Talk:Daily Kos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Blogging (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Blogging, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Journalism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Daily Kos:
  • Reorder in some logical order. dkosopedia and yearlykos should be at the bottom.
  • figure out what to do with the huge list of celebrity diarists. (i.e. delete it)
  • move controversial things into a Controversy section instead of them being strewn about.
A userbox relating to this topic is available:
Dailykosicon.png This user is a Kossack.

Adjectives in the lede[edit]

Let's not let this be a lame edit war.

The original version of the lede went as follows:

Daily Kos (English pronunciation: /koʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view.

Some time ago, the usual vandalism occured where someone went and swapped in "socialist/communist" in place of "liberal", and it wasn't reverted properly. Now, user:Dr. America has decided to change it (variously) to "left wing" or "extreme left wing".

This should be reverted to the original version, which is neutral and goes by what the site itself states. One that's settled, I'm going to removed the {{unbalanced}} tag, because the rest of the article is fine.

People, please don't feed the trolls. If a change is continually reverted back in, warn and then report the user. Continually reverting back will only make it harder to restore order.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


What does "kos" mean? (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The name derives from Markos Moulitsas' nickname "Kos" Vgranucci (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Street Prophets and Mother Talkers[edit]

We are in the process of creating pages for SB Nation and Congress Matters, and will add references on this article to those sites, as well as adding references within this site to "Street Prophets" and "Mother Talkers", which aren't quite notable enough for their own pages. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CIA allegations[edit]

There have been allegations that the owner of the website was somehow linked to the CIA. It would be interesting if this could be mentioned in the entry, along with appropriate sources of course. ADM (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't "allegations"; the claim that Kos interviewed/trained with the CIA from 2001-2003 came from Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zuniga's own mouth during a talk he gave at the Commonwealth Club in 2006. Even though the words are from Kos' own mouth and the audio is sourced to the Commonwealth Club, it was removed from the Markos Moulitsas page. As it may have been added before to this article, I'm just going to put it here in the discussion page; often the best place to check to get the full story.
Kos- "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."
Additional revealing info about Kos' past, all from mainstream sources: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talkcontribs) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as "power users."[edit]

I have been a member of DailyKos for a few years, and I do know this aspect of site mechanics very well. There are no "power users," and no members have the ability to "edit, delete, or otherwise prohibit diaries and responses posted by ordinary members."

What we do have is "trusted users." This status can be achieved by absolutely anyone at all, simply by having a history of their comments being well rated by other users. These trusted users have the ability to do two, and only two, things:

1) They can vote to "hide" a comment. This is more commonly known by users as "troll rating" a comment. This is done when the user feels the comment is offensive or breaks site rules. When a comment receives two or more such ratings, it is hidden from view from most casual visitors to the site, but can still be seen by the thousands of "trusted users." If other users disagree, they can "uprate" the comment and the comment will once again become visible. At no stage in this process is the comment deleted -- this is impossible and no one has this ability. Important note: This procedure applies only to comments. No one has the power to "hide" or "troll rate" a diary post. Once posted, a diary is there forever, visible to anyone and everyone.

2) They can also make changes to the tags of other users' diary posts. This is done when the original poster has made a typo, broken the understood tagging conventions, or has left out an important tag that would help other users find the post.

No one, not even these trusted users, has the power to delete content or prevent someone from posting. The only thing that can prevent a user from posting is being banned from the site. This happens when someone has received so many troll ratings that an automatic procedure, known as "autoban," kicks in. Site administrators also have the power to ban users for serious breaches of site rules (such as "outing" a user who prefers to remain anonymous, or making threats). Even once a user is banned, none of their diary posts or comments are deleted, as no one has the power to do so. And no one, not even an administrator, has the ability to edit content except the person who posted it. (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no one has replied to my comment above. This may seem like a minor issue, but the article as it stands makes it sound like there is some secret cabal at the heart of the site controlling content. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. No one, NOT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATOR, has the power to edit or delete content from the site. This isn't just a minor operational detail, it's a central feature of the heart of Daily Kos -- the site is completely community moderated. Please address this issue. Revelwoodie (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing controversies[edit]

This article is one of the more fair articles about political blogs that I have seen in Wikipedia. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the Drudge Report, it's interesting how much of the Drudge Report article focuses on the personal life of Matt Drudge, rather than his site, and has an overwhelming number of negative comments about Matt Drudge and his site.

A few comments on this article:

1. The opening statement uses the word "news" to describe the site. It's really not a "news" site; rather, the site's content interprets the news from the site's stated "progressive" (or liberal) point of view. I know this won't be popular, but the site is really a "spin" site. I hope this doesn't violate the Talk page guidelines. I propose that the word "news" be deleted from the first sentence in the first article paragraph.

2. The site is used to actually create news. For example, back in March 2007, the site was used to launch an attack on Ann Coulter for a joke she made about Senator John Edwards. The anonymously posted article was then used by CNN as a way to report a "news story;" the "news story" was a story about a story. So in a way, the site is being used to "make" news, not really to report it. DailyKos did not disclose its work for the Edwards presidential campaign at the time, either. I apologize if this violates any Talk page guidelines. Under the "Content" section of the article, I propose a sentence about DailyKos endeavoring to "make news."

3. There is no mention in the article about Jerome Armstrong's violations of SEC rules ( Armstrong worked closely with the front man for DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas. Armstrong used the Web to promote investments in a company while at the same time he was actually dumping the stock because he knew that it was a bad investment. Now, this is not quite as titillating as reporting rumors about Matt Drudge's sex life. But, I think it is relevant because Armstrong was using the Web to mislead investors; and that implies issues with his use of the Web, via, for persuading voters. I propose that this be included in the "Controversy" section, perhaps in a paragraph covering "controversial contributors" to the site.

4. There is no mention in the article of the fact that one of the longest-serving, senior "Contributing Editors," Dr. Greg Dworkin, is a senior executive at the Danbury Hospital in Danbury, CT. The Danbury Hospital admitted to mroe than a million dollars in Medicare over-billing ( This is relevant because DailyKos is one of the leading backers of healthcare "reform," and a "single-payer" system, yet one of the site's senior editors directs a hospital that has admitted to bilking money from the current federal government-run healthcare plan, Medicare. Maybe it's not obvious, but this seems really hypocritical to me, regardless of anyone's stance on healthcare reform. As in point 3 above, I propose that this be included in the "Controversy" section, perhaps in a paragraph covering "controversial contributors" to the site.

5. Related to my point number 2, DailyKos has been used to present false and/or undocumented claims against organizations (public and private) as well as private citizens, as part of the site's efforts to advance particular candidates, issues or parties (well, one party). For example, in the Ann Coulter situation described in point #2 (and I get that not a lot of people like Coulter, but it's still a valid point here), DailyKos provided unverified information about a private company as well as private citizens who happened to have Coulter as a customer. I understand that Coulter enrages a lot of people, but it should be noted that DailyKos attacked what was essentially Coulter's plumber or lawn service. Again, I apologize if this violates any Talk page guidelines. I propose that under the "Content" section, a sentence should be included covering the site's somewhat sloppy journalism.

There are definitely questions about the funding of the site, but I do not have the research ready yet to cover that, so I won't go any further on that topic (sorry for mentioning it).

Respectfully, (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)A Virginia Wikipedia-er

Thanks for your comments, I will try to address as many of your points as I can.
1) The word "spin" has a negative connotation in the way you are using it, and would probably fall afoul of wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. A more neutral term, but still as accurate, is "opinion" which is included in that first sentence. Second, Wikipedia describes news as "communication of information on current events", which certainly seems to apply to DailyKos.
2),3),4),5) Please review Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and no original reporting. You have not cited any acceptable sources for the allegations you have made. Please also note that Wikipedia's insistence on citing reliable sources also extends to talk pages such as this one.
3) Jerome Armstrong really doesn't have any official connection with the site and was to my knowledge never a major contributor-he had his own political website completely independent of DailyKos.
One other thing to keep in mind is that DailyKos is not a single monolithic entity, registration is free and open to anyone, and the vast majority of the content on the site is produced by individuals who are not paid or otherwise compensated for their contributions. So, for instance when you say "DailyKos attacked", presumably you are referring to the writings of one or more individuals, none of which by themselves can speak for DailyKos.
Again, thanks for your comments, I hope mine are helpful to you.--Mooksas (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarifications and answers. I apologize if I violated any rules. For item #4, would it be appropriate for me to add a link from Dr. Dworkin's hospital's management team page listing him as an executive there, to combine with the US Justice Department statement page to make the entry acceptable? I apologize for my naivete on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize, Wikipedia conventions can be daunting at first, and you did the right thing in bringing your concerns to the talk page.
I do believe that adding the links and allegations from your item #4 would violate Wikipedia's policies prohibiting original research. For any information that is included in an article (and this is especially important if the claims have the possibility of being contentious), "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented"(WP:NOR). Furthermore, the policies prohibiting original research say: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."(WP:NOR)
Additionally, the sources you cite are what Wikipedia calls "primary sources". With regard to primary sources, Wikipedia policy says, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."(WP:PRIMARY) In other words, you need a valid secondary source before you can include those claims in this article. If you can provide such references, then the material may warrant inclusion in the article, but without them, their inclusion is prohibited.--Mooksas (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly & Colbert[edit]

Why is there no mention of Bill O'Reilly & the Nazi comparisons and the coverage about it on The Colbert Report? Both are notable shows and probably the most mainstream coverage the blog has gotten. -- (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Declining participation on Dailykos[edit]

Dailykos participation is declining. I edited to reflect this but the bot would not accept my source.

I also wanted to add some info on Dailykos banning policy but without allowing Dailykos as a source this is not so easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy496 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic Site Description[edit]

I'm changing the first sentence's ending from "progressive point of view" to "Democratic partisan point of view" to match the proprietor's statement of purpose: "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." I've added a reference to the statement of purpose. I've seen no evidence that "progressive point of view" is a better description than what the site explicitly self-identifies as. LiberalMindset (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, a bio snippet on an 'About' page written in the third person ("Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is founder and publisher of Daily Kos, the largest progressive community blog in the United States") doesn't carry as much weight as the proprietor's own words, especially when the proprietor has claimed (republished in the FAQ) "First of all, no one speaks for Daily Kos other than me. Period." I quote again his own words: "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." 'Democratic' is not synonymous with 'progressive' or 'liberal', as one simple look at the so-called Progressive Caucus WITHIN the Democratic Party makes clear. Unless the proprietor has demonstrably called his site a progressive site, we ought to go by what he has demonstrably called it. (Actually, those familiar with some of the meta wars over at Daily Kos know that a certain faction there would love nothing more than to be able to pin "this is a progressive site" on the proprietor. If you have evidence of the proprietor calling his website a progressive website, I'm all ears.) LiberalMindset (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The proprietor has said other things on the topic over time -- see for example this comment from 2010. I think it's pretty fair to say that the site IS a partisan, Democratic blog. I also think it's fair to say that within the spectrum of Democratic party politics it leans toward the progressive side of things. I don't think "meta wars" really matter for these purposes. For a wiki reader that doesn't know anything about Daily Kos, saying that it lies both a) on the Democratic side of things and b) on the progressive side of things within the Democratic party is accurate and useful. I'll try to find a way to phrase it that hopefully both of you can be comfortable with. Themillofkeytone (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Themillofkeytone, I'm OK with your changing "Democratic partisan point of view" to "Democratic point of view" and have no desire to fight it out, but if you agree that it's a partisan blog and the owner himself has explicitly called it a partisan blog, then I don't see the problem with calling it "Democratic partisan." I honestly haven't seen any evidence of the owner's view evolving since 2004 -- yes, I checked out the comment to which you linked. As recently as 2012, however, he banned someone for vocal liberal/progressive criticism of Obama's foreign policy, presumably because the criticism occurred too close to an election. There was quite a bit of noise about this banning on other blog sites. For the sake of Wikipedia objectivity, though, what's relevant is that the owner justified it along the lines of "Does anyone else want to forget the purpose of this site?" It's hard to tell what that purported purpose is, if not the "Democratic" and "partisan" purpose his very own statement of purpose explicitly mentions. LiberalMindset (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with the ins-and-outs with what happens on the site. I took the word "partisan" out simply because I didn't the sentence flowed very well when I read it to myself. But I agree it is an accurate descriptor. Incidentally, if the incident that you mentioned was covered by secondary sources, it may be a good addition to the Controversies section or even a new "Viewpoint" section or something like that. Themillofkeytone (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
As a Kossack, I can tell you we do not fall in step with the DNC. Saying that we are is dishonest considering how consistently we go after democrats for misbehaving, especially the president. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were yet another drive-by editor. "Democratic Party point of view" doesn't necessarily mean it's a DNC site. The proprietor, kos, in the reference given, has emphatically insisted "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." I do not understand how one gets "liberal/progressive" out of that. Certainly there are liberals/progressives posting there, but there are also non-liberals/progressives posting there -- the Big Tent that the proprietor describes in the reference given. It's a Democratic Party site, plain and simple -- a partisan site even, but that can probably be charitably left out. LiberalMindset (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't. I have posted the about page before but you refuse to read it. A source from 2004 is now ten years old and may not reflect the stance of the current editor team. If you can find me a source more recent, then show it to us, otherwise you're being dishonest. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
So an about page written in the third person is a stronger source than the proprietor's own words, huh, even when the proprietor has said that only he speaks for the site? I find that ridiculous. If you have evidence that the proprietor has changed his mind, then present it. But if he himself says "it's not a liberal blog," why the hell would you keep trying to call it one? Do you have an agenda to drive misled traffic to the site or something? As for the age of the source, do you need a statement every year from, say, Amazon that it's still an online retail site? If the proprietor's own statement is out of date, then point us to a new statement of his. It seems he's inviting questions from site users -- go in there and ask him whether Daily Kos is more accurately described as a liberal/progressive site or a Democratic Party site. Sorry, but the onus is on you to present evidence of his changing his mind since his original statement.
It's going to strike impartial Wikipedia editors as PRETTY odd that I've produced evidence of the proprietor saying "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]" -- while not one of you can produce a single instance of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site. I mean, for a so-called liberal/progressive site, that's PRETTY odd. You'd think there'd be at least a few instances of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site, his own words to the contrary notwithstanding. LiberalMindset (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, in the last few days alone, kos has reminded everyone in multiple comments that his site is a partisan election-centric site: "And yes, this is a partisan election-centric site"; "this is a partisan elections-focused site"; "in a elections-focused partisan site". See
Look, I know kos pulls a sort of bait-and-switch and gets a lot of traffic from the impression that Daily Kos is a liberal/progressive site, but Wikipedia is a place of objective facts based on objective evidence. And the objective evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of "Democratic Party point of view" rather than "liberal/progressive point of view." LiberalMindset (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's another thing kos' shills won't be able to answer: If it's truly a liberal/progressive site, then why is advocacy for liberals/progressives in third parties a bannable offense? Do I need to quote that as well? Sheesh. LiberalMindset (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You spend a lot of time attacking him in your comments. You're starting to smell of ulterior motive. I've reported this to edit warring. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
And as you've discovered there, some could reasonably see you acting in bad faith, given that I present the evidence you're incapable of presenting. Yes, I have found you quite frustrating. But thanks for moving the process along. I'm now investigating dispute resolution. LiberalMindset (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution request raised: LiberalMindset (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Im a 3rd Opinion. Ok first of all I would like to say that both of you have good arguments and sources however I have to agree with LiberalMindset some media outlets identify the site as using a Democratic Party point of view and the website itself has confirmed that it takes a Democratic Party point of view. Im sorry Zero Serenity but with this overwhelming amount of evidence I must say that it looks to me that the site takes a Democratic Party point of view.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Citations? Here's one just calling it lefty. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you haven't produced any evidence of the proprietor, kos, calling his site a liberal/progressive site, whereas there's plenty of evidence of his calling it a Democratic/partisan site, I'll consider that a lost cause. I am curious, however, about what you have to say about the site's official banning policy. Why aren't posters allowed to support liberals/progressives running as third-party candidates? That seems odd for a liberal/progressive site but is perfectly aligned with the M.O. of a Democratic Party site. If kos starts calling his site a liberal/progressive site, I'm more than happy to consider all past evidence outdated. But don't hold your breath waiting for him to do that. LiberalMindset (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You show one off-the-cuff remark from 2004 whereas I cite the about page (which is probably written or approved by him). So, your overwhelming evidence is non-existent. I won't comment on the banning policy since it's BEYOND relevant and shows that you really do not seem to care what the article says. Zero Serenity (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it strikes unbiased editors as strange that you can't produce a single instance of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site. On the other hand, there are many past and recent instances of his calling it a Democratic site, a partisan site -- even going as far as to say in the past that "it's not a liberal blog" (so let's just call it a liberal site anyway, eh?). The Maddow comment is a vague nothing -- not only that, but kos' stated reason (in the 2004 reference) for clarifying the site's purpose was that media personalities were getting the purpose all wrong. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And if you can't see how the banning policy is relevant, that's not my problem. I don't know any other "liberal/progressive but totally not Democratic Party" site that insists on its members advocating for the Democratic Party, with advocacy of third-party liberals/progressives being a bannable offense. Good luck here. Pursue further dispute resolution if you like. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, my advice would be to ask kos point-blank in public whether Daily Kos is better described as a site with a "Democratic Party point of view" or a "liberal/progressive point of view." Maybe start a diary there and hope to get his input that way, since you say you're a Kossack. Otherwise, his existing comments seem pretty conclusive to me and apparently to the others here. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Democratic" is not a point of view. The word is "liberal," or "progressive." I have made this change. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also provided sources that describe it as merely a liberal blog - the NYTimes, Polifact, and Mediaite. I could have done about a million more, but I think I've sourcebombed enough. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, you folks are getting more and more ridiculous. "Democratic Party point of view" is perfect English (I am a copy editor and do this for a living). I notice you say you're dyslexic, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the English. The owner has explicitly said it isn't a liberal blog, IN RESPONSE to media sources calling it a liberal blog. This really isn't that hard. LiberalMindset (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy to escalate this in the dispute-resolution process and take it all the way if you folks want to keep ignoring (i) the fact the owner has explicitly called it a Democratic, partisan site both in 2004 and a number of days ago -- and has explicitly said it isn't a liberal site in response to media sources mistakenly calling it a liberal site; (ii) the fact the site's official policy is to ban people who vocally support liberals/progressives running as third-party candidates. The escalation is only going to make things tougher on yourselves, in my opinion. LiberalMindset (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on reliable, third party sources. Reliable, third party source describe the site as liberal. Do you believe "democratic party" is an adjective? Hipocrite (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2014[edit]

On this page, could the following text:

[[Category:Protected redirects]]

...please be replaced with the following text:

{{R fully protected}} that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

2015-04-18 Changes to remove various items[edit]

I have removed a number of unsourced comments and items not in line with various WP policies. I believe this one might be a little more controversial than some other removals I've recently made, and I have no significant knowledge of Daily Kos itself, not being a reader myself. Someone with significantly more knowledge might be able to restore, re-write and re-source. Some of the items I removed DID add to the article [though most didn't], but there were weasel words and lack of sources. I didn't want someone to think I was just indiscriminantly nuking massive sections of the article. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the section called "guest bloggers" should really be called "front pagers". That's what they're called and they're not really guests. Popish Plot (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)