Talk:Jerome Armstrong/Archive 1

Lots of WP:RS violations

The controversy section is almost entirely a synthesis of primary source material. This needs to be seriously reviewed and secondary sources obtained, as noted in WP:RS. In particular, I don't think WP should be citing

• SEC filings,
• blog postings by the interested parties, and
• (preferably) any blog postings at all.

In addition, the {{expert}} should not be removed as the section does not seem to follow the proper citation style for legal cases. Shoudln't there be case numbers and what not? (IANAL) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kaustuv, your political persuasions should not guide your WP editing. In particular, your pulling of select quotations that meet your political agenda. Most of your "controversy" is made up rightwing propoganda-- the secondary sources refute the claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User talk (talk • contribs) 2006-07-12 08:22:19 (UTC)

I have not added a single bit of information to the article that wasn't already there when I started editing, as you can easily verify from the history. Make no assumptions about motives and political opinions, please. Also feel free to respond to the specific objections I raised rather than throwing out generalities. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Explain this revert

Please explain this.

I have reverted this change pending an explanation of why the edits of User:Korny O'Near and myself were simply discarded. Thanks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pure lunacy

What the hell is going on here? This is a failure of Wikipedia on all levels. The users won't discuss. The admins won't semi-protect[1]. They won't investigate[2]. The slow revert war won't stop. This is madness! — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realized you had already tried to get admin intervention. If you don't mind, maybe it would be worthwhile to try again; there's certainly more evidence now than there was two weeks ago. Korny O'Near 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeated removal of material from the controversy section

The existence of the allegations cannot be disputed. Neither can its notability, given how it has been commented on by several notable sources. Therefore, removal of this paragraph, lacking any presented justification, constitutes a POV edit. Please explain why this paragraph should be deleted before deleting it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What allegations? There are none in the links provided backing up those made on WP, just a statement of "allegations".

Ah, an actual talk-page comment! See, that wasn't so hard. It only took about a week of random vandalism to other pages (not to mention something like three weeks of vandalism to this page) before you got the idea. So, here's the cited link that details the allegations: [3] I think it describes the allegations fairly clearly. What do you have to say? Korny O'Near 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single allegation listed in that link. Nada. It's a timeline of one person being paid for work that is the substance of these claims?User talk:User talk

68.239.110.139, et al: The paragraph you keep deleting/modifying contains 3 referenced statements of fact. One declares the existence of the allegations, and briefly describes them. The other two document the denials made by the individuals involved, and a relatively exculpatory statement taken from an impartial third party. In its current form, it espouses no point of view. Does attributing the allegations to "rightwing blogs" enhance the neutrality of the paragraph? Does deleting the description of the allegations (and renaming them "undocumented accusations") enhance its informational value? If you think the description of the allegations is inaccurate (the description, not the allegations), try rewording it (with a NPOV), but don't delete it. Opelio 06:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the relevant bit from the cited National Review article, describing the payola allegation: "When you hire Armstrong for consulting, do you get something besides good advice? Is Zephyr Teachout’s mentality correct, that while it’s “consulting” on paper and in the records, what campaigns really want is good buzz from Markos and the support (financial, volunteering) of Kos readers?" Korny O'Near 18:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let us be clear that NRO citation is to a blog and blogs do not fit the criteria of a reliable source per WP:RS. I have stated above that citations of blog postings should be removed from this article. Secondly, allegations don't just miraculously "surface"; they have to be made by someone. In this case, the chief allegations were raised by right wing and conservative bloggers such as Dan Riehl and James Joyner, not to mention posters on the manifestly conservative group blog RedState. Or, at least, that is my understanding from reading the cited NRO blog post and the links therefrom. Per WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV, it behooves us to mention the allegers together with the allegations, and I would encourage everyone, particularly 68.xx.xx.xx, to summarise with verifiable secondary sources who was raising these allegations. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Teachout and James Joyner have retracted the allegations against Armstrong. See the correction on the post that Kaustuv links to as backing up the accusation. Your link to Dan Riehl makes no accusation whatsoever. There still lacks an accusation to this non-story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.110.139 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-28 00:22:46 (UTC)

Just because you think it's a non story doesn't make it one. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please make edits, and do not vandalize the substantial corrections to your errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.110.139 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-28 01:49:35 (UTC)

Reverting POV is not vandalism. Take a few minutes to review WP:NPOV. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)