Talk:Zephyr Teachout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
How do I put a NPOV tag on this pro-Zephyr, anti-Kos piece of tripe?
Newbie posted this to the main page:
How does this thing work? Will this get posted? Will someone edit me?
My answers: Wiki's work by allowing anyone to edit anything. The interfaces are in the browser and use wiki syntax. See the Help section linked to on the left hand side of every page for more information. Yes, your typing did get posted. And yes, I did edit you because questions belong on the discussion/topic page. Alison9 01:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Zephyr stirs up a crap storm
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/01/see-what-you-did.html
[edit] A note to Derk
This is a message to Derk who reverted my edits from last night, and the message you sent my IP address.
It's not at all clear to me that I vandalized the page.
I did not change what had already been written there. I did add to what had been there with a description and my opinion of Zephyr Teachout's current actions. I gather (probably wrongly) that this is all within the scope of making changes to a wikipedia page.
Rather than name calling what I did vandalism, I would have expected further edits, softening the language, adding links, but not a call for banning me.
I would have emailed this to you, but I couldn't figure out your email address. And so I don't know the proper place on the wikipedia to discuss this.
I would have posted this to Zephyr Teachout's blog itself, but she only allows registered users to post there. She's a bit of an info-fascist as we have all learned by now.
Feel free to a) help educate me b) let me know where this post (this post itself, not last night's entry) should have been placed c) let me know your email address d) contact me at j217828 at that hot fake microsoft email spammers dream operation if you know what I mean e) banninate me g) revert the reversion and edit the post to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. h) any or all of the above.
Yours,
Jerry
[edit] Keeping coverage of Zephyr's claims NPOV
I've just reverted out the first sentence of the paragraph about Teachout's claims with regard to MyDD and Daily Kos. Again. The phrase "Teachout sparked controversy by blogging about how the Dean campaign had paid two popular webloggers ... to ensure positive coverage on their sites" is extremely POV, as its wording implies that Teachout's claims, both about the nature of the relationship between the Dean campaign and Armstrong and Moulitsas, and about the intention of the Dean campaign in hiring them, are undisputed facts. They are not, as the remainder of the paragraph makes clear. I've once again changed the opening line to read "Teachout sparked controversy by claiming that...", as this contains no implications regarding the truth or falsity of Teachout's claims. Let's please keep it that way. Ubernostrum 13:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Dropping another sentence: "Kos never responded to Teachout's claims that he was paid by other candidates and organizations whose identity he did not disclose." The article discusses no claims other than one involving the Dean campaign. If someone wants to go digging, flesh out a list of actual allegations and note whether each was responded to, that's great. But just dropping that sentence in with no supporting context is a bit shady. Ubernostrum 10:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
