privacy. It only became notable because of the edits made. Armando the blogger is notable; Armando the lawyer is not. Jlove1982 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version is unacceptable to me. As jlove stated, the whole issue of the malicious intent and the dormant and temporary nature of the Stanford webpafe is NOT mentioned. If Stanford deletes the page will the reference be deleted? This is truly ridiculous. Can soneone inform me if this is the last version and has it been approved by the final arbiter? I need to know this in order to determine my course of action here. sarah Crane's comment is important. Who made the last edit? Can I reedit now?-Armando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

Armando, it is highly recommended that you do not edit the article yourself, per Wikipedia's autobiography guidelines. You are welcome to bring concerns here to the talk page, but try to be brief, specific, and avoid personal attacks. Editors here may not agree 100% with your concerns, but please assume their good faith with respect to Wikipedia guidelines and neutral point of view policy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung - this is the same advice I gave Armando, except I would note that WP:AGF does not mean ignore bad actions, like, for instance, the disruptive edit warring, violations of WP:POINT and other various actions that anonymous or red-name editors have engaged in. Participants here must read and abide by WP:LIVING. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With specific attention paid to the section entitled "Critics - Malicious editing" which reads "Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but I don't think we can assume that the Foundation will agree that verifiable and relevant information can be kept out of the article. This is a particular problem with persons who wish to remain pseudonymous, because their pseudonymity can become part of the story, and thus notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from a stupid blog slapfest, how does disclosing the real name of Armando (Blogger) have a "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability," beyond mentioning that there was a blog slapfest about the real name of Armando (Blogger) that led to him quitting? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. If you want to argue with someone, do that with someone who has made the specific arguments that bug you. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I remember hearing Armando on NPR some time ago and I thought I remembered them introducing him by his full name and not just "armando". I just double-checked and found that the show was Morning Edition, they said his full name, that he's an attorney, writes for Daily Kos, ect. I would imagine that a national show such as Morning Edition would have a pretty big audience. CountCheerio (user has no contributions aside from this talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. Note that we're not unaware of the NPR issue, we're undecided (as a group) how to handle it. Please sign comments on talk pages, using four tildes, so we know who's commenting. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I accept the truce for a few days, even though the wrong version of the article is frozen. However, — if any revisions are deleted without explicit action from ArbComm or the Foundation, the deal is off, as far as I'm concerned. I also think that Hipocrite has misstated the issue. His real name is relevant to the issue of why he (claims to have) quit the blog. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE: No More Edits Pending Wiki Review

There was a wiki article made under Armando's full name and contained the controversial information (which was the one referenced in the National Review article). If you review that history, you will find that wiki administrator Guettarda edited the original article, but left in the controversial material. Over the next two weeks Guettarda and another wiki administrator, Duncharris, reverted back to the Guettarda edit several times after attempts were made to delete the article. Then, because of complaints, Guettarda took down the article and requested that no one make any more edits or additions until the wiki foundation has an opportunity review the matter. It is my understanding that this usually only takes a few days -- so let's let the foundation do their job

It is 10:38 EST. The current version is acceptable to me and no further changes should occur.

I hope the person who is posting the "No More Edits" admonition follows his own advice. We will see if he does. I predict he will not.

-Armando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

I've advised AlphaSnail to request protection for this page, rather than revert war. It is also incorrect to state that the page is under the review of the Foundation; if so, the WP:OFFICE procedure would be followed. Nobody editing this article, so far as I know, speaks for the Foundation. --Dhartung | Talk 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that wiki admin Guettarda had asked the foundation to look into this, but didn't want to freeze the whole page over just one small section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

Then Guettarda should come and tell us that. You should not speak on behalf of him or the foundation. It's far better for you to seek consensus on this matter, as a fellow editor, than to argue from authority you don't have; trust me. If consensus does not work, there are administrative procedures available which may be pursued transparently. --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I fully endorse the current version, and apologize to Dhartung for assuming he was arguing for the inclusion of the name. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Having gotten involved in the dispute, I can't speak as an uninvolved party. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, if anything. If consensus can't be reached, then some form of mediation should be tried (including page protection, if that's needed). I lack the appearance of neutrality here, and I don't think I should be the one to ask for informal mediation (though I recommend against the MedCab, since most of the people there are inexperienced - we need someone experienced to sort this one out). Guettarda 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we agreed that we're in a Wikipedia:Truce state, then? That at least lets us all take a deep breath. My personal thinking is that the content of this article depends on the outcome of the deletion proposal. If the article survives, it will be very difficult to argue that the section here should remain coy. If the article does not survive, then we have three options -- inclusion of the identity issue (which would present similar problems to the AFD), nothing on the identity issue, or roughly what we have now which is an outside pointer. We could try to reach consensus at that point, or seek out WP:RFC as a first step. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not Content For Review. If that article survives, I will move it to the appropriate title (Armando (blogger)) and rewrite it for encyclopedic content (#REDIRECT Daily Kos). Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Do you also propose to move Markos Moulitsas Zúniga to Kos (blogger)? Simon Dodd 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That policy has no application here; YOU raised the point that you were planning on moving the content. I was simply replying to your point; there is no good reason for the change you advocate.Simon Dodd 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"It may be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they object to." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, Hipocrite, he was clearly stated his point as analogy. A violation of WP:POINT would be actually moving the article (or the example here where someone deleted the Bill in Portland Maine material). Simon was merely asking if you were serious. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Whether he was serious, and if so, why, I'd add - questions that Hipocrite is thusfar quite artfully avoiding answering. Simon Dodd 01:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP reads "Malicious editing: Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Such has not been demonstrated with the inclusion of the name of Armando (Blogger), or the client list of a not-notable lawyer. Actual malice, on the other hand, has been demonstrated in spades. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems possible that there has been actual malice; however the real name (or at least the real identity) of the blogger is relevant to the reason he (claims to have) quit the blog. It should be noted that Wiki review was apparently requested on June 14 -- allowing one week for review seems reasonable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should get this all settled in mediation or, preferably, by the foundation itself asap. I think, in the meantime, the page should be frozen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

The Revert Wars start again. Wikipedia is outed in the New York Times today. DELETE this diary ---- Armando

Application of WP:BLP

Before anyone goes ahead and edits the section on Armando off of it's truce state, please be certain to follow the rules explained in WP:BLP - specifically, two sections "Non-public figures" ("editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used. In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm.") and "Malicious editing" ("If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.")

I do not believe the full name of Armando is relevent to his notability, nor is his client list, or who he works for. That his name was revealed is notable (and mentioned). Perhaps that his client list was revealed, and that some believed there were conflicts of interest (if such can be found from a non-primary source, which I do not believe can be done yet). To endanger a man's liveleyhood is doing harm, and the rule of thumb is do no harm. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not convinced that printing his name here will do any harm, but we should err on the side of caution. The only notable thing is that his name was revealed; the name itself adds nothing to the article. The conflicts of interest were alleged by the National Review and can be mentioned without printing the names of his clients. Also, there also needs to be a clarification of when his name was first revealed and how it got to the National Review. Maximusveritas 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Maximusvertias's first sentence above, but the fact that he is a lawyer and the problem may relate to "outing" the identity of his clients (also, without naming them) is relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, this is an article about Daily Kos and the subject at hand no longer writes for Daily Kos and has left public life in general as a political commentator. His departure from Daily Kos should fundamentally change about how we view the content of this entry. With this change in the dynamic, I think this section should be short and not explore all the many controversial issues that have bandied about. Plus, I think if it is kept short and vague there will be fewer lightening rods that will create future revert wars. I would propose this (which is very similar to what is up now):

Armando was a front-page diarist at DailyKos that took a prominent role during Moulitsas' book hiatus in 2005 and was well respected for his foreign policy and legal analysis. He also had his own political blogging website, Swords Crossed, and was a guest political commentator in a wide variety of media outlets, including The Majority Report and Talking Points Memo Cafe. After his offline identity and details of his legal career were made widely known by a National Review Online article, he announced his departure from Daily Kos in June 2006, citing loss of anonymity.--AlphaSnail 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to cover everything relevant that I remember from the (A L-S) article before it was deleted. I'd like to see it again to be sure, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It fails to mention that Armando willingly submitted the info for public consumption on several occasions, among them for a conference at Stanford University and during an NPR radio appearance. Without this information any reference to the controversy is utterly incomplete and will owe to a caving to his biased wishes. If there's some objection to including it, at the very least the reference to the NRO "outing" (absurd in that he "outed" himself some time earlier) should include a hyperlink to the actual NRO blog entry in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.11.246 (talk • contribs)

I was cognizant of this concern when writing it and that's why I chose the words "made widely known" in relation to the NRO article. The main thing is that I think it should be very short and if we start qualifying everything its going to become too long. --AlphaSnail 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I boldly made this the live version - however, I have POV concerns with "well respected for his foreign policy and legal analysis," and would like more input/rewording on that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Either "well respected on the site for his..." or just "known for his posts on foreign policy and the law" or something like that? -- Superdosh 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from "well respected" to "well known." Also, since mention of National Review is apparently inviting further exploration of that article in question, I took out the reference to that article. --AlphaSnail 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he (in real life) is a lawyer is relevant, as he (as a blogger) is "known for ... legal analysis". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

good point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that those who hate me have lost the Deletion review they will start to edit my description here. I think it isimportant to note who those persons are and I think they should be banned from your editing and admin process.--Armandoatdailykos 17:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The result of that debate was to MERGE. That means the info is kept, not deleted. Thumbelina 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. The result was a redirect. The article no loner exists. To wit, it was deleted.--Armandoatdailykos 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Lost the Deletion review"? I was unaware that AfD was a competition. By the way, I didn't "hate" you when I first encountered the AfD (indeed, was blissfully unaware of your existence), but your actions in that AfD and Talk:Armando (blogger) has made me recalibrate my opinion. –Dicty (T/C) 18:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please post your full name and your employer. I will then harass them. If you can remain level headed after such, we'll discuss your requirement that people remain level headed when such happens to them. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[There was a comment here to make a point. It is no longer germane to the discussion and can be found in the history.]
— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is reflective of the fact that you never hace understood what this was about - a vindictive and malicious vendetta against me. It was precisely a competition. It is a significant problem for wikipedia that such "competitions" have to occur. Until Wikipedia wakes up from the nonsensical attitude you exhibit its reputation will continue to go down.--Armandoatdailykos 22:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not buy your interpretation of the events, but this has gone on long enough. Feel free to have the last word. Just, don't insert your last word arbitrarily in the page so that the flow of conversation is broken. Help:Talk page#Formatting has hints on how to format your responses. –Dicty (T/C) 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I could give a rat's behind of what you think. The Wiki Admin resolved this issue. This has been hashed out. You support rehashing it all again here? That's your idea of putting it behind us?--Armandoatdailykos 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Armandoatdailykos, please be reminded that unless you are speaking of Jimbo Wales or Danny, and I do not believe you are, there is no one person with the authority to "resolve" an issue permanently. Please remain civil and understand that Wikipedia operates by consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Armando has given a lot of specifics about himself in his posts. If you type into Google "Armando Perto Rico attorney", you immediately get the names of a few Armando's from Puerto Rico who are lawyers.

When you Google the first, you come immediately to the January 2005 archives of Majority Report identifying Armando as a guest-blogger on DailyKos. A bit further down in the Google results is a post on tacitus.org from September 2005, referring to Armando as a "solid Deaniac". And the next result after that is a Speaker List from the Bay Area Technology Conference April 2005 which identifies Armando as a Guest Blogger on DailyKos, mentions the name of his law firm, and details his legal education.

Further Google searches on "Armando " and the name of his law firm, provide yet more information about him. None of this takes amazing Google skills or more than about two minutes of time.

In short, Armando's identity was put "out" there by Armando himself at least 18 months ago. He may not have widely advertised his actual name on this site, but he also wasn't going to any trouble to keep it a secret, either. Indeed, he was freely divulging his identity in other contexts, when it suited him.

Armando now says there is an ethical problem created by his name being put out there, and posts a "Good-bye cruel world" suicide diary here on DailyKos. If is actually the case that the divulgence of his name causes professional/ethical problems for him, his firm, or his clients, he might have thought of that 18 months (or longer) ago, when he started to put his name out himself. But since he doesn't mention what those ethical problems are, one is entitled to doubt it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thumbelina (talk • contribs) 2006-07-03 20:34:57 (UTC)

This issue has been fully hashed in the Rfd on this. The Admin decided to redirect and NOT include theinformation about my name. You continue to revert when this has been resolved. I'll play dumb and not question your motives. But stop including my full name.--Armandoatdailykos 04:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll proposal

Thanks everyone for continuing to observe civility and faith in other editors during this contentious period. It is my impression that there is a provisional consensus on the DK page to endorse the current Armando section. Most of the contrary edits have come from editors who have not participated in Talk. Some of the editors on the Armando article, however, do have different opinions. I think that it's important that we reach consensus on what the final form of the section will be, now that the deletion review has closed for the separate Armando article. See also discussion at Talk:Armando (blogger). My proposal is that we run three separate straw poll questions stated in the following manner for "support" or "oppose" responses by individual editors. It is my determination that these are issues with potentially separate resolutions, and that by breaking it down we are more likely to reach a consensus on each individually.

• First question: The real name of Armando should be included. (Support/Oppose)
• Second question: The link to the NR blog "outing" Armando should be included. (Support/Oppose)
• Third question: Specific information about Armando's employer and clientele should be included. (Support/Oppose)

Note: This is not an actual survey. It is a proposed wording. Offer comments on the form, wording, or number of questions. It is probably not helpful to state your position at this time.

A straw poll is not a vote, but an effort to weigh editorial positions and seek consensus. The effort to seek consensus by straw poll is an attempt to avoid a more protracted resolution via, for example, the arbitration committee. The relevant policies should be reviewed by all editors: verifiability, citation, reliable sources, biography, and particularly biographies of living persons. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

However this ends up getting done, the inclusion of those things do not violate any of the relevant policies. At the very least, the "outing" information should absolutely be included, and while I felt the other information was relevant to Armando's article, community consensus was overwhelmingly clear that he doesn't need his own article, so I feel no real huge reason to fight that battle here as no one other than the involved parties at Armando's article seemed to care. Armando has appeared under his real name with a Kos association a number of times, and plenty of references can be seen at the history of his article, so the issue as to whether they fall within the necessary policies shouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please confine your comments at this time to the form of the straw poll. Thanks for your cooperation. --Dhartung | Talk 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to have a straw poll when all the info isn't out there, so now it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This straw poll proposal is problematic in the extreme. This whole process repeats what has just occurred. It is troubling me to see it pop up again here.

Moreover, questions 2 and 3 are simply outrageous. If the "outing" is to be discussed, then it should be fully discussed. And I wrote extensively on the subject giving the full chronology. By asking about on aticle instead of the whole situation Dhartung is not properly stating the issue in any respect.

Here is a survey question - Should Wikipedia be the vehicle for malicious articles designed to make a non-notable person notable? Becasue that is EXACTLY what happened. dhartung would have it that the outing saga began with NRO, It did not. It began with the malicious abuse of Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia prepeared to take full responsibility for its neglectful system? I Dhartung prepared for that straw poll?

Questions 2 and 3 are poorly presented, misleading and just not acceptable.

Finally, what it the precedent for the continued reopening of these questions? What is the purpose? Why is this occurring?

Is this something only the Fondation can fully resolve? Is that what is to be gleaned here?--Armandoatdailykos 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Armandoatdailykos, I fully understand that a) you are new to Wikipedia and b) that your concern is this matter and this matter alone. I ask you, nevertheless, to understand that Wikipedia operates by consensus, and that depends on a mutual good-faith assumption. I did not think you would be happy with my proposal, but if there are no other opinions forthcoming, I am willing to accept that the editors of this article are in consensus about the present wording, without any further discussion. I don't think that solves things for you in the long run, which a permanent consensus could have, but it's the best that any of us, as individual editors, can offer: trying to work toward a solution. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by permanent consensus? Is what happened before not a permanant consensus by Wikpedia standards? Do you honestly believe there is something more to say about this that has not already been said?

It seems clear to me that it is disrespect for the exisitng consensus that must be driving your desire to push this further. I suggest that if you want to do this, let's just go to the final arbiter and, with due respect, cut through the crap.

Because I will appeal a decision to include that information. LEt's cut to the chase if we must.--Armandoatdailykos 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I have received only negative or off-topic responses, and we now have an open request for mediation, the straw poll is withdrawn. --Dhartung | Talk 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting away policy

We cannot vote away policy. I think it's fairly clear that Armando considers the information to be potnetially damaging to him. Consequently, as per WP:BLP, it should not be in Wikipedia. There is no compelling reason to include the information. Even if he didn't consider it harmful, its inclusion would be marginal. So there are three options - Armando can take this to Danny, we can take it to the arbcomm, or people can stop acting like stubborn teenagers and just drop the matter. Shall we vote on this? Guettarda 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No one's voting away policy. To use a term I've seen elsewhere, there's a lot of handwaving about how information X, Y, or Z violates BLP, but no one has yet been able to demonstrate how, given the easy, reliable, third party sourcing. Community consensus is that he doesn't deserve his own article, so the only question that remains is how much information is necessary to make this section of this article encyclopedic. Certainly, at the very least, a discussion of the outing is in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that. WP:BLP is clear. Various people have quoted the applicable section. You acknowledged the policy in your RFA, but chose to ignore it on this matter. Guettarda 03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean that no one has indicated how those situations were applicable in this instance. Mostly because, as it's been beaten to death thus far, it's not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What part of policy says that we should include information that is harmful to the subject, while also being at best marginally relevant to the topic? How do you interpret "do no harm" as compatible with this? Guettarda 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well-sourced, widely-disseminated information is not harmful to the subject. On 5 July, or 25 June for that matter, information published in a variety of well-known and well-regarded magazines, publicized on NPR, and since then distributed widely across the blogosphere is not harmful to the subject. If we were talking about adding this information 6 months ago, when the knowledge of such things was marginal at best, we'd be in agreement on this issue. With the amount of attention it has recieved since then, however, it's no longer a danger. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you prepared to bet your career on it? If you are wrong, will you promise to work only minimum wage jobs for the rest of your life? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were speaking as someone who's advertised his employment position in the past, and had his employment published in numerous reptable areas, I wouldn't be complaining that a Wikipedia entry was replicating the informaiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, are you trying to say that you are in a better position to judge the harmfulness of this information than is Armando? Are you trying to say that you know as a fact that his reaction to the "outing" was unnecessary? You have spoken to his clients and his bosses? Can you provide some evidence of these conversations? If not, please stop talking nonsense. Guettarda 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Armando is significantly closer to the situation than we are, and that it very well could be clouding his judgement. He's rightfully angry that the situation may have BEGAN on Wikipedia, but it's long PAST Wikipedia at this point. We're no longer talking about material that exists in hearsay or unreliable sourcing, we're talking about information widely available from reliable third party sources. For any anger over a Wikipedia entry that simply repeats what's already known by hundreds of thousands of people borders on the absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting spin, but you haven't answered my question. You assert there is no problem here. You fail to present information to support your position, such as your communications with his clients and bosses. Please provide some evidence to support your assertion. Guettarda 16:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That would, of course, be impossible to do on many levels, both logistically and as a matter of reliable sourcing. The fact simply remains that information published in a well-known, highly-circulated magazine being replicated here is not going to cause any harm, period. WP:BLP considers that sort of information to be useful when it comes to biographies of living people. Policy is clear, so your opposition continues to be puzzling on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Information which endangers a person's livelihood, but which isn't germane to the article shouldn't be in the article. Policy is clear - do no harm. You have stated before that you understand this. If you don't have the proof mentioned about, I can only interpret your position as malicious. Guettarda 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The information no longer endangers anything by being in this article. Since we're waiting on mediation, I see no reason to run around in this circle anymore - as I said below, I'll abide by what makes sense in the mediation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly my intent was to achieve consensus on the interpretation of policy in this matter, rather than making changes to policy or building support for any violation. To that end, I have no desire to proceed with a straw poll if the consensus already exists that the present text is the appropriate one. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the question of whether material is "derogatory" cannot be left to the subject of the article, nor can the question of whether information which might disturb the subject's privacy is relevant to the subject's notability and/or available from WP:RS. In this case, in addition, the specific form of the "outing" in conference information and notable magazine's blogs might rationally be considered self-publication, and hence relevant to the claims that he was "outed" rather than revealing his own information, and then regretting it. That being said ... I don't think his name is notable; I certainly don't think his employer or client's are relevant, and I'm open to whether the identity of the source of his "outing" (not Wikipedia, but the university's conference announcement and the magazine's blog, and possibly his other blog) should be listed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the magazine blog refrences wikipedia as the primary source of it's information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think people need to realise that the Foundation can be sued, and that a substantial finding against the Foundation would likely make Wiki go bye-bye. Is it really worthwhile, then, to maliciously endanger someone's livelihood and destroy Wikipedia in the process? •Jim62sch• 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop the matter because the article is acceptable as it is, and bad cases make bad policy

1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Guettarda 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. 8bitJake 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Herostratus 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop the matter after a decision from Arbcomm

1. Take it up with the arbitration committee rather than harassing other well intentioned editors. That goes for everyone. Silensor 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop the matter after we waste Arbcomm's time

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop the matter now because we aren't really as stubborn as we are acting

1. Guettarda 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. FeloniousMonk 02:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Superdosh 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. •Jim62sch• 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

More discussion

Let's be clear that the above poll, the AFD and everything else shows strong consensus not to reveal personal information of a not notable blogger. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The AfD merely showed a consensus that an article on Armando alone was unnecessary. This poll (which, I'll note, does not reflect the opinions of all editors here, nor offer the correct options to reflect the opinions of many editors here) is not complete in any way. I'll note that you *still* have yet to demonstrate "harm" or where the BLP violations are, and instead continue to edit war as opposed to making a legitimate case for your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I assumed that you were arguing to include the information. I guess only User:TDC, 05:41, 20 June 2006 and User:Ashley Pomeroy do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like more than that from the edit summaries, not that this straw poll was ever set up to get an honest accounting to begin with. Do you ever plan on justifying your position? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to beat the dead horse again. Walk away, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think the horse is dead, then by all means choose not to get involved any further. Meanwhile, the rest of us who are interested in an accurate, encyclopedic article can continue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable." Kjkolb 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, as I said, by all means, choose not to get involved any further. Leave it to those of us who do care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So that is 10 editors that have voted AGAINST Badlydrawnjeff. --8bitJake 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Jeff needs to get over what for all intents and purposes appears to be an obsession with a semi-celebrity. I wonder how Jeff would feel if he were in Armando's shoes? Did Jeff even understand the meaning of Kjkolb's post? Does Jeff really think that people will "choose not to get involved any further" so that he may once again cause harm? Sad. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A View on the “Armando” issue from a long time lurker

There are many here that would view as one of Armando’s personal privacy being violated by the disclosure of his name but it would seem to me that this is nothing more than an issue of what meets WP:V and WP:RS. The above arguments focus around whether or not the information was introduced in a malicious way to discredit Armando, but that is simply par for the course in the world and for Wikipedia as well. Many Wikipedia articles contain information of a personal nature that is damaging to the subject, but it is still included in the article. The Andrew Sullivan article and his “bare backing” add (ala Michael Musto, and more recently, the article on Crystal Gail Mangum both reveal damaging information on the subject as well as well as what could easily be considered malicious rumor mongering on the part of those who produce it.

Why use Armando’s screen name when his real name is now a matter of public record? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really the case that Wikipedia has had, and then deleted, a piece of innocuous, verifiable, publicly-available information, in order to satisfy a person's whim? Because that's what it looks like to me. This Armando character deserves no leniency whatsoever; if he is to be a public figure, he is to be a public figure. If these people want to swim with sharks, they had better grease themselves. He cannot hide behind a fake name. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the inclusion of whatever is verifiable via third party, like Slate or TNR is fair game in this context. He lost his anonymity the instant he became a well know and well read contributor to one of the most widely read and influential blogs on the net. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather strange to me that Armando has disclosed his name on multiple occassions in the past, and now wants to put the genie back in the bottle so to speak with Wikipedia. RFerreira 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you must violate policy

If you must violate policy by including private info of a not-notable blogger, please do not use salacious links to non-RS blogs or primary sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No policy has been violated in the inclusion of said information. If you have issues with individual sources, then please note which ones are not good enough so we can replace them. Do not invoke policy falsely in your edit summaries in order to revert in the future, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of a link to "Outside the Beltway" is a not-accetable blog. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we can easily fix that. I thought I had clicked the link to the National Review, perhaps I did not. Why didn't you fix the link as opposed to reverting wholesale, as you take issue with one small aspect of my additions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable." Kjkolb 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you keep posting that, yet still continue to war over it. If you want to take it to a mediation session, I'll be glad to participate. If not, then please leave it to those of us who want to be involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because you are missing the point. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

10 editors have voted AGAINST Badlydrawnjeff in this matter. Yet he will not drop this.--8bitJake 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Only 8, and many have chosen to not take part in the flawed straw poll. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of order. The straw poll was a proposal for a straw poll, and if you were unhappy with it, you were welcome to make suggestions on improving. Instead, you chose to argue the issue. Since I got no input, and now RFM is involved, the straw poll is withdrawn. It was never open for voting. --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

People that don't vote don't count in the vote. That is basic political science.--8bitJake 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I haven't voted is because as the saying goes, "polls are evil", and I honestly did not fully agree with any of the choices presented. That, and two editors here which need not be named have been bullying those who do not agree with their skewed interpretation of a guideline. Since I do not believe this matter is a "waste of time", I've slightly amended one of the options that is closest to what I believe should happen next, and if that change is reverted then please remove me from this vote all together. Silensor 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RFM

I have filied a request for meditiation regarding the ongoing issues regarding WP:BLP at WP:RFM. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I make a vow right now to abide by the results of the mediation in this case, regardless as to whether it results in what I prefer to see. I hope the other folks battling over this can make the same promise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I was ready to withdraw the straw poll as it was. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To today's edit-warring parties, please include yourselves in the mediation session. It's the only way this is going to be resolved to anyone's liking. There's no consensus to add OR remove the information, so we're just spinning our wheels until a mediator steps in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to get myself involved in the edit war, but perhaps a temporary WP:RFP is in order for this page? Aside from the Armando edit war, the page hasn't been updated in over a week and could do with a cooling down period until the mediation can take place. --Bobblehead 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Already requested it before you left this comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Must have crossed paths. I checked RFP before I made the comment. *laugh* --Bobblehead 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that any of the editors involved on the include side of this edit war are in any way interested in improving the encyclopedia as opposed to winning their blogslapfest? Provide diffs. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This question does not deserve any sort of reasonable answer. Completely inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Thumbalina and Bubba Ditto have demonstrated they are are keeping track of the talk page, right, through their substantial discussions here, right? I mean, they're clearly interested in improving the encyclopedia. I woudn't DARE impugn their motives or methods! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please. You've been warned before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can get them to comment on this talk page, without contacting them outside of this talk page, on the substantive issue I will issue a complete and abject apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbelina's left a couple comments on this talk page. I don't know anything about Bubba, nor should it matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Armando's asked that we not include his name in any article. WP:BLP calls for a presumption in favor of privacy which says "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." If Armando does not want his name to be included in this article, then guideline says that is what we should do, and anyone insisting on including is flouting the guideline and the subject's wishes. I for one will continue to remove any content that publishes private information that the subject has asked us to not publish. FeloniousMonk 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Second that. The statement has been made on several edit summaries that the information is verified: I can source that Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center cloned a fully functional, rabbit penis but that doesn't mean it belongs in the Penis article (See "March of Science" on News of the Weird, Macon.com, Fri Jul 7)

BLP takes precedence over "its true!". Evading policy and calling it a "content dispute" or "censorship" is the type of action I expect to see from blatant trolls, not the editors involved on this page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. This isn't a WP:BLP issue but a simple content issue. Tossing BLP out there is wrong, but this is a content dispute and that's why we're attempting mediation. You should consider joining in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, three things:

"The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies"

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves."

I'll say it again - WP:BLP is not the issue here, and what Armando wants isn't really relevant. I highly suggest getting involved in the mediation, as we're at an impasse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the link FM kindly has posted to the relevant bit of the policy: presumption in favor of privacy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Except he's a public figure, whether he wants to be or not. It's kind of misleading to use a lead sentence as the basis for defining policy while ignoring the specific points for public figures. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're intentionally trying to be Dense, yes? This is really not a difficult concept. If you saw Sean Penn in a restaurant eating dinner, would you walk over and harrass him? •Jim62sch• 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If Sean Penn told you that his visit to a Tibetian Monastery was an invasion of his privacy after it was published via Reuters, would you accept that? Of course not. This is, fortunately or unfortunately, no different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He publishes stuff on the internet. So do you Jeff. Does that make you a "public figure" and your privacy is void? Does that make me a public figure? He specifically asked for his personal information to NOT be included and I think that common decency compels us to do the right thing and honor his request.--8bitJake 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to a point, yes. In terms of "basic privacy," sure, I've done nothing to protect my name and address, to the point of publicising it, and that's that. I've been interviewed three separate times for three separate subjects in the past, I can't just go and take those back and say it never happened and it can't be discussed. If, next week, Mother Jones decides to do some expose on right-wing Wikipedians and tosses my name and employer out there, I have no right to stop it from being broadcast elsewhere, never mind posting it in a Wikipedia entry. Common decency is all well and good, and I have no interest in publicising information about Armando that isn't already in the public eye. But let's be realistic - his leaving the blog became newsworthy, and it's lax of us not to recognize that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, ultimately the question is whether or not a blogger is a public figure, correct? If so, is that something MedCom can mediate an agreement between the two warring factions? BLP is pretty clear on how to handle public vs. non-public figures, include info from reputable sources if they are Public, don't include info, even if from reputable sources, if they are non-public. --Bobblehead 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, the question is how public is a person such as Armando, who did not hide his identity in association with his blogging activities, and who's identity was further publicized by multiple, non-trivial outlets. I'd hope that MedCom can help come to some agreement, and I hope that the editors involved in this are willing to abide by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm also seeing another issue. The definition of what a 'Public figure' is versus how public a person is.. While they use the same word, they are definitely two entirely different things. The availability of information about someone is not what makes them a Public Figure. There are certain legal requirements that must be met before said person is deemed a Public Figure (requirements I'm not familiar enough to know with any certainty). The availability of the information also doesn't seem to be the threshhold for WP:BLP, but rather if the person meets the legal requirements of a Public Figure or if inclusion of such information would do harm to the person. Armando seems to think having his information out there would be harmful, so that leaves the 'Is he a Public Figure?' requirement. --Bobblehead 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting argument. I can accept that argument (even if I disagree with it), but to do so we still have to look at BLP in that case: "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above)." His outing is still relevant to his nobility, as is his name. In fact, you could argue that he only really became notable thanks to the outing information. In other words, I still think policy covers this in either scenario. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But basically you believe that the personal information should be included since you disagree with his politics and he specifically does not want it in the article. You could always ask Bob Novak to publish it.--8bitJake 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. I believe it should be included here because it's newsworthy and the story is encyclopedic. My personal opinion on Armando's politics, which i know very little about outside of his posting on Daily Kos, a blog I don't read, have nothing to do with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Privacy sidetrack

So Jeff you wouldn't mind me posting your name and where you live around here would you?--8bitJake 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly public knowledge, and I'm not sure how germane it is. I don't go around hiding it, though, so it wouldn't make a difference if you did or not - anyone who wants to know the information can find it without too much effort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

removed innapropriate comment that violated others privacy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC) --8bitJake 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) This didn't violate my privacy, let the record show. I didn't catch this in my revert, and it's too far gone at this point anyway. If you're curious, check the history. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The data isn't fake, although I haven't updated the phone number in particular. I'm unlikely to, since my primary line is a cell phone and I don't want to waste minutes on nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"I don't want to waste minutes on nonsense." Can I quote you on that?--8bitJake 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. If you want your phone number that you pay minutes for exposed to scammers and spammers, that's your business, I'll pass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay phones only cost $.50 FYI. I for one do care about privacy rights on the internet and that is why I am a card carrying EFF member. --8bitJake 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I hope it works out, I, meanwhile, know I'm responsible for the level of privacy I expect. Either way, this has veered OT, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is quite on topic. Radical right wing groups like violent Anti-Choice groups and Neo-Nazis (No Jeff I am not calling you a Nazi I am talking about actual Nazis) have used the threat of posting personal information of people they disagree with online and encouraging their followers to go and harass or threaten them. Michelle Malkin went as far to drive Denice Denton, the chancellor of UC Santa Cruz to commit suicide. Armondo does not want rightwing harassment and threats. --8bitJake 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This thread is really close to being Godwinized. Please, let's focus more closely on the facts of this particular case. Jonathunder 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

8bitJake, you might want to review WP:AGF. --18.252.6.136 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by my belief that just because Armondo has posted stuff on a blog his personal privacy is not null and void. Especially since he asked Wikipedia directly about it.--8bitJake 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Privacy issue?

What is the privacy issue here? Armando knows full well that his name has been published my multiple major media sources, because he provided that name to them in the first place. This smells like a smear campaign to me. Silensor 18:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave us hanging here Hipocrite. Elucidate. How did NPR and other sources come to publish his name, months before this Wikipedia wheel war came to be? Silensor 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He's asked us specifically not to publish his name, just because others have published it beforehand does not mean Wikipedia should after he's asked us specifically not to. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about double standards. So what, are we applying WP:BLP based upon the likeability of a subject now? Silensor 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which part of lawsuit are you not comprehending? •Jim62sch• 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Never alledged damages from publishing his name. Goes by his real name online in multiple other venues and made no active attempts to cover it up. Also, do you want Armando to turn into Daniel Brandt 2? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Llorens never made an attempt to cover up his name either until it arrived at Wikipedia. What's your point? Silensor 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He never had to because it was never released untill it arrived at Wikipedia. Did you miss the timeline here? We outed him first. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please post your timeline so that I may correct it. He has gone on record by his full name tying himself to Daily Kos many moons prior to this Wikipedia business. Please stop trying to distort the facts. Silensor 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might provide your own timeline. Just make sure it follows WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 2006-07-07 17:26:09 (UTC)

Here are the results of some googling. The timeline itself is not meant to be encyclopedic content, but to help people on this talk page if they really want it for reference. So I don't think it needs to follow WP:RS strictly. I am including offsite links to make the timeline more verifiable. If the URLs violate some wikipedia policy, then I am sorry, and please feel free to remove them while retaining the text if appropriate!

Timeline of online references to real name and/or private info of the blogger in question:

• 2005 January 6 - Blog of Air America's Majority Report reveals name of blogger
• 2005 April - List of speakers at Stanford reveals name of blogger and law firm
• 2005 October 8 - Comment on Daily Kos by 'goblue72' claims to reveal some of the firm's clients
• 2005 October 28 - NPR's Morning Edition reveals name of blogger (in audio)
• 2006 May 23 - Comment on Truth Out forums by 'ShaggyDA' reveals name of blogger
• 2006 May 26 - Wikipedia entry created by 'Paka33' reveals blogger's name and name of law firm.
• 2006 May 29 - Wikipedia entry blanked by user 'KosNation' (presumably due to BLP issues).
• 2006 June 7 - Info appears in NRO Mediablog by Stephen Spruiell. References Wikipedia.

--18.252.6.136 03:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

This revert-waring is way too much. I can't even count how many times it was reverted just today. I've protected the page, on the wrong version, of course. Please work this out somehow. Jonathunder 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We're waiting on mediation, and hopefully it will stay protected until mediation is finished. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can one of the admins in this debate please tag the page {{protected}}? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now tagged it properly and listed it on protected pages. Thank you for the reminder. Jonathunder 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WHY WASTE TIME ON MEDIATION?

Jeff does not like the consensus reached. So consensus is not the standard here, DESPITE what I was told before by dhartung. Let's go staright to the Foundation. I will certainly fight any use of my full name. Jeff seems hellbent on fighting this till the end.

Why waste time? Let's go to Wikipedia's final arbiter and then see what happens.--70.45.23.77 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus in the AfD, if that's what you're referring to. Consensus cannot be imposed from above. A sysop decided to defuse the sprawling AfD battle with a redirect and protection, but it was obviously futile, as the subsequent edit warring here proved. Why "waste time" on mediation? Because mediation is an essential step in the Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. The final authority in Wikipedia, the ArbCom, will generally not hear a case that hasn't gone through mediation. Furthermore, User:Badlydrawnjeff has indicated[2] on this page that he will abide by the MedCom decision, a promise that I note no one else has echoed. You may wish to read more closely. Finally, and to repeat a request I have made several times before, please follow process. In particular, unless you want to become a named party of the Mediation, you should not be editing the request for mediation, and you should definitely not be leaving comments where it is stated in bold that comments are not appropriate[3]. (I have reverted that edit[4].) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what it means to say one will abide by a MedCom decision. The MedCom seeks to find solutions that are acceptable to all parties. So it's pretty much a given that "[a person] will abide by a compromise that [said person] find(s) acceptable". Guettarda 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In the event that the solutions aren't acceptable to all parties, I'm perfectly willing to accept what the neutral mediation has to say on the matter, that's what I'm getting at. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as a comment on your comment, but rather on Kaustuv's mention that "only you had said...". I'll happily follow the process wherever it goes. I am interested in acting in the interest of the project. I understand that there is a need to balance two opposing forces here. Quite frankly, I would rather see the arbcomm rule on this because this isn't a dispute between editors, it's a fundamental question of what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works. Finding a solution that is acceptable to you, me, Hip, Arthur and Silensor doesn't really solve the problem unless it is also acceptable to Armando, Bubba ditto, Thumbelina, etc. That said, having never gone through formal mediation, I don't know what to expect from it. If Essjay or someone else with his level of skill chooses to take the case, I am hopeful. If it ends up like anything I've seen at the MedCab, on the other hand, it will just be a painful waste of time. Guettarda 15:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the provided link, you will see that I was quoting Jeff, and he has explained what he meant by "abide". As regards the promise to "abide", it should be hardly confusing what I meant by "no one else has echoed it". If you are worried about the opinions of Armando, Bubba ditto and Thumbelina, you should have named them as parties of the mediation. Now, I am inclined to agree with you that this case should be looked at by the ArbCom, and it may get there yet, but I disagree on the gravity and scope of the problem. We are well aware what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia) and how it works (by consensus). The question of whether WP:BLP should be interpreted to disallow publicly available information from Wikipedia because the subject wishes to leave it out is, in my opinion, a question for WP:VPP or a relevant talk page such as WP talk:LIVING. The community could have built consensus there and WP:BLP could have been suitably amended or clarified to handle this present conflict. Instead, what has happened is an all out edit brawl, something Wikipedia explicitly warns editors not to engage in. Wikipedia is not at fault here: a handful of Wikipedians are. If mediation fails and this case goes to the ArbCom, I will bring the issue of editorial conduct up. In particular, I will ask the ArbCom whether editors should feel empowered to ignore policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and important guidelines such as WP:POINT, as has happened several times in the edit war and on this talk page, in order to police what they see as violations of other guidelines such as WP:BLP. This is my final comment on this page until the end of the mediation. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 07:33, July 9, 2006

Unprotecting

Edit warring doesn't really justify page protection for extended periods, and there hasn't been much discussion on the issue. Accordingly I'm lifting protection; there are more fine-grained ways of dealing with edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The lack of discussion is due to the awaiting mediation on the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that a lack of edit warring will accrue from the same circumstance. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel section

There's a good deal of POV going on there to begin with, but using a controversial diary that was even labeled by some as a "troll diary" is not encyclopedic. It's designed to reflect one's specific view. The rest of it is a whole other story, but the last line and citation, and using that to reflect the community as a whole, is not encyclopedic, and is definitely POVJlove1982 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I had deleted the last entry which was the most eregregious NPOV and unencyclopedic entry of the lot (which was quickly reverted by someone else), but I agree - there has been no widespread "controversy" over Daily Kos postings on Israel. I saw the citations, but that would be like equating a few MediaMatters posts on Bill O'Reilly as worthy of inclusion in a "controversy" section on him. Controversy requires some widespread outrage, not select advocacy groups searching out material they object to. Further, all the objectionable postings that are made are severely disputed by a wide range of characters on Daily Kos (many of whom are themselves Jewish). I would find it hard to generalize any viewpoint on Israel as being held widely on DK. That's the key here - just because, say, a KKK member posts some diary on daily kos doesn't make it representative of the community unless it's clear from the recommends and comments that the ideas have widespread support there.

Definitely picking and choosing a few controversial or extreme statements found there is not valid from an encyclopedia point of view. Shall the Wiki entry on Wikipedia itself include a dumping ground for objectionable anti-Israel or anti-semetic statements made by any editor here? Unless there is evidence of some widespread view that is widely controversial, we must question its inclusion here. If one wants to find a whole wack of crazy and zany diaries, just check out the ones tagged troll diary.--FNV 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the first version (which I revised, taking a neutral position on its inclusion) tried to claim one of the statements as Moulitsas's himself on CNN. That was either terribly misunderstanding the cited material, or malicious. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is absolutely not at odds with the type of matter included in the articles for many GOP senators and congressmen. There should be no double standard. There have been several VERY controversial statements made by Kos contributors, which have drawn significant attention on the internet. They warrent inclusion. Trilemma 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of subject matter that does not meet wikipedia's content guidelines in other articles is not justification for inclusion of subject matter in this article. Rather, it is an indication that the information should be removed from the other articles. --Bobblehead 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how controversial statements that have attracted significant online attention do not meet wikipedia's content guidelines. What specific guideline does it not meet? Trilemma 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversies can and should be included in articles as long as they meet Wikipedia's three content guidelines of Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. In the case of the Israel section the removing editors felt that the two blogs linked were not Reliable sources and thus failed to meet the verifiability guideline and that without the sources the remaining information was original research.--Bobblehead 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, that's a specious comparison. Senators and Congressmen officially represent thousands and thousands of people in the legislature of a superpower, and as such their opinions can have consequences and are almost automatically notable. The fact that on a given day you can find on a website which allows thousands of non-notable persons to publish their non-notable opinions one or two which are ZOMG "controversial" is just silly. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Trilemma's comment - can you explain what you mean about Congressmen? I'm not sure where this analogy comes from. This article is about an online community - including this information in the main article is a little bit like putting Karmafist's manifesto in an article about Wikipedia and trying to imply that this is how Jimbo feels. But quite frankly this is a secondary concern. People will complain about material posted in diaries on dKos. That doesn't make a controversy. Many people complaining about something might make a controversy. But how many is "many"? Actually, that isn't for us to say. We can't compile a list of complaining blogs. That would be original research. On the other hand, if a reliable source comments on such a controversy, we could include it - then the decision would be whether or not its notable. If we have reliable sources we can debate notability. Right now, the debate appears to be about neither. Guettarda 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In regards to differentiating figures, we're still talking about public figures in the realm of American politics. I'll give some examples of what I was referring to:

The Rick Santorum article includes a comment Rick Santorum made about marriage here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Marriage_as_homeland_security But gives no background as to criticism of that individual comment.

The Jeff Sessions article contains Sessions' post-Hurricane Katrina manuverings, but again, no link or reference to significant criticism of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Controversies

The Ted Stevens article contains criticism of Stevens' energy policy position and post Hurricane Katrina statements without any link to significant criticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens#Energy

Sam Brownback's article contains criticism of Brownback without any link to significant criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback#Controversy

As does the Jim Thune article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thune which mentions Jeff Gannon without any inclusion of relevance to Thune, and any independent significant criticism of his same sex marriage views.

Now, I found all those by only checking roughly half of all the GOP senators. That's not even getting into the House members. Why is there a higher standard of inclusion for a hyperbolic blog than members of the Senate?

I think that most of the listings above don't violate wikipedia policy, and deserve to be included. So does the statements made on DailyKos. There's an understood acceptance of inclusion of generally considered controversial speech on wikipedia. Siding with the President of Iran and musing about the destruction of Israel certainly falls into this category.Trilemma 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not about standards of inclusion, and as was stated, the comparisons you're bringing up may or may not conform to WP:RS (without looking at each individually I don't know). But an individual diarist and what s/he says on DK is not inherently notable. Your analogy is flawed, because your argument is flawed. This is not about whether criticism is "OK" for inclusion, it's about whether that criticism is notable. There are, what, tens of thousnads of DK diaries, and tens of millions of blogs -- is every disagreement between those nodes notable? It surely isn't important, but it might receive major media attention, in which case its notability is significantly easier to demonstrate. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, you are talking about notable political figures, this article is about an online community. I don't see how you can equate the two. The postings of non-notable diarists in such a vast community is about as notable as what gets posted on user pages in Wikipedia. There's a world of difference between this and what a Senator says. In addition, even for material about notable people like senators, WP:RS still applies. It definitely applies here. Guettarda 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DailyKos is known to more Americans than some US senators and many congressmen ;) Kos is among the five most known blogs, and their musing about the destruction of Israel and siding with the president of Iran can not be considered anything short of significant. As for "reliable sources", Kos' paranoid listing of "troll blogs" is insignificant. Kos considers anyone not in his camp of leftists to be unreliable. I linked to three blogs and I'm sure plenty more covered the event. Trilemma 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. You seem to not understand how things work at Daily Kos. Considering that these musings that you speak of were done by non-notable individuals, it does not represent the whole of the community, just as any other blog on the community would not represent the whole community. Once members have been on the site for one week, they can post a diary. They can post on anything they want to, though if the diary calls for terrible things or is against the guidelines of the community, it gets ripped to shreds by the members. Furthermore, the "troll blog" listing you speak of is not done by Markos himself. Markos has nothing to do with the labeling of specific blogs. And it isn't paranoid. Users that have, through the Scoop blog program, received enough positive mojo for a long enough time have trusted user status, which goes with it the ability to change the labels on the blog to either add other categories that could be relevant, or to warn readers that the ideas within do not represent the community or are only designed to cause controversy. One of the blogs you linked to was labeled as such because of the questions of what the blogger was saying. To group everyone in saying that they all support the destruction of Israel because of one blog you viewed is absolutely incorrect. Jlove1982 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, you are also missing another important point. You said "I linked to three blogs and I'm sure plenty more covered the event". Blogs do not, in general, meet the requirements of being reliable sources. Guettarda 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, please try not to let your prejudices show ("his camp of leftists" ... Kos has repeatedly stated that he is partisan, not ideological, and there are numerous examples which prove this). You are continually trying to conflate "something posted on Daily Kos" with "something posted by Kos", because you know that there is a difference of notability and you would prefer the latter, but they are not the same thing. Finally, do not forget that in your initial posting you actually tried to claim without any proof whatsoever that Kos himself had spoken a phrase on CNN, when it was in fact an unknown diarist on writing the website. I don't think I'm alone in choosing to view you as operating in bad faith, and judging your arguments accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is on the blog DailyKos, not just Kos himself, and thus when I reference Kos, I mean to reference the entire crew, not just the man himself, whether the syntax expresses that or not. In regards to the CNN comment, that was a mistake on my part, which I admit.

I must seriously question why you are so eager to defend Kos and yet do not question the articles I listed. There is a pervasive left wing bias on wikipedia and this illustrates it. Trilemma 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "pervasive left-wing bias", but I am not editing the articles you mentioned. If they have a problem with criticisms that fail to me WP:RS, fix them. Everyone has a political POV - we try to write NPOV, sometimes we succeed, sometimes we fail. But this discussion isn't about POV, it's about policy. Blogs are (generally) not reliable sources. And when trying to generalise a story out of several disparate blog posts you need to be careful that you are not crafting a new generalisation which would violate WP:NOR. Guettarda 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"I must question why you are so eager to defend Kos"? Markos Moulitsas has done nothing, and you have provided no citations that he has. Don't make this so easy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition to many of the above people pointing out that what individual diarists say, especially when those diaries receive little attention (less than 50 comments, not ever on the recommended list) or are explicitly tagged as "Troll Diary" or some such dismissive tag, means they are not representative of Daily Kos - I want to add that I am not aware of any "significant" controversy over how Daily Kos talks about Israel or Jews. I can see how some groups have taken issue with specific postings, but show me the controversy blowing up in a significant way - did CNN cover it? The Washington Post? This section was removed rightly because it was just a list of possibly objectionable things said about Israel or Jews on Daily Kos. I doubt the Wiki page on the New York Times gets updated every time they print a letter to the editor slamming Israel. Let's be real about what constitutes a well-covered controversy. Also, this section ignored the many supporters of Israel (many of them Jewish) on Daily Kos - which to say it ignores the substantive and lively debate that goes on about Israel. That's a violation of NPOV. --FNV 04:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, anon. I invite you to register. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I had neglected to sign in. I am registered. Fixed, thanks --FNV 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost

Offered without comment: Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up, from Wikipedia Signpost--Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Armando Redux

Okay, so mediation fell apart due to a wikibreak combined with Hipocrite exercising his "right to vanish" combined with the mediator. Around the same time, an administrator's noticeboard opened up in regards to WP:BLP issues. I brought up the issue there, and, essentially, two conclusions came to be.

1. Adding the information would not be a BLP violation.
2. There may be question about how encyclopedic the information is.

So, given those two conclusions, I bring it here. Any opposition to adding the information above, or should it be left out? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how having his personal information in the article actually adds anything to the article. Also, the absence of the personal information doesn't harm the article.--Bobblehead 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So that's the explanation. I was by choice agnostic about the outcome (I could see the merit of both arguments) and this six-vs.-half-a-dozen result at BLP/N sort of confirms that. As it is, I've become more hawkish about BLP since June and I agree with devonshire now: You should also consider whether we as Wikipedians should be aggregating personal data and publishing it in one place. I do not think this adds anything, and I do believe it causes harm, and I do believe that mere public political commentary is not justification for including personal details, broadly, as we don't want to be part of a chilling effect. (In particular, the issue of Armando's clients looks like innuendo of a conflict of interest rather than a demonstrated conflict of interest.)

Rather than rehash the Armando "issue", though, I would like to repropose a wholesale refactoring of the contributors section. I believe that each contributor listed should have, at most, a line devoted to them. This bit about Bill in Portland Maine's cats, for example, or the exhaustive detail about the Scotty Show, are "So what?" for me. So let's trim them all down to reasonable size.--Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to add fuel to a fire, but considering that Armando's name is easily found via Google, would it not be appropriate to at least include that information in the Armando section of contributor's to DailyKos? Nobody says there needs to be an entry for him (considering that other than being a blog contributor he would probably qualify as non-notable) but an encyclopedia should contain known knowledge about a person. Jfiling 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on my comments above, I don't see how changing the opening of the Armando section from "Armando" to "Armando Llorens-Sar" is: A) non-encyclopedic, B) inflammatory, C) invasive of privacy, or D) opening Wikipedia up to a lawsuit. Certainly there has to be a compromise, and I don't see how this can't work. I do agree that an article on Llorens-Sar is non-encyclopedic due to my reasons above, and anything reagrding his work and/or client list is inflammatory and invasive. Jfiling 03:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to offer an encyclopedic need for inclusion. Under the BLP, there is a presumption in favor of privacy. For non-public figures, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. --Dhartung | Talk 15:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see how the BLP applies, since I'm not proposing doing a biography of Armando, merely adding completely encyclopedic information to the DKos article. If Armando is notable enough to have a section detailing the outing controversy, and the information is available with a simple google search, it is the opposite of encyclopedic to not include the relevant information in the article. Actually, even if the BLP does apply, it clearly states "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." The fact that he is notable because he was outed is an argument in favor of inclusion, not against. I know this issue has been hashed over before, so if it has been determined that in this instance the BLP would apply in the case I'm proposing I'd appreciate a link so I can at least learn from this situation. I think I can come up with counter-examples to show that Wikipedia has included the names of non-notable people when informative in articles if needed. Jfiling 21:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from the other side of the political spectrum, I found at least two articles (Killian documents being one) which mentions the identity of "Buckhead", as well as work he has done. Is there some difference in the two cases? I believe both should be identified if known, but the Buckhead mentions actually have far more inflammatory information than what I'm proposing for Armando. Jfiling 21:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Buckhead did something notable and his name ended up being widely reported in the media (if I'm not mistaken he was even interviewed on TV). Armando has merely exercised his right of free speech, and someone else has taken it upon themselves to out him, no doubt specifically to silence him. I don't like Wikipedia participating in that. Had Armando been involved (as more than a commentator!) in a notable event then his identity would have individual notability. But I don't think someone else publishing the name automatically confers notability on the event, and I'm wary of Wikipedia being drawn into such processes.

Ultimately, as you can see by the content of this talk page, the compromise was arrived at because it prevented a permanent edit war. I would especially advise taking that into consideration. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through this page a number of times, and am unable to find any "compromise" that has been arrived at. At best there is a detente, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you do your research (as I did before my comment that you responded to), "Buckhead" was outed in exactly the same manner as Armando. Further, I can find no mention of Buckhead appearing on television, not that I have done an exhaustive search. Even further, Armando was actually outed long before the current scandal, when he appeared publicly at a Stanford Law School conference in 2005[5]. His entry on that page says "Armando Llorens is a Guest Blogger for dailykos.com. He is an attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property and Media issues with the Puerto Rico firm McConnell Valdés. Mr. Llorens recieved his B.A. from Brown University and his J.D. from Columbia." I would answer your claim of notability (as you claim for "Buckhead") by stating that he participated in this conference precisely because of his notability as a blogger on Daily Kos. Jfiling 00:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What newsworthy events has Armando been associated with, other than his own outing? More to the point, are you determined to force this issue regardless of the wikitruce? If so, why? --Dhartung | Talk 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you aren't going to actually address a single point I've made, except to obfuscate and misdirect, and since I have no desire to "force this issue regardless of the wikitruce" (whatever that means) I'll leave this matter alone. I still think this should be taken up by whoever makes policy for Wikipedia, so that in the future there will be no question about the proper course to take in matters like this. Jfiling 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this so important to you? I mean really. Who cares? Jasper23 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because either this is an encyclopedia that includes relevant, widely available information, or it is not. I don't have any political axe to grind, in case that was your unasked question, as I find conservatives and liberals equally wrong-headed, to put it civilly. I've enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, but I don't think the project will survive if it allows itself to become anything less than "balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable verifiable knowledge" (from Wikipedia:about). Maybe for me this is a test case, not that I'm going to lose faith in the project, but there needs to be an actual policy to deal with this type of situation before anyone who doesn't want their available name entered into the Wikipedia can have it removed. Jfiling 22:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this project will die if an someones personal information is not included. I agree completely. There are few matters less pressing and few pages less important than this. Keep up the good fight!Jasper23

Fallujah controversy

Is it really appropriate that the comment about the Fallujah controversy be placed in the lead of the article? --George100 01:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The article is basically one big freep-fest in its current form. I'm going to try to work on this. Chris Cunningham 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also on the topic of the Fallujah controversy, I recall Markos referring to his military service in the Gulf War and how his low regard of contractors was shaped then, seeing them as poorly trained mercenaries whose reckless behavior in the absense of legal liability endangered the safety of military servicemembers both directly and through the fomenting of anti-American hostility. He claimed this was a common opinion among members of the military. The article currently refers to his childhood memories of warfare in El Salvador, which is relevant, but I believe this is more so. I just need a source. Does anyone have one? 72.244.207.9 (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Knocked Template:Infobox weblog up quickly. Surprised there wasn't one already, actually. Feel free to make it considerably less rubbish than it currently is. Chris Cunningham 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic propaganda video - POV

This new section claims, "Daily Kos published" this, but it's just a dairy. The statement implies that Kos himself posted the video or that it is somehow official. --George100 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The video was published on the frontpage though, I reworded that so it doesn't imply anything else. /Slarre 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Every diary on Daily Kos starts "on the frontpage" on the right hand list of diaries. (The wider column on the left is for Kos and the contributing editors or "front pagers"). The diary in question was one of nearly 100 so far today (as of 4/16/2007 6:38 PM PDT). All diaries start at the top of the list and move down as newer diaries are posted unless a sufficent number of readers "recommend" the diary. This one has 50 comments (not all in agreement) and a handful of recommends. It's not significant enough to keep. I'm going to remove it.Vgranucci 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. There are catblogging threads which lasted longer on the front page. Chris Cunningham 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the publication of a strongly antisemitic video, originating from a white supremacist neo-Nazi website, on the frontpage of one of the most popular US political websites, is quite remarkable to say the least. Still the site's owners, who of course have the utmost responsibility on what's published on the frontpage of their website, hasn't condemned the publication. This has created lots of attention and criticism in the blogosphere[6], so it's definitely notable. There have also been previous postings on the website featuring anti-Semitic graphic content[7], which also gained much attention and was reported in the Israel National Television [8], and other examples[9]. I think these should be mentioned under a common section, perhaps "Examples of antisemitic postings" or something similar. /Slarre 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose you wait until reliable sources think it's important, not just sworn enemies. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There were jews that pointed out other jews in hiding during WW II, so I think arguing this point is a lost cause. There will be plenty of people to excuse the anti-semitic video here and attribute it to anything but the simple fact that it was there. Why is it an issue? It is anti-semitic and it appeared on the website. That should be it. It isn't POV to report the article under controversies "An anti-semitic video was added to the website via the diary of a user named ??????. " It is fact. 75.50.255.141 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Talk

The point is that this particular diary simply didn't have enough impact to be significant. Vgranucci 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Is a mainstream media source that refers to a blog posting considered more reliable than the blog itself? If not, then a better citation needs to be found for the "other criticism" section, since the only source for the Israeli National News story is Little Green Footballs Vgranucci 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the media cites an article than the article should be included along with media coverage. This is what I have been trying to do by including a link to the article and its comments page, but it keeps getting deleted. A reference to an original source (in this case the blog itself) as evidence of what it is actually saying cannot be deemed an unreliable source. For example, I added a link to this article's comments section, because the overwhelming bulk of comments denounced this particular diary. Someone deleted this as an unreliable source. How can it be unreliable, it is a full copy of the comments themselves? Wikipediatoperfection 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its unreliable according to wp:rs. Also the youtube link should not be used as it too is not a proper source. The stuff about O'Reilly can be removed unless it comes from a 3rd party reliable source. Wikipedia is not a blog and is not about the "truth". Its about presenting already, established, peer revieved material. Thanks, --Tom 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)ps. I deleted that whole section since the referrence is based on O'Reily's own talking points commentary. --Tom 12:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just made what might be seen as a controversial edit, so I wanted to come here and explain my reasoning. I followed the link to the Wikipedia page for "Israel National News" and it turns out that's not actually the name of the media outlet, its real name is Arutz Sheva. "Israel National News" is more of a slogan for Arutz Sheva. Calling it "Israel National News" could be misleading because it's apparently an online-only operation that has never been allowed a license to broadcast in Israel, due apparently to their Religious Zionist affiliation and advocacy for the Israeli settlement of the Palestinian territories. I identified it as "Religious Zionist website Arutz Sheva" to provide the actual name and POV. It seems to be that calling something "Zionist" is often done by people who have a problem with Israel, so I was torn on whether to identify its Religious Zionist affiliation, but it appears to be the accurate descriptor, and is the actual name of the movement with which Arutz Sheva self-identifies. It could be argued that "right-wing" is a more relevant discriptor (current headlines are about "Why Israel Must Attack Iran" and "Preventing and Treating Homosexuality"). I will be first to admit my relative ignorance on Israeli, Jewish, and Zionist politics and subject matter, so I apologize if my description is clumsy or offensive. Feel free to offer a way to improve it. 69.3.70.220 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The site itself

www.dailykos.com/ doesn't seem to work. Did the republicans kill it? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I had also problems to access the main site. Though after I googled an article and entered that way on dailykos, I have no longer problems to access the main site directly. McLar eng 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant...Take your technical issues elsewhere...Rabrams20 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Diaries?

DailyKos Diaries are barely mentioned, and the diaries are really what propelled the site to success because it basically became the place to hang out for the anti-war left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldthoughts (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the diaries are a significant reason for the site's growth, as it was very distinctive among other political blogs at the time, and to some extent still is. The user-generated content gave people a reason to invest in the site and keep coming back to read, post and comment on it all. I agree that the diaries deserve more attention in the article. I'm not sure to what extent the anti-war movement could be pinpointed as the reason for their popularity, though, as plenty of other topics are discussed in diaries, and the popular Democratic Underground forums and other sites would probably be considered more of a core home of the "anti-war left." Some highly recommended Daily Kos diaries have even been critical of some aspects of the anti-war left, such as Cindy Sheehan. I certainly would consider the vast, practically unanimous majority of Daily Kos users to be anti-war, though. 69.3.70.220 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Profit

Has Kos Media released profit/loss statements or anything resembling how much revenue it makes? Also, does the site share the profit and who is employed by Kos Media? AstralisLux (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben Heine

Is this a real controversy? An offensive troll post was created and then deleted. I don't see what the controversy is. This is irrelevent and I'm deleting it. -Tintagel5555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintagel555 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly Quotation

Does it make sense to take a supposed quotation of Bill O'Reilly from a liberal website? It is likely out of context. Do think he seriously thinks Daily Kos members are Devil Worshippers? Sheesh. Maybe he does, I don't know. Chenzo23 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I don't believe it belongs in the article. The opinions of someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum, a television pundit with little credibility, is not appropriate for a controversies section. Fifty7 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly has credibility, whether you agree with it or not. AstralisLux (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Primary

Moulitsas didn't really call the primary process "civil war" but rather implied that the consequences of the "coup by superdelegate" would be civil war. The way it is phrased in the article makes it seem like his criticism is of the primary process instead of Senator Clinton's tactics. Ketchomal (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Socialist Point of View?

The opening paragraph says that Daily Kos gives a "socialist" POV. I think this is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all "socialist" can be interpreted by many to have negative connotations and as the wikipedia definition of the term suggests, this is term has been used by a wide variety of people to mean different things. "Socialist" is a vague and loaded term.

Second, I'm not sure everyone who participates in the Kos community would agree that it is "socialist" regardless of what definition is used. This being said, I agree with the general spirit of characterizing the overarching philosophy of Daily Kos, I think "liberal progressive" would work better. Thoughts? --Geo19 4 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was petty vandalism. I've reverted to the un-vandalised version and warned the user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Should have realized it was vandalism... haha. Thanks for fixing it! --Geo19 4 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

liberal vs progressive

Google the words: daily kos. Here is the self-description. "Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective." Let's just be honest and call it a liberal website, I understand that liberals often hide behind the 'progressive' label but Kos is just completely liberal by its own admission, not progressive. Big difference between seeking new and/or progressive solutions and seeking the same old liberal solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.207.29 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of contributors

Is this really necessary? We're talking about the most-trafficked political website in the US. At some point everyone will have posted a diary. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

DailyKos has reorganized as a true group blog. I've added a section for the contributing editors. At the moment, I've left the old list of contributors in, but it should probably be replaced with the contributing editors, with perhaps a shortened list of 'Famous Contributors' added in, with appropriate links.Herdsire 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this why List articles were created? Why not move it to List of prominent DailyKos contributors? --Bobblehead 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that there's an official Core Contributors list, the way is open. Chris Cunningham 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Markos's number two's real name is Tim Lagne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Far left?

I would hardly call Kos a "far left" community. Left, definitely. Far left? Hardly.

There's a certain mindset that considers anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater to be "far left" and anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support G. W. Bush to be anti-American. To a person of this mindset, Daily Kos is practically off the scale. Vgranucci 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Far from progressive, is DailyKos. The morph from "pseudo-progressive" to "political sell-out" has been most obvious in its rise in popularity over the last 2 years. Issues of real human concern (censored as they were from the very beginning, hmmmm) have been replaced by blatant pandering on behalf of rich politicians; politicians who claim to be progressive, but are in reality nothing more than an ironic mockery of true progressiveness, like DailyKos itself. Drop the "progressive" label, Kos doesn't deserve the title. {Kimberly}

the daily kossak 71.107.96.117

There's also a certain mindset that considers anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy to be far right and that cheering the deaths of American soldiers and espousing the propaganda of the terrorists is conventional political discourse and not anti-American. This mindset also reacts to any criticism of anything they say or do with the common axiom, "you're attacking my patriotism!" This line is a knee-jerk reaction common among the left because they are unable to directly refute the argument of their critic.

Politicalwire.com and Politics1.com are moderate left blogs. Daily Kos is far left. If Daily Kos isn't far left, then what is? Oh that's right-there's no such thing as far left. All leftists are really moderates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 12:38:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Communists are far left. The Daily Kos, the last time I checked, is not a communist organization. Take a look at the political compass to see where the 2008 presidential candidates fall in the world/historical political spectrum. http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007 compare this to the analysis page: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 Wikipediatoperfection 19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So according to the Political Compass, Ron Paul is authoritarian while pro National I.D. card, anti-gun Gravel, and big government, anti-gun Kucinich are libertarian? Give me a break.

Actually Gravel IS a libertarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.224.233 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich also supports the "Fairness Doctrine", and in that respect is more authoritarian than republicans such as G.W. Bush. But the chart puts him, along with only two others, in the Libertarian side of the spectrum. This makes me think that this site isn't worth much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fairness Doctrine is not authoritarian at all. The public airwaves are public property. The government can put any rules it choses on them and it would not be authoritarian. btw Gravel is not anti-gun. What mindset considers anyone "to the right of Ted Kennedy" Far right? If someone agrees with, say, the British National Party, they are "far right". If someone supports Ron Paul, for example, they are not. Anyway is it possible to just say liberal/progressive and not use any French Revolution analogies? Far left really means Jacobin, and I don't know of any Jacobins.

BTW, there is no sympathy for terrorism on the left. On the contrary, there is sympathy for terrorism on the right, when the terrorist is Ronald Reagan or Oliver North or Oliver North, but when it is Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussien they go nuts. Anti-American is such a dumb charge. Anti-terrorism is more like it. Anti-American comes from the Bible, when King Abad called Ellijah, a hero to many evangelicals, Anti-Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. The term "far-left" has certain connotations in this country that have absolutely nothing to do with the term's origins in Revolutionary France. To claim that far-left refers to Jacobins only is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on Wikipedia. Almost as stupid as the claim there is no sympathy for terrorism on the left. Really, there isn't? So the well known affinity some groups on the left in the US have with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah is all just a figment of our imagination? The domestic terrorists that were active in this country during the sixties and seventies weren't left wing organizations? Bill Ayers is a conservative? Man, you are a fucking dunce. But we all knew that as soon as you weighed in on how the US is not authoritarian because it owns the airwaves and thus can do whatever it wants. So evidently, it can prohibit talk show hosts from exercising their First Amendment rights because it "owns" the airwaves. So if George Bush had told Air America it couldn't criticize him, that would have been a-ok. Again, you are fucking stupid.

Opening paragraph

Daily Kos has received the Colbert bump.

What is a Colbert bump? Is this a US-centric thing? Snuff3r 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A Colbert bump is when a site is mentioned by Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report. Since he's an incredibly popular satirist/pundit, it immensely increases the number of traffic to said site. --Cronodude360 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your second question: yes (most people outside of the US wouldn't understand this phrase) and no (I am from outside the US and I do). I know what you mean though, there is a fine line between vernacular and solipsism. Nina202.43.236.242 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Daily Kos and Markos have been on the Colbert Report enough in the past month that it warrants a section.

What's the source for the claim regarding "strengthening the Democratic Party"? A review of the DailyKos about page, http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2, doesn't seem to support this contention. Gerardw (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

@Gerardw The FAQ for the DailyKos clearly says it is a democratic blog. "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog... It's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory." Source: DailyKos FAQ: "What is the purpose of this site?" on 08/14/09 URL = http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#What_is_the_purpose_of_this_site.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.186.81 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Content Section

This is an important piece of the article that's been given short shrift--I put in the basics, but I'm sure that what I've written can be improved, expanded upon, and given references--I invite people to jump in and edit here! Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama Clinton Controversy

This section seems to have been written almost entirely by User:Kossack4Truth who describes himself as a member of the Daily Kos. Is there a conflict of interest? The event also strikes me as being of fleeting interest, almost gossip, and not essential to understanding the Daily Kos. Life.temp (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If Kossack is a member of Daily Kos, that doesn't necessarily preclude him from editing this article. As for the amount of weight given the "controversy".. You're probably right. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have kind of noticed that what the mainstream public terms as fleeting, User:Kossack4Truth feels is direly important that we need to know. Also, I've read the blog, article, and his edits and I highly doubt he is a Liberal or a Democrat. Brothejr (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was there. My personal account of this event; Witness to Daily Kos "adjustments" resulting in the mass blocking of Obama supporters, or members that reported negative (but factual) accounts of Hillary Clinton's past and current campaigns.j0eg0d (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives in the lede

Let's not let this be a lame edit war.

The original version of the lede went as follows:

Daily Kos (/koʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view.

Some time ago, the usual vandalism occured where someone went and swapped in "socialist/communist" in place of "liberal", and it wasn't reverted properly. Now, user:Dr. America has decided to change it (variously) to "left wing" or "extreme left wing".

This should be reverted to the original version, which is neutral and goes by what the site itself states. One that's settled, I'm going to removed the {{unbalanced}} tag, because the rest of the article is fine.

People, please don't feed the trolls. If a change is continually reverted back in, warn and then report the user. Continually reverting back will only make it harder to restore order.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

What does "kos" mean? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The name derives from Markos Moulitsas' nickname "Kos" Vgranucci (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Street Prophets and Mother Talkers

We are in the process of creating pages for SB Nation and Congress Matters, and will add references on this article to those sites, as well as adding references within this site to "Street Prophets" and "Mother Talkers", which aren't quite notable enough for their own pages. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing controversies

This article is one of the more fair articles about political blogs that I have seen in Wikipedia. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the Drudge Report, it's interesting how much of the Drudge Report article focuses on the personal life of Matt Drudge, rather than his site, and has an overwhelming number of negative comments about Matt Drudge and his site.

A few comments on this article:

1. The opening statement uses the word "news" to describe the site. It's really not a "news" site; rather, the site's content interprets the news from the site's stated "progressive" (or liberal) point of view. I know this won't be popular, but the site is really a "spin" site. I hope this doesn't violate the Talk page guidelines. I propose that the word "news" be deleted from the first sentence in the first article paragraph.

2. The site is used to actually create news. For example, back in March 2007, the site was used to launch an attack on Ann Coulter for a joke she made about Senator John Edwards. The anonymously posted article was then used by CNN as a way to report a "news story;" the "news story" was a story about a story. So in a way, the site is being used to "make" news, not really to report it. DailyKos did not disclose its work for the Edwards presidential campaign at the time, either. I apologize if this violates any Talk page guidelines. Under the "Content" section of the article, I propose a sentence about DailyKos endeavoring to "make news."

3. There is no mention in the article about Jerome Armstrong's violations of SEC rules (http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2007/dig080707.htm). Armstrong worked closely with the front man for DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas. Armstrong used the Web to promote investments in a company while at the same time he was actually dumping the stock because he knew that it was a bad investment. Now, this is not quite as titillating as reporting rumors about Matt Drudge's sex life. But, I think it is relevant because Armstrong was using the Web to mislead investors; and that implies issues with his use of the Web, via DailyKos.com, for persuading voters. I propose that this be included in the "Controversy" section, perhaps in a paragraph covering "controversial contributors" to the site.

4. There is no mention in the article of the fact that one of the longest-serving, senior "Contributing Editors," Dr. Greg Dworkin, is a senior executive at the Danbury Hospital in Danbury, CT. The Danbury Hospital admitted to mroe than a million dollars in Medicare over-billing (http://www.justice.gov/usao/ct/Press2006/20061026.html). This is relevant because DailyKos is one of the leading backers of healthcare "reform," and a "single-payer" system, yet one of the site's senior editors directs a hospital that has admitted to bilking money from the current federal government-run healthcare plan, Medicare. Maybe it's not obvious, but this seems really hypocritical to me, regardless of anyone's stance on healthcare reform. As in point 3 above, I propose that this be included in the "Controversy" section, perhaps in a paragraph covering "controversial contributors" to the site.

5. Related to my point number 2, DailyKos has been used to present false and/or undocumented claims against organizations (public and private) as well as private citizens, as part of the site's efforts to advance particular candidates, issues or parties (well, one party). For example, in the Ann Coulter situation described in point #2 (and I get that not a lot of people like Coulter, but it's still a valid point here), DailyKos provided unverified information about a private company as well as private citizens who happened to have Coulter as a customer. I understand that Coulter enrages a lot of people, but it should be noted that DailyKos attacked what was essentially Coulter's plumber or lawn service. Again, I apologize if this violates any Talk page guidelines. I propose that under the "Content" section, a sentence should be included covering the site's somewhat sloppy journalism.

There are definitely questions about the funding of the site, but I do not have the research ready yet to cover that, so I won't go any further on that topic (sorry for mentioning it).

Respectfully, 98.175.25.151 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)A Virginia Wikipedia-er

Thanks for your comments, I will try to address as many of your points as I can.

1) The word "spin" has a negative connotation in the way you are using it, and would probably fall afoul of wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. A more neutral term, but still as accurate, is "opinion" which is included in that first sentence. Second, Wikipedia describes news as "communication of information on current events", which certainly seems to apply to DailyKos.

2),3),4),5) Please review Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and no original reporting. You have not cited any acceptable sources for the allegations you have made. Please also note that Wikipedia's insistence on citing reliable sources also extends to talk pages such as this one.

3) Jerome Armstrong really doesn't have any official connection with the site and was to my knowledge never a major contributor-he had his own political website completely independent of DailyKos.

One other thing to keep in mind is that DailyKos is not a single monolithic entity, registration is free and open to anyone, and the vast majority of the content on the site is produced by individuals who are not paid or otherwise compensated for their contributions. So, for instance when you say "DailyKos attacked", presumably you are referring to the writings of one or more individuals, none of which by themselves can speak for DailyKos.

Again, thanks for your comments, I hope mine are helpful to you.--Mooksas (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications and answers. I apologize if I violated any rules. For item #4, would it be appropriate for me to add a link from Dr. Dworkin's hospital's management team page listing him as an executive there, to combine with the US Justice Department statement page to make the entry acceptable? I apologize for my naivete on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.25.151 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Wikipedia conventions can be daunting at first, and you did the right thing in bringing your concerns to the talk page.

I do believe that adding the links and allegations from your item #4 would violate Wikipedia's policies prohibiting original research. For any information that is included in an article (and this is especially important if the claims have the possibility of being contentious), "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented"(WP:NOR). Furthermore, the policies prohibiting original research say: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."(WP:NOR)

Additionally, the sources you cite are what Wikipedia calls "primary sources". With regard to primary sources, Wikipedia policy says, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."(WP:PRIMARY) In other words, you need a valid secondary source before you can include those claims in this article. If you can provide such references, then the material may warrant inclusion in the article, but without them, their inclusion is prohibited.--Mooksas (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly & Colbert

Why is there no mention of Bill O'Reilly & the Nazi comparisons and the coverage about it on The Colbert Report? Both are notable shows and probably the most mainstream coverage the blog has gotten. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

CIA allegations

There have been allegations that the owner of the website was somehow linked to the CIA. It would be interesting if this could be mentioned in the entry, along with appropriate sources of course. ADM (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't "allegations"; the claim that Kos interviewed/trained with the CIA from 2001-2003 came from Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zuniga's own mouth during a talk he gave at the Commonwealth Club in 2006. Even though the words are from Kos' own mouth and the audio is sourced to the Commonwealth Club, it was removed from the Markos Moulitsas page. As it may have been added before to this article, I'm just going to put it here in the discussion page; often the best place to check to get the full story.

Kos- "Here's a little secret I don't think I've ever written about: But in 2001, I was unemployed, underemployed, unemployed. You know I was in that . . You all have been there "dot com" people? Kinda like, in between jobs, doin' a little contract work and . . . kinda. So, you know. That's where I was: in this really horrible netherworld of 'will I make rent next month' and . . . So, I applied to the CIA and I went all the way to the end, I mean it was to the point where I was going to sign papers to become Clandestine Services. And it was at that point that the Howard Dean campaign took off and I had to make a decision whether I was gonna kinda join the Howard Dean campaign, that whole process, or was I was going to become a spy. (Laughter in the audience.) It was going to be a tough decision at first, but then the CIA insisted that if, if I joined that, they'd want me to do the first duty assignment in Washington, DC, and I hate Washington, DC. Six years in Washington, DC [inaudible] that makes the decision a lot easier." http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/06/06-06zuniga-audio.html

Additional revealing info about Kos' past, all from mainstream sources: http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/08/indictment-of-markos-ca-moulitsas-ziga.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as "power users."

I have been a member of DailyKos for a few years, and I do know this aspect of site mechanics very well. There are no "power users," and no members have the ability to "edit, delete, or otherwise prohibit diaries and responses posted by ordinary members."

What we do have is "trusted users." This status can be achieved by absolutely anyone at all, simply by having a history of their comments being well rated by other users. These trusted users have the ability to do two, and only two, things:

1) They can vote to "hide" a comment. This is more commonly known by users as "troll rating" a comment. This is done when the user feels the comment is offensive or breaks site rules. When a comment receives two or more such ratings, it is hidden from view from most casual visitors to the site, but can still be seen by the thousands of "trusted users." If other users disagree, they can "uprate" the comment and the comment will once again become visible. At no stage in this process is the comment deleted -- this is impossible and no one has this ability. Important note: This procedure applies only to comments. No one has the power to "hide" or "troll rate" a diary post. Once posted, a diary is there forever, visible to anyone and everyone.

2) They can also make changes to the tags of other users' diary posts. This is done when the original poster has made a typo, broken the understood tagging conventions, or has left out an important tag that would help other users find the post.

No one, not even these trusted users, has the power to delete content or prevent someone from posting. The only thing that can prevent a user from posting is being banned from the site. This happens when someone has received so many troll ratings that an automatic procedure, known as "autoban," kicks in. Site administrators also have the power to ban users for serious breaches of site rules (such as "outing" a user who prefers to remain anonymous, or making threats). Even once a user is banned, none of their diary posts or comments are deleted, as no one has the power to do so. And no one, not even an administrator, has the ability to edit content except the person who posted it.173.61.3.79 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no one has replied to my comment above. This may seem like a minor issue, but the article as it stands makes it sound like there is some secret cabal at the heart of the site controlling content. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. No one, NOT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATOR, has the power to edit or delete content from the site. This isn't just a minor operational detail, it's a central feature of the heart of Daily Kos -- the site is completely community moderated. Please address this issue. Revelwoodie (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Declining participation on Dailykos

Dailykos participation is declining. I edited to reflect this but the bot would not accept my source. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/23/1102592/-It-s-Only-Numbers-the-DailyKos-Decline

I also wanted to add some info on Dailykos banning policy but without allowing Dailykos as a source this is not so easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy496 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2014

On this page, could the following text:

[[Category:Protected redirects]]

...please be replaced with the following text:

{{R fully protected}}

...so that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

2015-04-18 Changes to remove various items

I have removed a number of unsourced comments and items not in line with various WP policies. I believe this one might be a little more controversial than some other removals I've recently made, and I have no significant knowledge of Daily Kos itself, not being a reader myself. Someone with significantly more knowledge might be able to restore, re-write and re-source. Some of the items I removed DID add to the article [though most didn't], but there were weasel words and lack of sources. I didn't want someone to think I was just indiscriminantly nuking massive sections of the article. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the section called "guest bloggers" should really be called "front pagers". That's what they're called and they're not really guests. Popish Plot (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Daily Kos campaigns and presidential endorsements

Recently, the emails Daily Kos sends out under the title "Daily Kos Recommended" have, not only the usual Daily Kos diary posts, but also entries such as "It is an outrage that many women still make less than men in 2015. Stand with Hillary Clinton and fight to close the wage gap once and for all." Clicking on the link leads to a "Stand with Hillary" Daily Kos "Campaign". I'd be very happy if this Wikipedia article included information on Daily Kos campaigns - who starts them and what they're about. In particular, I'd love to know if this is the first time the Daily Kos has endorsed a presidential candidate prior to the presidential primaries! Of course, as with a lot of other information about the Daily Kos, it's hard to cite a source without using online references such as https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/1528. Page Notes (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Basic Site Description

I'm changing the first sentence's ending from "progressive point of view" to "Democratic partisan point of view" to match the proprietor's statement of purpose: "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." I've added a reference to the statement of purpose. I've seen no evidence that "progressive point of view" is a better description than what the site explicitly self-identifies as. LiberalMindset (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, a bio snippet on an 'About' page written in the third person ("Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is founder and publisher of Daily Kos, the largest progressive community blog in the United States") doesn't carry as much weight as the proprietor's own words, especially when the proprietor has claimed (republished in the FAQ) "First of all, no one speaks for Daily Kos other than me. Period." I quote again his own words: "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." 'Democratic' is not synonymous with 'progressive' or 'liberal', as one simple look at the so-called Progressive Caucus WITHIN the Democratic Party makes clear. Unless the proprietor has demonstrably called his site a progressive site, we ought to go by what he has demonstrably called it. (Actually, those familiar with some of the meta wars over at Daily Kos know that a certain faction there would love nothing more than to be able to pin "this is a progressive site" on the proprietor. If you have evidence of the proprietor calling his website a progressive website, I'm all ears.) LiberalMindset (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The proprietor has said other things on the topic over time -- see for example this comment from 2010. I think it's pretty fair to say that the site IS a partisan, Democratic blog. I also think it's fair to say that within the spectrum of Democratic party politics it leans toward the progressive side of things. I don't think "meta wars" really matter for these purposes. For a wiki reader that doesn't know anything about Daily Kos, saying that it lies both a) on the Democratic side of things and b) on the progressive side of things within the Democratic party is accurate and useful. I'll try to find a way to phrase it that hopefully both of you can be comfortable with. Themillofkeytone (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Themillofkeytone, I'm OK with your changing "Democratic partisan point of view" to "Democratic point of view" and have no desire to fight it out, but if you agree that it's a partisan blog and the owner himself has explicitly called it a partisan blog, then I don't see the problem with calling it "Democratic partisan." I honestly haven't seen any evidence of the owner's view evolving since 2004 -- yes, I checked out the comment to which you linked. As recently as 2012, however, he banned someone for vocal liberal/progressive criticism of Obama's foreign policy, presumably because the criticism occurred too close to an election. There was quite a bit of noise about this banning on other blog sites. For the sake of Wikipedia objectivity, though, what's relevant is that the owner justified it along the lines of "Does anyone else want to forget the purpose of this site?" It's hard to tell what that purported purpose is, if not the "Democratic" and "partisan" purpose his very own statement of purpose explicitly mentions. LiberalMindset (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with the ins-and-outs with what happens on the site. I took the word "partisan" out simply because I didn't the sentence flowed very well when I read it to myself. But I agree it is an accurate descriptor. Incidentally, if the incident that you mentioned was covered by secondary sources, it may be a good addition to the Controversies section or even a new "Viewpoint" section or something like that. Themillofkeytone (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As a Kossack, I can tell you we do not fall in step with the DNC. Saying that we are is dishonest considering how consistently we go after democrats for misbehaving, especially the president. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were yet another drive-by editor. "Democratic Party point of view" doesn't necessarily mean it's a DNC site. The proprietor, kos, in the reference given, has emphatically insisted "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." I do not understand how one gets "liberal/progressive" out of that. Certainly there are liberals/progressives posting there, but there are also non-liberals/progressives posting there -- the Big Tent that the proprietor describes in the reference given. It's a Democratic Party site, plain and simple -- a partisan site even, but that can probably be charitably left out. LiberalMindset (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't. I have posted the about page before but you refuse to read it. A source from 2004 is now ten years old and may not reflect the stance of the current editor team. If you can find me a source more recent, then show it to us, otherwise you're being dishonest. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So an about page written in the third person is a stronger source than the proprietor's own words, huh, even when the proprietor has said that only he speaks for the site? I find that ridiculous. If you have evidence that the proprietor has changed his mind, then present it. But if he himself says "it's not a liberal blog," why the hell would you keep trying to call it one? Do you have an agenda to drive misled traffic to the site or something? As for the age of the source, do you need a statement every year from, say, Amazon that it's still an online retail site? If the proprietor's own statement is out of date, then point us to a new statement of his. It seems he's inviting questions from site users -- go in there and ask him whether Daily Kos is more accurately described as a liberal/progressive site or a Democratic Party site. Sorry, but the onus is on you to present evidence of his changing his mind since his original statement.

It's going to strike impartial Wikipedia editors as PRETTY odd that I've produced evidence of the proprietor saying "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]" -- while not one of you can produce a single instance of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site. I mean, for a so-called liberal/progressive site, that's PRETTY odd. You'd think there'd be at least a few instances of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site, his own words to the contrary notwithstanding. LiberalMindset (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, in the last few days alone, kos has reminded everyone in multiple comments that his site is a partisan election-centric site: "And yes, this is a partisan election-centric site"; "this is a partisan elections-focused site"; "in a elections-focused partisan site". See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/10/1268607/-Remind-me-Is-this-a-Partisan-site

Look, I know kos pulls a sort of bait-and-switch and gets a lot of traffic from the impression that Daily Kos is a liberal/progressive site, but Wikipedia is a place of objective facts based on objective evidence. And the objective evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of "Democratic Party point of view" rather than "liberal/progressive point of view." LiberalMindset (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another thing kos' shills won't be able to answer: If it's truly a liberal/progressive site, then why is advocacy for liberals/progressives in third parties a bannable offense? Do I need to quote that as well? Sheesh. LiberalMindset (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You spend a lot of time attacking him in your comments. You're starting to smell of ulterior motive. I've reported this to edit warring. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And as you've discovered there, some could reasonably see you acting in bad faith, given that I present the evidence you're incapable of presenting. Yes, I have found you quite frustrating. But thanks for moving the process along. I'm now investigating dispute resolution. LiberalMindset (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution request raised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Third_Opinion LiberalMindset (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Im a 3rd Opinion. Ok first of all I would like to say that both of you have good arguments and sources however I have to agree with LiberalMindset some media outlets identify the site as using a Democratic Party point of view and the website itself has confirmed that it takes a Democratic Party point of view. Im sorry Zero Serenity but with this overwhelming amount of evidence I must say that it looks to me that the site takes a Democratic Party point of view.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations? Here's one just calling it lefty. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you haven't produced any evidence of the proprietor, kos, calling his site a liberal/progressive site, whereas there's plenty of evidence of his calling it a Democratic/partisan site, I'll consider that a lost cause. I am curious, however, about what you have to say about the site's official banning policy. Why aren't posters allowed to support liberals/progressives running as third-party candidates? That seems odd for a liberal/progressive site but is perfectly aligned with the M.O. of a Democratic Party site. If kos starts calling his site a liberal/progressive site, I'm more than happy to consider all past evidence outdated. But don't hold your breath waiting for him to do that. LiberalMindset (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You show one off-the-cuff remark from 2004 whereas I cite the about page (which is probably written or approved by him). So, your overwhelming evidence is non-existent. I won't comment on the banning policy since it's BEYOND relevant and shows that you really do not seem to care what the article says. Zero Serenity (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it strikes unbiased editors as strange that you can't produce a single instance of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site. On the other hand, there are many past and recent instances of his calling it a Democratic site, a partisan site -- even going as far as to say in the past that "it's not a liberal blog" (so let's just call it a liberal site anyway, eh?). The Maddow comment is a vague nothing -- not only that, but kos' stated reason (in the 2004 reference) for clarifying the site's purpose was that media personalities were getting the purpose all wrong. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And if you can't see how the banning policy is relevant, that's not my problem. I don't know any other "liberal/progressive but totally not Democratic Party" site that insists on its members advocating for the Democratic Party, with advocacy of third-party liberals/progressives being a bannable offense. Good luck here. Pursue further dispute resolution if you like. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, my advice would be to ask kos point-blank in public whether Daily Kos is better described as a site with a "Democratic Party point of view" or a "liberal/progressive point of view." Maybe start a diary there and hope to get his input that way, since you say you're a Kossack. Otherwise, his existing comments seem pretty conclusive to me and apparently to the others here. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Democratic" is not a point of view. The word is "liberal," or "progressive." I have made this change. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also provided sources that describe it as merely a liberal blog - the NYTimes, Polifact, and Mediaite. I could have done about a million more, but I think I've sourcebombed enough. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, you folks are getting more and more ridiculous. "Democratic Party point of view" is perfect English (I am a copy editor and do this for a living). I notice you say you're dyslexic, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the English. The owner has explicitly said it isn't a liberal blog, IN RESPONSE to media sources calling it a liberal blog. This really isn't that hard. LiberalMindset (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy to escalate this in the dispute-resolution process and take it all the way if you folks want to keep ignoring (i) the fact the owner has explicitly called it a Democratic, partisan site both in 2004 and a number of days ago -- and has explicitly said it isn't a liberal site in response to media sources mistakenly calling it a liberal site; (ii) the fact the site's official policy is to ban people who vocally support liberals/progressives running as third-party candidates. The escalation is only going to make things tougher on yourselves, in my opinion. LiberalMindset (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable, third party sources. Reliable, third party source describe the site as liberal. Do you believe "democratic party" is an adjective? Hipocrite (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to support clarification of the characterization of Daily Kos. I think it needs to be done to make the article accurate, but is not necessarily a choice between "progressive" and "Democratic". On August 15, 2016, Kos posted The new, updated, and improved Daily Kos Rules of the Road, which state: "SITE PURPOSE: This is a site for Democrats. That’s the fundamental premise underlying all expectations about posting, commenting, and interacting with other site users. We are here to connect, unite, work together toward a common purpose, whether it’s to elect more and better Democrats, to advocate for specific issues, or even to socialize among like-minded friends. But ultimately, we are fighting to make ours a stronger, more effective, more progressive Democratic Party." Simply quoting this statement in the article would make the nature and purpose of the site clear. Absent objections, I will modify.samtha25 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Where does Daily Kos get its polling from for the 2016 Presidential election?

Where does Daily Kos get its polling from for the 2016 Presidential election? It says that a couple of years ago it fired Research2000 as its pollster. I read the New York Times polling summary, and it includes Daily Kos's numbers, but they are of very different state-to-state from other pollsters, so I was just curious where DK's polling numbers come from so that I could look into the methodology and figure out why there are variances from other polls. This surely has been discussed on Daily Kos, but I have never read it. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily Kos. 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/20060614131419/http://www.chicagoreader.com:80/features/stories/georgia10/ to http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/georgia10/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily Kos. 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/20090120200727/http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/22_4/essays/002.html to http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/22_4/essays/002.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Daily Kos. 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/20070808063542/http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjNiMDI3N2FjNGFmMzk1OGVlMzliNGZmN2Y2NzM%3D to http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjNiMDI3N2FjNGFmMzk1OGVlMzliNGZmN2Y2NzM%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828183603/http://slata.stanford.edu/ConferenceArchive/law_and_technology_2005/speakers.htm to http://slata.stanford.edu/ConferenceArchive/law_and_technology_2005/speakers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114124116/http://www.downeast.com/index.php/page/issues/id/2512 to http://www.downeast.com/index.php/page/issues/id/2512
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619083645/http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Issue%2CMP&ArchiveDays=100&Page=2 to http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Issue%2CMP&ArchiveDays=100&Page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505053440/http://www.congressmatters.com/ to http://congressmatters.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/georgia10/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304135613/http://kossacksnetworking.ning.com/ to http://www.kossacksnetworking.ning.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, 2016 Presidential Candidate and Markos' Site Decree of March 15, 2016

This is my first edit at Wikipedia. I am a Daily Kos user, blogger, and a reader. I have concerns that this Wikipedia page does not reflect the philosophical and political change happening at Daily Kos. Significant changes began taking shape in 2014. I need to do more research, and come back with links from Markos statements beginning in 2014. My concern is that the Wikipedia page is misleading. Please bare with me as I research this issue. I will return. Thank you. Ajaradom (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Enough, I'm very too late to discussing this topic, But I agree with you that blog site has been changed for while now, So I will finally removing a Category from them as result. User:Chad The Goatman (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be updated and expanded based on current state of blog site

I been agree someone up there that site has changed in last three years, And I want someone to update its political stance with sources from site itself and secondary sources to kinda proving it or creating some section of it to see as more ideologically Social Liberal with some Centrist elements and more Pro-Democrat propaganda-like than self-subscribing Progressivism with former less Pro-Democrat beliefs in last ten years. User:Chad The Goatman (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Corrections needed to Daily Kos page

Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on the Democratic Party and liberal American politics.

The below edits may be needed to more accurately reflect Daily Kos.

--

Guest bloggers: The guest bloggers in 2015 are incorrect -- these were all Daily Kos staff and not Contributing Editors: "2015: Josie Duffy, Thandisizwe Chimurenga, Vann R. Newkirk II"

Same section also has outdated (or incomplete) info on Armando, not mentioning the fact he's since returned: "For two months, Armando would resurface periodically, and all of his comments were accompanied by a signature line stating that he would be returning to blogging in December 2006. Armando did indeed resurface, albeit under a user ID, "Big Tent Democrat," in September 2006. Armando "Big Tent Democrat" then left the Daily Kos site again in March 2007, citing "differences with the Management."

Addition per below to accurately reflect state/outcome of lawsuit. It should say:

"Daily Kos had previously partnered with Research 2000 to produce nonpartisan polling for presidential, congressional and gubernatorial races across the country. In June 2010, Daily Kos terminated the relationship after finding their data showed statistical anomalies consistent with deliberate falsification[14] and announced its intention to sue the polling firm.[15][16]

On November 30, 2010, an agreement to a settlement began as lawyers for the Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that both parties were “in agreement as to the contours of a proper settlement but are still in the process of determining whether the execution of the proposed terms is feasible."[17] In May 2011, The Huffington Post reported that the lawsuit had been settled with Research 2000 pollster Del Ali making payments to Daily Kos.[18] In July 2012, however, a default judgement of over US$350,000 was entered against the defendant."

The "funding" section is outdated and no longer correct: "It is financially sustained by advertising, with Google AdSense and Blogads. [...] The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."

It should say: "Daily Kos is financially sustained through lead generation, ad swaps, sponsored content, and donations. The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."

Meow panda (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 28-MAR-2019

  Unable to review  

• Your edit request could not be reviewed because in a portion of your requested text it is unclear which references are connected to which claim statements.

When proposing edit requests it is important to highlight in the text, through the use of ref tags, which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. The point of these inline ref tags is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point will be lost if the ref tags are not clearly placed. In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two: The first shows how the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be submitted in the future.

Request edit examples

N INCORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[14] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[16] References       1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.       2. Harinath, Paramjit. "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.       3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2. In the example above there are three references provided. Numbers within brackets are shown in the requested prose (e.g., [14], [16], etc.). These numbers do not link to any of the references listed, as their numbers (14 and 16) are higher in value than the number of references shown (three). Your edit request similarly contains numbers within brackets, and the numbers do not correspond with the numbers listed in the references section of the talk page. The links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below: Y CORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin. References In the example above the links between the provided references and their claim statement ref tags are perfectly clear.

Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Corrections needed for Daily Kos page (modified)

Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on the Democratic Party and liberal American politics.

The below edits may be needed to more accurately reflect Daily Kos.

--

Guest bloggers: The guest bloggers in 2015 are incorrect -- these were all Daily Kos staff and not Contributing Editors: "2015: Josie Duffy, Thandisizwe Chimurenga, Vann R. Newkirk II"

Same section also has outdated (or incomplete) info on Armando, not mentioning the fact he's since returned: "For two months, Armando would resurface periodically, and all of his comments were accompanied by a signature line stating that he would be returning to blogging in December 2006. Armando did indeed resurface, albeit under a user ID, "Big Tent Democrat," in September 2006. Armando "Big Tent Democrat" then left the Daily Kos site again in March 2007, citing "differences with the Management."

Addition per below to accurately reflect state/outcome of lawsuit. It should say:

"Daily Kos had previously partnered with Research 2000 to produce nonpartisan polling for presidential, congressional and gubernatorial races across the country. In June 2010, Daily Kos terminated the relationship after finding their data showed statistical anomalies consistent with deliberate falsification and announced its intention to sue the polling firm.

On November 30, 2010, an agreement to a settlement began as lawyers for the Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that both parties were “in agreement as to the contours of a proper settlement but are still in the process of determining whether the execution of the proposed terms is feasible." In May 2011, The Huffington Post reported that the lawsuit had been settled with Research 2000 pollster Del Ali making payments to Daily Kos. In July 2012, however, a default judgement of over US$350,000 was entered against the defendant."

The "funding" section is outdated and no longer correct: "It is financially sustained by advertising, with Google AdSense and Blogads. [...] The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."

It should say: "Daily Kos is financially sustained through lead generation, ad swaps, sponsored content, and donations. The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meow panda (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for making these corrections. I will review them ASAP.  Spintendo  05:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply 30-MAR-2019

Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.  Spintendo  16:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal review 30-MAR-2019

Guest bloggers: The guest bloggers in 2015 are incorrect -- these were all Daily Kos staff and not Contributing Editors: "2015: Josie Duffy, Thandisizwe Chimurenga, Vann R. Newkirk II" Clarification needed. Armando, not mentioning the fact he's since returned: For two months, Armando would resurface periodically, and all of his comments were accompanied by a signature line stating that he would be returning to blogging in December 2006. Armando did indeed resurface, albeit under a user ID, "Big Tent Democrat," in September 2006. Armando "Big Tent Democrat" then left the Daily Kos site again in March 2007, citing "differences with the Management. Clarification needed. On November 30, 2010, an agreement to a settlement began as lawyers for the Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that both parties were “in agreement as to the contours of a proper settlement but are still in the process of determining whether the execution of the proposed terms is feasible."[5] In May 2011, The Huffington Post reported that the lawsuit had been settled with Research 2000 pollster Del Ali making payments to Daily Kos.[6] In July 2012, however, a default judgement of over US$350,000 was entered against the defendant. Clarification needed. Daily Kos is financially sustained through lead generation, ad swaps, sponsored content, and donations. The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members Clarification needed. ___________