Talk:David Brock

message: I have a problem with this line: "...now works to dismantle the conservative media machine he was once part of." That doesn't sound like a NPOV line. It someone's "opinion" if you think the media is mostly "conservative" or "liberal." -- DraQue Star
:Surely it's not a comment on the media as a whole, but on the sections that Brock was a part of. Unless one subscribes to the belief that the media is wholly or mainly conservative or liberal, we all have to admit that both blocks have their own media machines. —This unsigned comment was added by 195.92.67.78 (talk • contribs) .
::I took that sentence out while transfering the phrase "conservative media machine" (I'm guessing it's Brook's.) to the next sentence. The introduction makes it clear enough that he is working against the conservative media. I also made a couple minor changes to wording without removing information. I hope that gives a more neutral tone. BTW in general I think an article should have a positive tone towards its subject. That makes it more interesting to read. Steve Dufour 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the beginning sentence

message: Dropped this link:
* Bruce Bawer, "Turn, Turn, Turn" Washington Post (book review of "Blinded by the Right") (March 17, 2002)
The WP has presumably moved this article to their pay-per-view archive. Ellsworth
Dropped:
* Hendrik Hertzberg, "Can you forgive him? A right-wing conspirator comes clean," New Yorker (March 11, 2002)
New Yorker has apparently taken down a lot of its recently-published material, presumably in preparation for the rollout of its archive page. Ellsworth 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped links 

message: This page is a mess, with many redundancies, syntax errors. Help me clean it up.Rhinoracer 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: Sure, he would agree today.  But when he wrote it, he would likely have said that it was merely an exposé, not an attack.  (And while he does characterize it as a hatchet job today, he has not pointed out any factual errors in it, his self-criticism has been limited to tone and slant.)  Anyway, the point is, this sentence works perfectly fine without the prefix "anti", it is indisputably NPOV if the prefix is left out, and no information is lost by doing so.  The fact that it's "anti" Hill is pretty easy to pick up by reading the whole paragraph.  Anyway, those are my thoughts upon this occasion of reversion.  As always, I am open to more discussion if you disagree. Unschool 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Anita Hill book 

message: The article says he was "adopted as an infant."  Although it is uncited I am sure that this was added in good faith that it is true. However it does seem like a kind of odd thing to say when almost nothing else is said about his life before college. Steve Dufour 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the reason for saying this to imply that his being adopted contributed to his homosexuality?  Otherwise I don't see why it is so important that it was put back, without a cite or any discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source for this info was probably his book Blinded by the Right.Reelm (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adopted?

message: Is this mentioned/covered in the article? TIA, --Tom 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I see where it says due to the open secret that Brock was gay. I tagged that line for citation. --Tom 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay writer category?

message: "Brock announced in 2010 that he was forming a super-PAC, American Bridge, to help elect liberal Democrats"
It looks like it's really trying to help elect right wing Democrats (Hillary Clinton)" ---Dagme (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "liberal Democrats" 

message: It is odd that there is no mention of his role in creating the Vince Foster murder fiction. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arkansas Project]]?

message: Is it O.K. to add reference to Brock's purchase of the news Web site,  Blue Nation Review ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! You should just need to add an accompanying reliable source, like [this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5]. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding purchase of Blue Nation Review

message: Somebody deleted this passage from the article.  Is the deletion allowed ? Here is what was deleted (note that whoever deleted this, left the citation on the page) : 
::Brock paid former domestic partner William Grey $850,000 after Grey threatened to release damaging information regarding Media Matters donors and the Internal Revenue Service. Brock, who sold a $1,587,500 home in Rehoboth, Delaware, in order to pay Grey, characterized the $850,000 as a blackmail payment. Grey threatened to go public about Brock and Media Matters' finances after he accused Brock in a civil lawsuit of taking $170,000 in possessions. Brock and Grey settled the matter in late 2011. Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what's going on here, but the person who deleted the information says they are William Grey. Grey says the information is libelous. However, since it has been printed by reliable sources and they haven't corrected/retracted it, the fact that it is libelous seems questionable. A lot of the information is just facts of law from court cases. Perhaps it can be rewritten in a more neutral way? Deleting it entirely doesn't seem necessary as it seems pretty relevant to Brock's political career. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems if written properly it would be appropriate to put back.--CSvBibra (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Just circling back on this. Did anyone have a suggested re-write? Safehaven86 (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of William Grey information

message: That's a breath-taking assertion w/out sources in the opening paragraphs. The Daily Beast has this to say:
<<Those theories were quickly debunked by both the L.A. police and Deputy Chief Coroner Ed Winter, who told The Daily Beast at the time that Cormier had nothing to do with Breitbart’s autopsy.>>
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/30/no-answers-in-death-of-technician-linked-to-andrew-breitbart.html)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.246.198 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenic Poisoning? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on David Brock. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7186
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/david-brock-on-anita-hill-smear-campaign-i-regret-it/55f99b9b02a760c4ec0002b1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040814061558/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6736 to http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6736
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems the internet settles on two different dates. But July 23, 1962 is the date that people who know him and verified twitter accounts seem to use as his actual birthday. IMDB shows it's July 23rd. I added the source in the main article. Here are examples of verified people associated with him wishing him happy birthday - you only see this on July 23rd: [][][] Are015 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: DB's birthday

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Brock. 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  tag to http://www.campaignsandelections.com/publications/campaign-election/2011/January-2011/Bridge-to-Somewhere-Democrats-Launch-Fundraising-Super-PAC
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015180701/http://www.guernicamag.com/features/773/antidrudge_1/ to http://www.guernicamag.com/features/773/antidrudge_1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How is this even remotely supported by the referenced article? The article is from 2015, for crying out loud, and doesn't even mention Trump.
http://time.com/4028459/david-brock-hillary-clinton-media-matters/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.36.89 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[W]hile others believe his tactics led to Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 presidential election" 

message: There is a lot more that most readers of Wikipedia would want to know about David Brock, from this article. E.g., info in this article:  https://www.thenation.com/article/the-poisonous-politics-of-david-brock/  and this one:  https://www.thedailybeast.com/dems-to-david-brock-stop-helping-you-are-killing-us   Cafeneb (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much more is available from reliable sources, consistent with BLP