Talk:Daily Kos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives | |||
|
|||
About archives |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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[1], so it's definitely notable. There have also been previous postings on the website featuring anti-Semitic graphic content[2], which also gained much attention and was reported in the Israel National Television [3], and other examples[4]. 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)
- 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
- I propose you wait until reliable sources think it's important, not just sworn enemies. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)