Talk:Markos Moulitsas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

political leanings

There's been a few changes in the description of the politics of DailyKos. The original wording was "popular liberal weblog". This was changed to "hard-left" [1]. An anonymous user then changed it to "neo-socialist" [2], and Gamaliel reverted to "hard-left" [3].

Kos himself calls himself a progressive. However, he is also very pragmatic when it comes to politics, and supports centrist Democrats, especially in swing districts. On 3 Aug 2005 he posted this [4]. The blog itself has posters all over the spectrum of Democratic politics. Hence, I'm changing the end of the sentence to read "a popular weblog for Democratic Party politics." -Satori 15:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When compared to most blogs, he is certainly to the farther reaches of the left. "neo-socialist" was probably a joke, but hard-left is accurate when compared to more moderate fare like Josh Marshall or Mickey Kaus. Calling Daily Kos simply "progressive" or about "Democratic party politics" is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.194.174 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 August 2005

"Hard left" borders on pejorative as a label, and is completely relative anyway. Most of the content on DK looks positively centrist next to most of the stuff coming from hard-line socialist groups. Also, drawing these kinds of comparisons is original research. RadicalSubversiv E 08:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

So I assume you are in favor of me going and ensuring the Powerline, LGF, Captain's Quarters, et al. are not labeled "far-right" or "hard-right" sites? Or does NPOV only go in one direction in these parts??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.109.80 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 August 2005

it depends. Are they "far-right"? Perhaps some are and some aren't. It's irrelevant here as it assumes we wrote those articles. Daily Kos being left or far left is not dependant on whether LGF is right or far-right. Please sign your comments too.--FNV 20:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it just now to "left-wing." I think this is the best term for it: First, the word itself is not at all loaded with negative meaning: While those on the Right will probably be satisfied Zuniga and his site being labeled "left-wing", as it's an insult in their circles, many of DailyKos' readers/contributers would gladly wear that term as a badge of honor. It's certainly less clearly POV than "progressive" or "ultra-liberal" (or any term that tries to describe "how far to the left" DailyKos is, as if there was a Mohs scale to measure political leanings).

Secondly, it's accurate, painting a somewhat more clear picture than simply calling it "pro-Democrat" or "liberal". I don't think Zuniga, or any of the other major contributors, would at all protest his site being labeled "left-wing" by the media, they'd probably embrace it; a common theme in the front-page content and the diaries is doing away with what they call centrist, pro-corporate "DLC-style" (i.e. opposed to what would be "left-wing") politics and replacing them with figures conducive to a more populist dialogue (like Howard Dean).

As for the anonymous poster above, I would indeed recommend that sites like Atrios, DailyKos, and Democratic Underground be objectively labeled simply "left-wing" or "liberal" in the intros to their respective articles (though preferably not "liberal" as Wikipedia is an international website, and that word has very different political meanings in the UK, Europe, and Australia than it does in the U.S.), and sites like Power Line, Free Republic and Little Green Footballs likewise labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" (rather than "far-right" or "ultra-conservative"). With bloggers like Kevin Drum or The Volokh Conspiracy, whose leanings are clear but who are more centrist and criticize their own side more often, the terminology may need to be more complex. Andrew Levine 02:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"anti-American"

I'm once again reverting the "anti-American" label that keeps being put into this article. Seriously, I don't care if you're on the left or the right, I wouldn't label anyone who participates in the political process in America "anti-American". To continue to put that label in is at the least NPOV, and really borders on vandalism. (in the same way as people putting "terrorist" or "fascist" remarks in George W. Bush - and just as juvenile, I might add). -Satori ^(talk) 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush did use violence to attain goals political and economic in nature, including wanton killing of innocent civilians. That is terrorism, according to the US army field manual. However, I would not label him a "terrorist", but I would not label an IRA leader or Bin Laden a terrorist either. They are paramilitary leaders who have used terrorism. Bush is a government leader who used terrorism. I think labeling him a fascist is inappropriate, as is labeling him a conservative. He is more of an oligarchist republican, a corporatist and a christian democrat, however he had fascists and conservatives in his administration.

Words mean something, they are not just epithets we use to attack Bin Laden or hitler. And Markos is kind of anti-american, as he disbelieves in free speech and is hostile to civil liberties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Markos "Moulitsas" but not Zúniga?

In this post here [5], Kos says that his name is just Markos Moulitsas. Something to do with his last name being his mother's madien name and latin culture. Should we point this out in the article, or even move it? Hopefully the post wasn't using wikipedia for fact checking.--Rayc 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Double surnames are standard in Spanish/Latin American names. The first surname is your father's name, and is equivalent to your surname as used in most other western countries, while the second surname is your mother's surname. A woman's married name is Xxxx Yyyy Zzzz de Aaaa (where Aaaa is her husband's name). Her children will carry Aaaa Yyyy as their two surnames.

"Moulitsas Zúniga" is the proper form of the name, but the short form is Moulitsas not Zúniga. So Markos Moulitsas is correct, Markos Zúniga is wrong. As far as article naming goes, I think this is fine. But as per the style guide, he should be referred to as Moulitsas in the article (not kos). Guettarda 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No, your first surname is not "equivalent to your surname as used in most other western countries" your first surname is just that, your first surname "primer apellido" and although it is common to refer to someone as señor Primer Apellido for brevity(hence Moulitsas and not Zuniga in this case) your full legal name should always contain both. According to Spanish law the first surname can be the father's or the mother's as long as all their children follow the same order. Also when the "primer apellido" is very common it is not unusual to use the second even in abbreviated form, the current president of Spain, for example is commonly addressed as "Presidente Zapatero" while his full name is "Rodriguez Zapatero" and some people will insist in being addressed by the full name specially if the second name belongs to a well known family. As regarding a woman being referred as "Señora de Aaaaa" , not any more. This is rather archaic, and although you could , I guess, hear someone old fashioned using the form it has no legal basis whatsoever. Legal and everyday naming conventions are the same for men as they are for woman at least in Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.36.158.120 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 June 2006

Vegan

Markos is a self-proclaimed vegan. (see here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/24/1914/5915 and several other stories). Should we add that? And, if so, should we add him to the "List of vegans" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.113.170 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 4 April 2006

"Screw 'em"?

This seems to be quite biased. As with every blogger, criticisms ought also to be incorporated. Considering how widespread his "Screw 'em" comment has become (with the original post and wording preserved by some bloggers even though Markos has had it purged), it would be educational for others to read about it. Also, other allegations (such as the few numbers of Democrats he supports being elected), and opposition to his strident anti-war policy and mercenary reasons for joining the military ought to be mention to provide balance. Links which critique him also ought to be included. For such a popular and influential blogger, both sides ought to be presented. Such balance has been a hallmark of Wikipedia. Kitabparast 02:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First, the "screw them" quote hasn't been purged. In fact, the article for Daily Kos has a link to the comment [6] (it's one of two comments kos makes on that diary). Second, the number of candidates he has supported being elected is in the Daily Kos article as well, though if one puts it, a note should probably be attached that says that most of those candidates were large underdogs to begin with and not expected to win (so its not like kos's support cost them the race). I'm not sure what you mean by "opposition to his strident anti-war policy" considering that he considers himself a hawkish democrat...just not for the Iraq war, nor am I sure by what you mean by his "mercenary reasons for joining the military." FleetAdmiralJ 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

book sales

Are arguments about how well a book sells really important enough to be worth 1 and a half paragraphs in such a small piece? Rather than this whole article get tied up in an idiotic arguement on how many copies his book sold compared to similar conservative books, I'm removing the whole discussion of book sales.Countmippipopolous 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked this up by calling amazon. Apparently, Moulitsas sold 5,188 books as of 27 June, 2009. Borders would not disclose the amount after I called them. Barnes and Nobles couldn't at first find the title, but they did afterwards and told me that they don't carry it in stock because it does not receive enough orders. You can still get it online though but it takes a while because they order them directly from the published when orders come in. The rep told me to date 608 books have been sold online. Just so people do know, he does sell books.

pictures

How many pictures are necessary for a blogger's wikipedia entry? Does having more than 1 picture here offer anything more of substance to someone reading the article? Dstanfor 21:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Guettarda 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

There was a reference to why prominent dems started advertising again with Kos. Are we mind readers now, that we know it's because they "recognized his capacity for fund raising?" - what an ideologically loaded statement, to presume such cynical motives for all the elected democrats who post there. I added an incomplete list of names from memory who have posted there more than once. If one wants to portray Kos as electoral poison, one will need to explain all the prominent dem politicians still posting there. I'd say the screw 'em comment didn't exactly ruin Kos or confine him to the extremist dust-bin.

I also removed the statement that "none of his endorsed candidates have won their elections" (quoted from memory). First, it's irrelevant to the controversy over the screw 'em comment, and second it's wrong. So I wrote a bit about Howard Dean and Jon Tester who both were strongly endorsed and did win. Also to balance it out I added a bit about Busby and hackett, who lost. I know there were others he endorsed and lost, and if somone wants them listed there, fine - but make sure to mention that they were all long shot races and it's not like Kos endorsed someone who was sailing to victory and subsequently lost because of his name being associated with them.

--FNV 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I took out:

However, the defeat of his most-preferred candidate, Ned Lamont, by Joe Lieberman running as an independent, has been viewed by some partisans as an embarassment, despite the fact that Lieberman plans to caucus with Senate Democrats.

When someone can come up with a citation where Lieberman is named his "most-preferred candidate", that can be brought back to this entry. However, such a citation doesn't exist. It's a fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.15.74.81 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 January 2007

Kosola

Should we include the storm raging regarding Kosola? I think it's somewhat relevant and significant: both the allegations as well as Kos's reactions thereto. --Kitabparast 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackwater USA are mercenaries

"Mercenaries" is not subjective it is exactly what they were and it was the term used in Kos's post. Calling mercenaries “security contractor” is like calling prostitutes “genital service technicians".

Wikipedia defines a mercenary as

A mercenary is a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations.

That sounds just like what Blackwater does.

--8bitJake 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to the argument, you should have a look at mercenary and private military contractor (and the discussion of this a few months ago at Talk:Daily Kos). The problem with the term mercenary is the following:

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

As I recall, the people killed in Fallujah were US nationals, so the definition doesn't apply. Guettarda 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackwater has hired non US citizens. The mercenaries that were first killed in Fallujah were not US military. They were there for profit and under any US military law or international law. Again it is like calling prostitutes “genital service technicians”. Security Contractors is POV framing --8bitJake 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a look again at the mercenary article. The killings in Fallujah occurred on March 31, 2004. The transfer of sovereignty took place in June. Thus, at the time of the killing, the US was administering Iraq. Consequently, they were "'national[s] of a Party to the conflict". Hence, they clearly fell outside of the definition of mercenary as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

As for your statement "Security Contractors is POV framing" - while I agree with that statement, that isn't the text you changed. Private military contractor is the phrase you changed. If you find that unacceptable, by all means, try to find a better term. But "mercenary" is clearly inaccurate, even though the distinction between them and mercenaries is terribly thin. Guettarda 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire legality of the war and occupation is questionable at best and I don't think it can be used to nitpick at a legal definition. I think we should use the Wikipedia definition of the word and that is "A mercenary is a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations." A security contractor is more like a security guard these were non-military "military" units fighting for profit. That sounds like a mercenary to me. --8bitJake 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, but within that definition lies the problem. Mercenaries are defined as having "little regard for ideological, national or political considerations". If you can cite what the motivation of those 4 was, that's one thing. But they can not be called mercenaries because you believe they had "little regard for ideological, national or political considerations". Someone who supports the war may turn around and call them "US citizens", and while that would be a gross mischaracterization, technically, it would be correct. I think what you ultimately came up with is best "non-US military Blackwater USA employees that he described as merceneries" --Stillhere 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackwater is in the news again, some of this stuff should be in the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Military career

What did he do in the army, and what rank did he reach? Obviously from the photograph he was at least a private first class, but the article doesn't explicitly state this, and someone who is unfamiliar with US rank insignia would not know. I cannot tell his specialist subject just be looking at his badges. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.dailykos.com/special/about he was "a 13P -- an MLRS/Lance Fire Direction Specialist (artillery), and served between 1989-92". I don't know if 13P is a rank, or what. Maybe someone who understands this army lingo can update the article. Phr (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well.... article as written says Moulitsas was a rocket system. 13P is probably Mouslitsas' military occupational specialty (MOS) for Fire Direction Specialist. Article also says Moulitsas was in the fighting 69th. The fighting 69th is a NYNG infantry unit, not exactly a place for a regular army enlistee from IL, so it seems someting isn't correct. Picture looks like Mouslitsas is wearing a regular army 3r infantry division patch 68.239.1.229 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

cia?

references to cia in first paragraph and third paragraph have no citations/wrong citations? what is this? When a man admits in an audio tape to have trained at the Central Intelligence Agency between 2001 and 2003 (two years), that is a signicant fact about a long period of time in his resume. Particularly since "progressive" groups are concerned about being infiltrated by the CIA, the fact that a political figure spent two years "training" at the CIA is essential information for the public to have.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.160.206.201 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced now, but why is it the first sentence under "Political advocacy through Daily Kos?" It seems to imply that Daily Kos is a CIA vehicle. Any suggestions for where it should go? Perhaps its own section? Perhaps not at all? Job interviews don't seem to be worth inclusion on Wikipedia generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.70.220 (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I merged the first reference into the second. Still not sure if a job interview is Wikipedia worthy. 69.3.70.220 10:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stunned to find no mention of his having worked for the CIA. Adding it. 24.233.66.69 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, on second thought I don't want to figure out how to add stuff to a wiki page, the standards here are mind-boggling. And it seems that the most one would be allowed to say here is that he "wanted" to work for the CIA, even though it's quite obvious there's more than that. So here's the link, in case anyone eventually deems it relevant that the country's leading leftist blogger was a hair's width away from (officially) being a CIA spy. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/06/06-06zuniga-audio.html

Here's a little secret I don't think I've ever written about: But in 2001, I was unemployed, underemployed, unemployed. You know I was in that . . You all have been there "dot com" people? Kinda like, in between jobs, doin' a little contract work and . . . kinda. So, you know. That's where I was: in this really horrible netherworld of 'will I make rent next month' and . . .

So, I applied to the CIA and I went all the way to the end, I mean it was to the point where I was going to sign papers to become Clandestine Services. And it was at that point that the Howard Dean campaign took off and I had to make a decision whether I was gonna kinda join the Howard Dean campaign, that whole process, or was I was going to become a spy. (Laughter in the audience.) It was going to be a tough decision at first, but then the CIA insisted that if, if I joined that, they'd want me to do the first duty assignment in Washington, DC, and I hate Washington, DC. Six years in Washington, DC [inaudible] that makes the decision a lot easier.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.66.69 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Primary

Moulitsas didn't really call the primary process "civil war" but rather implied that the consequences of the "coup by superdelegate" would be civil war. The way it is phrased in the article makes it seem like his criticism is of the primary process instead of Senator Clinton's tactics. Ketchomal (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

I've noticed that several variations on the subject's name are present in the article. I'm going to go through and change most of them to Marcos Moulitsas, or just Moulitsas, since that is apparently what he uses now. The Latin American custom of using the double last name is improper in this case, since Kos now follows U.S. custom of father's surname only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgranucci (talk • contribs) 02:57, 25 April 2009

You mean Markos Moulitsas, right? Because that's the correct spelling of his first name. According to Spanish naming customs, both surnames should be used when formality is required but it's appropriate to use just the paternal surname when informally referring to someone. Taking that into consideration, it would seem that the best approach would be to leave Zuniga in the infobox and first line of the article, but remove it anywhere else it appears in the text of the article. BigTex71 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Georgiamode01, the infobox person template of which you are referring to, now uses the label "Religious beliefs", but previously it was just "Religion". It was changed specifically because, as you note, atheism or agnosticism are not religions (there is discussion of the change in the archives for that infobox, see here for some). Atheism and agnosticism are however the proper terms to describe the religous beliefs of a person, with the basic meaning of the terms describing the lack of said beliefs. An analogy would be that it would be inappropriate to describe the political party of someone who identifies them as "independent" as "independent" since there is no such party, but it would be appropriate to describe their "political stance" as "independent". In fact, the infobox template for scientists uses the term "religious stance" instead of "religious beliefs". Perhaps that is a better term, and if you think so you should try discussing it in the talk page for the person infobox.--Mooksas (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Using the definition of Religion according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[Link] (see definition b (1) which I would consider the most clear-cut and accurate definition). Atheism isn't a religious stance or a religious belief in any sense. It's a disbelief of a deity or belief that there is no such thing, but a belief does not necessitate a religious belief unless it fits said definition. The word Religion does not own the word deity. "Belief", "disbelief," and "religion" are three different and separate words. I don't think any term has be included in that part of the infobox given that he's an atheist, and it really is misleading when the term "atheist" is included. Also regarding your analogy, it's a bad analogy. If a person were to blatantly state that they have political stances which do not adhere to any current political party, and is proven true, then "independent" could be used to describe their stance. If a person does not subscribe to any political stance/s at all, then "none" would be the correct and obvious term. The latter is the case here. Atheism, again, doesn't necessitate a stance on religion such as antitheism or antireligion. You can still be an atheist and be religious and/or support theism and/or support religion. The word itself, atheism, is not a religious belief or a stance on religion. Georgiamode01 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the fact that atheism does not necessarily preclude religious beliefs (e.g. many Buddhist adherents would consider themselves atheists). But it is quite common to use the term atheist to describe one's lack of religious beliefs (such as in the citation used for this very issue). In the practical sense of how the information contained in the infobox is viewed, imagine the subject of the article being asked each question in turn. If the subject of this article were asked, "what are your religious beliefs", his answer would almost certainly be, "none, I am an atheist". So, a compromise position I have seen used is to say "none (atheist)" in the infobox, instead of just "atheist". In this way the primary query of religious beliefs in answered (none), and including the term atheist provides the appropriate context.

Although, on further reflection, it's not clear to me that identifying this particular individual as an atheist is very relevant to their notoriety. It is a fact that doesn't appear to have come up much in his writings, and it certainly isn't a main focus of his work. So, if you still feel strongly about removing it from the infobox, and there are no further objections from other editors, I see no reason that it absolutely must be included in the article.--Mooksas (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gallary

I randomly stumbled across this page during a usual wiki adventure from blackwater>first battle of fallujah>31stmarch0 fallujah ambush and noticed this dude had a gallary. This doesn't add anything to wiki especially as theres pics already of him. Wiki is trying to resemble an enclycopedia and not a myspace sytled social site. If Hitler, Herbert Hoover and Harold Holt don't have a gallary, then neither should this bloke. I like the letter H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

>>what is a "gallary"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.195.79 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of including a photograph of him in a military uniform? He is known as a political commentator and there are plenty of photos of him like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.73.18 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)