Talk:JournoList/Archive 1

Archive 1

New article

Nice work getting this page setup.Lord of the Ping (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it's informative but I have my doubts about the significance of this subject. Wasn't this a one-day story? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's very much a multi-day story. The Weigel story was in late June, almost a month ago. We've had several days now. And we've had a number of comments, defenses, apologies from people notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. I think we can expect this to be studied for years to come. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree on that. Just watch when the next "leaks" occur.~Mack2~ (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing names

I've read that some 400 people were members of the JournoList, so there's a long way to go before we have a complete list. Anybody who knows of and can document other members, please contribute.~Mack2~ (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

FYI this article and related issues are being discussed at the BLP noticeboard here. I don't want to express an opinion on this, just thought it would be worth mentioning here.Prezbo (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Clearly, we need more comments by pro-List factions to keep this article unbiased and not slanted too much. 173.57.61.233 (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

JournoList or Journolist

Is it JournoList or Journolist, with a small l? As it stands now, both forms appear on the page. Whatever it is, use it consistently, please. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger Simon calls it Journolist: "Journolist Veers Out of Bounds", for example, not JournoList. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

list of members

Is there an advantage to splitting up the first and last names like this? It just looks really strange to me.Prezbo (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I guess this is probably necessary to make it sortable.Prezbo (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hated breaking up the first and last names that way, but I don't see any better way of allowing for sorting. I think these names, as the table lists them, can be picked up in search engines when people search for the full name, which was why I didn't want to list them "Klein, Ezra [...] Klein, Joe". Come to think of it, if the default is simply to have the alphabetical listing, then we could combine them, right? The default would still show them in alphabetical order by last name. There's even a feature where the sortability can be turned off for particular columns. I'm not sure how that works. If nobody can think of a reason not to, maybe tonight (about six hours from now or more) I'll combine the name columns into one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better just to have them alphabetical by last name, rather than in a sortable table - but that's mainly because I don't see any use in changing the sort order. If there is a reason I'm missing, I'd love to hear it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

seems to me the list is not properly sourced and could be considered a massive BLP violation until done so. Anyone else have concerns? Ronnotel (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably sourced. Probably all of the names came from a core of about 3 articles published in "authoritative" news sources (WaPo, The Atlantic, The New Republic -- though those articles refer to information leaked through blogs) or in blogs where the JournoList participants identify themselves." But I agree that there is no obvious advantage to being able to sort the names in this kind of table. Alphabetical order by last name is perfectly fine.~Mack2~ (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Of course it's properly sourced. By the way, as far as I know, no one, anywhere, who has ever been said to be on the list, has denied it. If you think the Daily Caller is an unreliable source, feel free to bring it up at the RS noticeboard. Odd that the DC would bring up quotes in its numerous articles if it were unsure of the names of the people it was quoting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One problem here is that we don't know when these people started posting on Journolist, so we can't actually say who their employer was "at time of early participation in JournoList." For instance odds are David Weigel started posting when he worked for the Washington Independent, not the Post. We should just list every person's employers from 2007 to 2010 and not make the claim that we know who they were working for when they started using Journolist. This is not necessarily a BLP issue, just an accuracy issue.Prezbo (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about us not knowing where each person worked when originally starting at JournoList. Better to simply state "Most prominent employer" and "Other employer" and leave it at that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the entire list from the current public article for BLP reasons - there are far too many redlink names, and a number of sources are not explicitly linking names to JournoList. The old version of the article can be found here, if it is later agreed that the list should be republished in whole or in part. Until then, it should not be republished. If someone wants to work on it in their userspace (with a {{userspace draft}} tag), they can do that, and post a link here (it may make more sense as a standalone List anyway). Rd232 ^talk 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion. The status of the list is under discussion, and in the meantime the list is being improved with further citations, and so forth. It is far easier for multiple editors to contribute to it if it's "up." In the meantime, this article is basically 2 days old and still under development. Re the "redlink names" I don't understand your rationale. A redlink just means there is currently no WP article about that person, not that the person is unknown. If you want more "references" then in almost all cases, links can be found to non-WP soureces, e.g., bios elsewhere. But that takes some time. And it's a good reason to leave the table up so that editors can supply that information. Alternatively, if they bother you a lot, the red links themselves could simply be removed from the names. Given the early stage of development of this article, this is no reason to delete the entire table.~Mack2~ (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This has a BLP policy foundation: WP:BLPNAME, and the fact that many of the names are redlinks. Some (perhaps even most) of these names may be independently notable and merit articles, but BLP caution clearly demands not disseminating names if we're not sure. Beyond that, I also maintain that it is simply unencyclopedic to list the names. A summary description of the membership is everything that's required, along with naming (in prose, with explanation/reason) individuals who have been specifically highlighted in reliable sources. Anything else is a nasty combination of voyeurism and witch-hunting, for participation in what was a private discussion: that some of them were public figures does not automatically make full documentation in the public interest. Without support from anyone else, I'm not going to repeat the action; and I don't have time or energy to make a fuss. But I absolutely stand by it, and argue that the list should be temporarily removed from the public article, and perhaps moved somewhere NOINDEXed (hence the {{userspace draft}} point) for those keen to work on it pending outcome of discussion about the list. (Caution would dictate removing the list from public view immediately, not waiting an indeterminate amount of time whilst the list gets seen, mirrored, and cached everywhere.) Rd232 ^talk 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely opposed to deleting the table, but I think there should be more discussion before that decision is made; in the meantime different editors can try to improve the text, the table, and the notes. The voyeuristic aspect is mainly being acted out elsewhere -- by those who are leaking the emails. I view the account here on WP as more of a documenting of what Journalist was and was not, and it's only possible to do that well by mentioning the names of several of the principals involved, including some who have written to explain or defend JournoList. But I don't think we can only list those who are already "public figures" to the extent that they are already notable enough to have WP articles written about them. If, after collective reflection and more discussion, the consensus of WP elders is to delete the table, I will support that. In my 4 years here on WP I've become convinced that the process leads to good decisions 90% of the time.~Mack2~ (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

" I think there should be more discussion before that decision is made..." - That's why I clearly identified the removal as temporary - the removal constituted a short-term precaution, not a long-term decision, and was explicitly not intended to pre-empt discussion. Rd232 ^talk 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have worked some more on linking bios to the "red people" on the JournoList table. It takes time but it's fairly easy to do since almost all individuals have been active in some aspect of communications, public policy, or academic work and have institutional affiliations and bios of some kind available. I've even run across a couple of individuals who, on their own websites, shout out "Why not me? Am I too boring or insignificant to be called out by Tucker Carlson?"

But as I worked on finding bios I've become convinced that digging out that information and putting it all in a table isn't doing anybody any favors except those who want to find an easy way to harass or persecute people for being a member of this discussion group called JournoList. And I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to that -- even if it's just a potential. Anybody who is hellbent on getting the information will be able to get it. But don't let WP be a witting agent in that process. The story of JournoList should be told. It doesn't need a table.

So I recommend that the Table be deleted.~Mack2~ (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I fully agree! Now if you want to continue working on turning the redlinks blue, maybe moving the table to a page in your userspace would be the best thing (with a link here so others can see it), not forgetting {{userspace draft}}. BLP caution would suggest doing this ASAP; the table can always be merged back if discussion concludes that the table should remain. Rd232 ^talk 09:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Won't be able to do a thing for next two days, as I have a short out of town trip. So table will remain here unless you put it into your user space, which would be find with me. I am not inclined to follow through with the bluing of the links.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns that have been expressed about having a lengthy list of names dominate this article. We have no way of knowing the degree of participation of people on the list, if any, there is a certain innuendo involved in their being listed that concerns me. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While the existence of the list is being considered, pending that review, I've changed the wording to make it more accurate. It gave the impression of a comprehensive list, which it wasn't. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I've moved the list to User:Rd232/JList. It can still be worked on there, and it can be merged back if there is agreement to do so. In the mean time, anyone that wants can edit it there. Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a separate "list" article (i.e. List of JournoList members? Then just include a link here with perhaps a short summary of the more notable members. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The objection is not (AFAIK) primarily to the amount of space taken by the list within this article. See discussion at WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 07:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Jeffrey Toobin quote

As one of the few straight journalists (as opposed to opinion journalists or non-journalists) who offered talking points to bolster Obama's candidacy, Toobin's comments are certainly noteworthy. They were noteworthy enough to not only appear in The Daily Caller, but a Washington Post article dealing with journalism, as well as both of the major television shows that are devoted to the topic of journalism (CNN's Reliable Sources and Fox News Watch). As to the supposed "contextless" presence of the remarks on Toobin, it appeared right after the paragraph about Tucker Carlson saying that "we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is journalism." Drrll (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on this extensively earlier on this page. I've nothing more to add. The material, extracted from the JournoList communications by Carlson without any context for the discussion does not belong either in Toobin's bio or the Journolist article. You incessantly promote inclusion on those two pages, and other WP editors disagree with your opinion on this.~Mack2~ (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You want to ignore the fact that reliable sources that focus on journalism discussed Toobin's comments when discussing JournoList. Sorry, but inclusion of material in WP is based upon reliable sources, not upon your arbitrary excuses for keeping it out or because other editors don't like its inclusion. Drrll (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Drrll: As you know from my comments elsewhere, I have stated that the fact that something is cited in a reliable source does not necessarily make it germane to a WP article. There's hundreds of thousands of words published every day in reliable sources. That doesn't make them all worthy of an encyclopedia.~Mack2~ (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There has not been hundreds of thousands of words in major reliable sources about JournoList--there have only been a small number of words written about JournoList in major reliable sources and it is those sources that should form the basis of this WP article. So if a major criteria for inclusion is not reliable sources on the subject, what exactly is your criteria for inclusion? Quotes from policy please. Drrll (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What are Toobins' comments? Can someone publish them here or provide a link so we know what's being discussed? Ronnotel (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the pick of Sarah Palin as VP candidate, "what a joke...I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.” Drrll (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any support for the premise that that these comments are notable for a journalist? Off hand, I'm not that interested in idle chatter on the Internet. However, if the quotes have been singled out by media critics then that might be more so. Ronnotel (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one of the few major newspaper media critics, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, singled out Toobin's comments as being noteworthy, as did both of the news shows that regularly examine journalism (CNN's Reliable Sources and Fox News Watch). Drrll (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the sources here? It would help everyone reach a consensus if all the material were readily accessible in one place rather than having to go search for it and guess what was meant. Ronnotel (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are here, here, here, and here. Drrll (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, it looks like there does seem to be some reaction from bonafide media critics. Here's an exchange on CNN:

KURTZ: I have a question for you. When Sarah Palin was picked as VP nominee, Jeff Toobin of CNN said on this list, "What a joke. I always thought some part of McCain doesn't want to be president. This choice proves my point."

Palin then comes out and rips the "sick puppies of the media" and said that she was "faced with hordes of Obama opposition researchers/slash reporters."

So it certainly gave Palin an opening to beat up on the press.

HALL: It gave Palin an opening. And, you know, I think when I read that I was disappointed that Jeffrey Toobin said that, because I think then you're commenting on the air about a candidacy. You've already been on the record -- off the record about that. That's inappropriate. That, to me, was an inappropriate thing to say.

So, yes, it does seem like the comments are relevant and notable. I would say they should be included. Ronnotel (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"F**king NASCAR retards"

Eric Alterman's 'Fucking Nascar Retards' comment should be at least mentioned. As time goes on, it will be something needed to allow people to understand the historical flavor of the controversy, and to understand the character of the Journolist discussion (where the comment seems to have passed without remonstrance) and the participants in the group. Part of the resonance of the controversy was the level of scorn, indeed animus, which the participants feel toward middle-class America. Hypercallipygian (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Describing the list's range of political views

I've just changed the part of the lede describing the political stance of JournoList members from
  political views ranging from centrist to center-left to leftist.{{citation needed}}
to
  political views ranging from "nonpartisan to liberal, center to left".{{citing "On Journolist, and Dave Weigel" by Ezra Klein}}
on the basis that it will be easier and arguably more encyclopedic to quote Klein's own description than to come up with a well-sourced description ourselves.

Perhaps we should change the lede to make it clearer that the words I quoted come from Klein, not some impartial observer. Comments?

(Aside: my edit summary did not mention saying that Klein worked for TAP when he created the list. Sorry.)

Cheers, CWC 06:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would at least attribute the words to Klein, since he would aim to present JournoList in the best possible light. Politico alternatively describes JournoList as follows in 2009:

For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.

Drrll (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think Politico is a better source than Klein, and "left-leaning" is more informative and a lot shorter than what I put it. So I've changed the article again. Thanks, Drrll. CWC 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mickey Kaus reference

The link pointed to by reference [6] is a Kaus blog post on Aug 3 2007 which seems to have no bearing on the subject at hand (other than referring to Ezra Klein). 128.12.207.176 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC) S. L.

Please do not remove information unless you have a valid reason

I saw that there were many instances of information being either buried or removed completely from past edits, which were perfectly valid. Please stick to the facts and report what has been reported. If you feel that something should be removed, use the Talk page to discuss your issues first.Sy9045 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

POV, so reverted.

The last series of edits turned this pages into an attacking page, pulling things way out of proportion (as far as I can see). So I have boldly reverted all edits from @Sy9045:. Especially his comments like Please do not bury information unless you have a valid reason. Use the Talk page to discuss your reasons, Are you kidding? That was DIRECTLY from the cited Daily Caller email that was cited for the shutdown. You are intentionally manipulating content and these were leaked emails covered word for word. Either use the Talk page to explain why it's vandalism or I will report you gives me the feeling that an agenda is pushed as he is trying to smother the discussion.

(And no, the only reason why I visited this article was due to the nine links to disambiguation articles that Sy9045 had introduced in the process. I have no involvement in American politics nor Gamersgate.) The Banner talk 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm reverting your revert. It's unbelievable you would do this when multiple sources from all political sides cited what I edited (including links from the "liberal" side like the Atlantic and Daily Kos, among others). Check the sources. The intro mentioned the Sarah Palin and the Jermiah Wright emails, and the body contained the specific emails that were referenced. Do not revert changes unless you have a justifiable reason or I will report you.Sy9045 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted again, please don't start an edit war. You edits are, in my opinion, not neutral. Your attacking summery Shame on you for trying to bury information. The cites were from all political aisles. How dare you. makes painfully clear you are pushing an agenda and that you are not trying to keep the article neutral. The Banner talk 04:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted your revert. Why is it not neutral? Explain why it's not neutral. The sources were cited from every political aisle, including the the Atlantic, Politico,, and the Daily Kos, among many others. What specifically is not neutral? Do not remove information unless you have a valid reason to do so. You are intentionally violating Wikipedia policies. Stop it now. My lashing out at you is because I've dealt with many editors like you who have tried to bury information.Sy9045 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You want to go to war over it? You are trying to smother a discussion by behaving rudely and you fail to Assume Good Faith. Ow, and I am not impressed by your behaviour. Not at all. The Banner talk 04:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you are resorting to ad hominem attacks? You attempted to revert everything without even having a discussion. Why is the page not neutral? You have not explained after I repeatedly asked you. What are your issues with the page? Be specific. It's absurd that you would attempt to remove information without giving a clear justification.Sy9045 (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Sir, but it is not me who is attacking. That is entirely your work. You have some big words here, but I don't see a realistic attempt to discuss. We will see what other think about your edits. The Banner talk 04:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And once again you resort to an ad hominem attack instead of answering the question I have repeatedly asked you. Why is the page not neutral? How many times do I have to ask that? What is your justification? What citations do you have issues with? Politico? Daily Kos? Wall Street Journal? Washington Post? The Atlantic? What exactly? Please be specific instead of attacking my behavior. Thanks.Sy9045 (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you fail to justify your reasons for marking this page POV or "overly detailed", I will remove those tags. You have thus far failed to justify your reasons. There is no discussion involved aside from attacks on my character. Please justify your reasons, be detailed, or I will remove those tags because you are refusing to have discussion on the tags you inserted.Sy9045 (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have thus far failed to use polite behaviour and failed to Assume Good Faith. The Banner talk 05:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the last time I will ask you or I am removing the tags you inserted. Answer my questions above and be specific on what issues you have and what sources you have issues with. Stop attacking my character.Sy9045 (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as you keep roaring and shouting like this: YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO BURY INFORMATION THAT WERE CITED BY MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES FROM ALL POLITICAL AISLES it is you who don't even attempt to start a serious discussion. The Banner talk 10:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I did that once in the edit summary field because you twice reverted edits without a discussion. Then you resorted to attacking my behavior instead of answering my questions about your neutrality issues. I was calm and tried to understand your issues with the page but you keep attacking my character (an ad hominem) instead of sticking with the substance of the page. Is this all I can expect? Should I quit replying to you if you are just choosing to insult me instead?Sy9045 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL, and you attack me for not having English as a first language. So please, stop kidding and start some serious discussion about the content. The Banner talk 09:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How was that an attack? I saw that you were from Norway and kept avoiding my questions. I felt I wasn't communicating correctly to you.Sy9045 (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)