Talk:Verrit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unlinking Daou

Lasalleexplorer (talk · contribs) and others- why are you unlinking Peter Daou? Yes, it redirects, but that's the same Peter Daou. tedder (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Challenge: Notability

Simply having a tweet endorsing something from a politician is not sufficient to create an entire new page devoted to it. Site founder Peter Daou doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Verrit is non-notable. 75.118.216.198 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Second. The alleged cyberattack attracted a handful of re-articles in minor media sources and the tweet generated the usual notable person tweeted(!) blurbs, but the site itself appears to be totally off the radar. Wait until WaPo inevitably issues their endorsvertisment, until then delete. 204.195.87.202 (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. Nobody outside of a few niche circles knows about Verrit and even those people will forget about it in a week. BFKelleher (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

while it may be a flash in the pan from an importance perspective, its been covered by numerous secondary sources at this point (a number of which I have added as sources). I think its a clear GNG at this point ResultingConstant (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

MOST experts say..?=

Oh come on. Really? Everything I said about "most experts" down below still stands. Putting "some" in front of it doesn't make it any less opinion, it just makes it opinion with a protective caveat. Provide links to trustworthy sources discussing expert analysis or strike the line. Really now, these partisan attempts to insert opinion into this article, they're just embarrassing themselves. So still; strike the line;

"Most experts, however, say it was likely that the web servers were unable to handle the traffic from Clinton's advertisement. --TheLiberalOgre (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Experts Say..?

Article makes a claim about what experts say without linking to any source to back up that claim. What's worse, is one of the two linked sources is titled (link /2) in a way that makes it clear that the only available sources linked for this page clearly are of the opinion it WAS a cyber attack.

I'd advise either provide a verifiable, legit source for "Experts say" or just strike the line entirely.

The following change needs to be made to reflect this;

+++++++++++++++ Verrit is a political news site by Peter Daou[1] that shows verified news facts for sharing in social media discussions.

On September 3, 2017, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate of the 2016 Presidential Election, endorsed the service. The site then fell offline, with Peter Daou stating it was offline from hackers.[2] Experts say it was likely that the web servers were unable to handle the traffic from Clinton's advertisement. +++++++++++++++++

to;

+++++++++++++++++++

Verrit is a political news site by Peter Daou[1] that shows verified news facts for sharing in social media discussions.

On September 3, 2017, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate of the 2016 Presidential Election, endorsed the service. The site then fell offline, with Peter Daou stating it was offline from hackers.[2]

++++++++++++++

Come on people, let's keep the wish fulfillment personal opinions to ourselves. --TheLiberalOgre (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Verrit is not an "American Leftist" organization. It's a liberal organization. I have checked on social media platforms and popular leftist of America are not welcoming this website ans Peter and Hillary are renowned liberals.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/904484186291089408 http://verrit.com/bernie-sanders-and-the-mainstream-media-helped-put-trump-in-the-white-house/ https://www.recode.net/2017/9/3/16250766/hillary-clinton-startup-verrit-cyber-attack https://twitter.com/NomikiKonst/status/904546004669788160 https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/904526143147065344 https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/904198410886160384

Bernie Sanders is a leftist. If verrit is talking against him and they are not a right wing media organization, it is clear that verrit is a liberal organization.

Verrit is an America liberal news media website. It was endorsed by the liberal candidate of 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton. Thetrantorian (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 07:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Leftist? The correct adjective is neoliberal.72.234.244.48 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

The present version smacks of partisanship & agenda. It also appears to have been written by someone who poor language skills.

---

Verrit is a political news site by Peter Daou[1] that shows verified news facts for sharing in social media discussions.

---

Should be cleaned up and read (this is a simple, basic description without any editorializing or opinion, the facts are shown in the article);

---

"Verrit is a website created by Peter Daou. The stated goal of the website is that it will show; "stats and other “information you can take out to social media when you’re having debates on key issues people are discussing.”"{1}

---

That above is a direct quote from the article without the opinions of those who support or don't support the site and its goal. The next section;

---

On September 3, 2017, Hillary Clinton, lost candidate of 2016 Presidential Election, endorsed the service. The site then fell offline, with Peter Daou falsely stating it was offline from hackers.[2] Experts say it was likely that the web servers were unable to handle the traffic from Clinton's advertisement.

---

"lost candidate of 2016 presidential election"... really? Did someone misplace her? Did America check behind the couch? and "Falsely claimed"... how do you know that? I've seen no evidence provided that shows Daou is correct or wrong. This is an unsubstantiated claim. Finally "Experts say it was likely that the web servers were unable to handle the traffic from Clinton's advertisement."... the linked article to source this fact has nothing about experts making claims in it, so it should be removed.

Here's my suggested fix;

---

On September 3, 2017, American politician Hillary Clinton endorsed the service by referring to it as "a media platform for the 65.8 million", a reference to the number of people who voted for her in the 2016 USA Presidential election. Shortly after the endorsement the site went offline, with Peter Daou claiming the case behind it was a systematic DNS attack from hackers.

---

TheLiberalOgre (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the way you write it is bordering WP:PROMO, something we cannot accept. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hillary's Breitbart? Centrist Substitute of Breitbart?

Some people like me are quickly compared this as the Centrist equivalent of Breitbart like ever since allot people are now aware of this site exists thanks to Hillary endorse its existence. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:58, September 5, 2017 (ETC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017

Change: Verrit is a political news site by Peter Daou[1] that shows talking points for use in social media discussions.

To: Verrit is a political news site by Peter Daou[1] and Leela Daou that shows talking points for use in social media discussions.

https://www.bustle.com/p/is-verrit-legit-the-social-media-platform-hillary-clinton-endorsed-is-confusing-people-80857 MmeViolet88 (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Please change "The site then fell offline, with Peter Daou falsely stating it was offline from hackers. Experts say it was likely that the web servers were unable to handle the traffic from Clinton's advertisement."

to

"The site then fell offline, shortly followed with Peter Daou confirming a DDoS attack."

Because: Who are these experts? What is the evidence that Peter Daou's claims are false? And Peter Daou has confirmed on Twitter the DDoS attack.

Source: https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/904553458858172416

The site has since implemented a verification of browser to remove DDoS traffic, but I don't think this info is relevant. AndyChow (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Peter Daou didn't confirm, he claimed. Indubitably (Lara) 13:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Verified News Facts"

The website itself doesn't even pretend to be an unbiased source of information. As such, the term "verified news facts" as used in the article is somewhat misleading. I would suggest changing it to a more neutral term, like "talking points". TetraNomic (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I 100% agree. If this page is not deleted - which it should be for failing to meet the notability guidelines - Verrit is verifiable marching in lock step with the Democratic platform. 75.118.216.198 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

Please change: "Verrit is a political news site created by Peter Daou" to "Verrit is a political news site created by Peter Daou and Leela Daou." because she is the co-founder. Source: https://mic.com/articles/184274/pro-clinton-site-verrit-aims-to-correct-the-record-on-2016-co-founder-says#.bYISK478z MmeViolet88 (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done ResultingConstant (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Who keeps saying that Verrit is "far-left"?

Peter Daou is a notable centrist activist, and has openly stated that his reason for creating Verrit was to shield HRC supporters from "[bullying] from the radical right and fringe left". He has also been involved in an ongoing conflict within the Democratic Party's online presence, representing the centrist faction against the more left-leaning Sanders wing of the party. 16tonweight (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

He's not a centrist. See: https://peterdaou.com/ and https://theoutline.com/post/2207/the-strange-life-of-peter-daou 75.118.216.198 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, It's usually right-wingers who mistaking think this site "far-left" because their views to compared centrists/social liberal is far-left in their world. But in my view, they are center-right or trying to be a centrist substitute for Breitbart after since Hillary herself endorsed it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:01, September 4, 2017 (ETC)

Centrist is frankly just as problematic as far left. Both are unsourced by reliable sources. But since the site is very unabashedly in Clintons camp, describing it as "centrist" in unsourced wikipedia's voice really really risks a NPOV problem. Hell our article on Clinton herself describes her repeatedly as "liberal" and further things like "most liberal" and not even a single time as "centrist". ResultingConstant (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What you talking about, Modern day Liberalism or either social and fiscal liberalism can be sometimes interchangeable to Centrism at worst like her Party is still preaches centrist or Neoliberal policies by her husband. Chad The Goatman (talk) 8:30, September 6, 2017 (ETC)

1) "sometimes" 2) in the opinion of some (mostly themselves?). "Center left" and "center" are not the same thing. Saying it unattributed, unsourced in wikipedia's voice is a clear WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

First "Response" quote is out of context

Hey there. I'm the author of the first piece quoted in the "Response" section of this article -- the one from the Washington Post. I just wanted to flag that I strongly believe that the quote from my piece included here is out of context in a way that is misleading.

Here's what it says now: "Abby Ohlheiser at The Washington Post described Verrit as 'something that’s useful for Clinton supporters who like to argue online about politics'.

Here's what I actually wrote: "My very best and most charitable guess, based on Daou’s interviews and its own social media presence, is that Verrit is supposed to be something that’s useful for Clinton supporters who like to argue online about politics" (emphasis mine). In other words, I don't say in the piece that I think Verrit is useful or fulfills its intended purpose for its audience -- as my quote as selected here strongly implies -- and I'm not sure that I would currently agree that it is.

I just wanted to flag this for consideration for someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest, and would be able to make a decision here. My suggestions would be to either pick a better quote that more accurately reflects my reaction, or to remove my reaction altogether.

Apologies if this isn't the best way to go about this, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia participant.

Thanks! Aohlheiser (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

References

@Aohlheiser: Thanks! I'm the one who snipped the quote, and I agree it does mislead somewhat. Is there a quote that you think is a better overall summary of your article? ResultingConstant (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aohlheiser: Or would it be better just to add in some additional words from your quote ? ResultingConstant (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@ResultingConstant: Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! Ultimately, I'd prefer to leave it up to you all, but I think if you even updated the current quote to include the "supposed to be...." that would help, right?Aohlheiser (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done ResultingConstant (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

How can this be called a news site?

this is absolute absurd, and should be corrected, it's a one-sided political circle-**** site at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.50.27 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)