Talk:Daily Kos/Archive 1

message: Question: Are these sections really necessary? It seems like mini-communities within the site really aren't very encyclopedic, since someone browsing this article won't have any interest in knowing about the minicommunities (and anyone who is likely would already be posting on dKos). I suppose BiPM is significant due to his frontpage Cheers and Jeers posts, but the Scotty Show really seems irrelevant. I've been reading dKos daily for three or four years now, but not as a regular in the community, so my perspective on the community may be a little different than the rest of the contributors to this page. Virogtheconq 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BiPM/Scotty Show

message: Does anyone know DailyKos' record for upholding truthfulness and accuracy in the articles that it blogs? This seems like an important big issue as blogs are not typically held to the same standards as conventional sources of journalism.--153.104.27.107 21:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthfulness/fact checking

message: The article should be updated to reflect the new version of the Daily Kos logo. It changed about a week ago from what is pictured in the article.
Rather than obsess over the logo, I think a little content-check is in order. The dust-up over the mercenaries was HUGE...even amongs democrats.
As it stands, this section is missing the essence of the outrage that was expressed against Kos.
I'd like to see the article include this piece:
"The campaign manager for Democratic Congressman Martin Frost
wrote a scathing rebuke on Frost's behalf "As a former Army Reserves member, spouse of an Army General on active duty and an American, Martin finds these words extremely irresponsible and highly offensive. 
...There is no place for these disgusting remarks in this nation's discussion on foreign policy" ."
Big Daddy 13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Daily Kos Logo 

message: Can someone provide some citations for this section - as it stands it seems overly vague and fluffy.  Guettarda 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Non-Patriotism 

message: Unless the four people killed in Fallujah had been found guilty of some crime, the word "executed" is inappropriate. Andjam 12:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the overused phrase "gangland style execution"?  I'd say "execution" is commonly used for intentional, merciless killing.  I'm not say that it's the perfect word here, but I don't think it's inappropriate either.  Guettarda 13:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be used a lot, but it does not neccessarily make it appropriate. Andjam 14:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Security contractor" is newspeak.  They are ex-soldiers, hired to fight.  The plain English word is mercenary.  Guettarda 14:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a bouncer at your local nightclub be called a mercenary in your dictionary? Some of them are ex-soldiers, and they are hired to fight. Andjam 15:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know where you live, but around here, as far as I know, bouncers don't carry automatic weapons, do not regularly engage in gunbattles...and are not hired to use lethal force.  I'm sorry if the word "fight" was ambiguous to you.  If you don't realise that the war in Iraq is a little different to the situation outside your local bar, maybe you should refrain from editing topics you know so little about.  Guettarda 15:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA. Andjam 11:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I felt that it'd be more neutral than "mercenary". But you're right, it's a bit of a neologism. Maybe if I come up with something better, I'll mention it here. Would you have any objections if I changed "executed" to "killed"? I'm not saying that the use of "executed" is evil incarnate, I merely think "killed" would be better. Andjam 11:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Lay off the POV-pushing.  We write in English, not political talking points and newspeak.  Guettarda 15:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: So are you saying that, in order to be a mercenary someone has to fight for the love of it and not for the pay?  As I said before, we use English, not newspeak.  (And as to the last part of it, Markos mentions many times that he does not have combat experience; like the entire paragraph, the final sentace seems to bear little relationship with reality.  Guettarda 06:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Security guards with a carte blache to kill?  Security guards who are paid several times as much as soldiers?  You must live in a fun neighbourhood.  Guettarda 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the Blackwater page does not describes them as "mercenaries", first of all. The pay is irrelevant as well. Military personel have a legal obligation to do what they are told, Blackwater folk don’t, and accordingly have to be paid much more to do so. As far as I know, the "mercenaries" in Iraq, are not participating in military operations, only security work, i.e. they don’t look for fights, only protect themselves and their clients when forced to do so. TDC 20:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That seems like a more appropriate term. TDC 20:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in Fallujah controversy 

message: Should we mention a list of politicians at Daily Kos? Yesterday, John Kerry signed up and posted a diary while in the past, various Democrats such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold have appeared. --Blue387 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, many post, most of them are not frontpaged - it would be difficult to compile a full list.  But it certainly makes sense to mention some of them, and the fact that dKos is influential enough to attract them, etc.  Guettarda 20:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some of the more prominent ones to the list like Louise Slaughter, John Conyers, and Jon Corzine.  And while they haven't posted, I've found usernames registered for Hillary Clinton, Jeff Bingaman, Patrick Leahy, Byron Dorgan, and Patty Murray. I'm not sure if these are legit, but typically kos wont allow registration of a username of a politician until after he checks it out. FleetAdmiralJ 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians at Daily Kos 

message: Anyone feel this should be mentioned?
:Yeah, I think it should be mentioned. --Blue387 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yearly Kos

message: These comments are inflammatory.  I’m not saying they should be completely eliminated, but definitely stated in a more neutral, less partisan manner.  The source cited for this, Redstate, is a political adversary to DailyKos, and definitely should not be used or taken as a neutral source of this information.  A news organization perhaps?  And, I don’t feel that should be listed under controversies section, as it is not controversial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red pepper (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 June 2006  (UTC)
*Furthermore, when you consider that most of the candidates in question were not mainstream candidates, that doesn't say much about the arguments.  Kos selected candidates that weren't receiving the love at the level of Obama or Salazar.  Mongiardo in fact only became relevant when Jim Bunning started having his issue  (by the way, on a second issue, where did the debate from before on the other inflammatory section go?) Jlove1982 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute "Losing candidates"