Talk:David Kuo (author)

Old thread

is he a Chinese-American?

Please, does it matter what his ethnic background is? Do we ask if David Letterman is Jewish?

Um, to be blunt, this is an encyclopedia. Your moralizing on hyphenated America is off topic. GP had a perfectly respectable question about where Kuo is from. People sometimes like to know such things. Such is life ;) --Gargletheape 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If he worked for the CIA, I'm fairly sure he's a US Citizen. JJ4sad6 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I should have clarified that "where X is from" referred to some sort of ethnicity question, not the question of citizenship, the same sort of way that Conan O'Brien is Irish American. In any case, the article has taken care of it...Kuo is categorized as Asian, Chinese Christian etc --Gargletheape 20:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

and the other David Kuo?

What about the other David Kuo (BBC Radio London financial advice broadcaster) 17:09, 20 November 2006 212.159.47.14

The anon poster brings up the point that there are two David Kuo's of some note. The person noted at article top is the American political figure lately involved in more problems at the White House. The second person is based in Great Britain and referenced by the text beginning:

David Kuo is also the Head of Personal Finance at personal Finance site The Motley Fool. Fool.co.uk.

While both may be a Chinese heritage, they are obviously different, one being much handsomer than the other. :-) Oh, and the second was writing for the Motley Fool in 2000 while the second's writing was for the Whitehouse.

Do we get into a problem of notability for the second, financial guy? Should we set up two articles with a dab page? And are there concerns over what looks like a cut-n-paste for the information on the second? Shenme 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First name?

I have a copy of dot.bomb in which he's credited as "J. David Kuo." He doesn't use this first initial any more, but I think it's encyclopedic to know his first name. Does his first name actually start with J., or is this just a pen name? Given his religious background, I'm curious as to whether he adopted the name "J. David Kuo" to put Jesus first. White 720 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I sent Kuo an e-mail inquiry about his first name the same day I made the above edit, but I have yet to receive a response. White 720 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved thread

This Article needs more citations and needs someone to check its neutrality. There are claims such as "A liberal at heart" which seem unnecessary. Also, to it is unacceptable to state "After college Kuo worked briefly at the CIA. He quit very shortly after being hired due to alleged ethical concerns over the idea of spying" without citing a reference. This, in conjunction with the sentence in the previous paragraph about his superior refuting his allegations seems to be an attack on his credibility. If he isn't a credible source that is fine, but at least link to a source that adds legitimacy to the inclusion of the previously provided quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.51.235 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

One-Sided View Inappropriate

This bio basically highlights one book Kuo wrote. The book was controversial. Kuo stated his position on the book. Others stated theirs. The biography as now edited reflects both positions. Unfortunately someone keeps trying to remove the "other side of the coin" so to speak. The removal of that material is inappropriate. I cannot understand writerer's obstinance in continuing to the sourced information that provides a different viewpoint on the substance of the book. In that regard, the inconsistencies in Kuo's own statements are also important for a reader trying to reach a conclusion. Thanks to Connection39 for restoring relevant, sourced information. We should discuss the info here to ensure a fair representation of avaialable information.

Here are examples of information someone attempted to delete/alter multiple times:

1. White House response to the book along with citations to sources. The book makes allegations about the White House. The opposing White House view, therefore, is relevant and appropriate.

2. Kuo's prior, inconsistent statements about the Faith-Based initiatives Office. Since there's a dispute and allegations of opportunism have been made, Kuo's prior, inconsistent statements are relevant. And they are sourced. They should not have been removed.

3. Even something as simple as Kuo's various careers. Someone removed a reference to Kuo as a bass fisherman. He contended "(Author never "wrote column" as per Ashbrook Center source - that was a leaked letter from the White House... never verified. Author participated in bass tourneys in 2004 as an amateur etc.)" Kuo's own bio at Belief.net refers to him as a professional bass fisherman as do other interviews at the time. The Belief.net bio states: "He is also a professional bass fisherman. He is married with three children and lives in Virginia. He is a Contributing Editor of Beliefnet." Accordingly that information was appropriate. As to the other info, it is sourced. If someone disagrees with it's accuracy, simply provide an opposing view WITH A SOURCE. Then both can remain and the reader can understand what the issues are.

4. An accurate description of the "best seller" status of Kuo's books. someone continually refers to both Kuo books as bestsellers. I could find no mention of dot.bomb in a best seller list. No citation was provided. Moreover, reference to Tempting Faith as a best seller is misleading at best. It made the list for one week just before the election as bookstores ordered it hoping for sales. It disappeared the next week. Simply referring to the book as a 'best seller' in those circumstances is inappropriate. COntext is appropriate and should be provided.

This bio should be fair if it's going to appear here, so let's get this right and have both views out there.

Bookpublishersreviewer (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and definition needed

This needs to be a neutral biography of person, not a place to editorialize. To wit -

- once a book is on a bestseller list it is, stunner, a bestseller. it doesn't matter if 100,000 gnomes bought the book. it is still a bestseller. besides it was also on the USA Today bestseller list for some period of time and on the Los Angeles Times and blah blah blah

- it is clear that a person who participated in a few bass tournaments isn't first a pro bass fisherman and then a writer and then an author. include bass fishing if you will but contextualize it.

- good point re: dot.bomb... doesn't appear it was a bestseller... it was, however, chosen by Good Morning America as part of their book club.

more significantly if someone wants to turn this into a place to editorialize about the full response to someone's book this is not that place - someone should start a wiki page on tempting faith and then let everyone have at it. otherwise this will turn into an endless discussion with all of the pros pitted against all of the cons and let's face it, this just isn't that important. To take a couple of quotes out of one article or to take a couple of snippets from book reviews isn't to offer any kind of meaningful insight into the book... or into the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerer2 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Writerer

1. Bass fisherman - Kuo describes himself as a professional bass fisherman in his beliefnet bio and has also described himself in the same way in interviews. I don't know what you have against bass fishing, but it's a part of Kuo's bio, he appears to be proud of it, it should stay.

2. If this isn't a book review site, but a biography, then the reviews of tempting faith are unimportant, so quit talking about what a great book it is when there's absolutley no consensus as to that point.

3. Best seller status- Misleading at best. It was there for one week based on book orders from book stores. It dropped off the list the next week, which shows that the inventory didn't move. If you have sales numbers then prove it.

Let's look at the specifics. Tempting Faith is #497,087 in book sales at Amazon. It does not appear in amy of Amazon's best selling categories. America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Steyn appeared on the best seller list the same week as Tempting Faith, one space below Kuo's book. It is #6,864 in Books and top 50 in three different categories. That is a best-seller.

Similarly, Eric Bischoff: Controversy Creates Cash by Jeremy Roberts, a book about a wrestler, appeared on the list in the same week. It is still #60,429 overall and is top 50 in two categories. That is also a best-seller.

It is obvious that book stores ordered copies of Kuo's book based on his media blitz. It is also obvious that those copies did not sell and no new orders were placed. You can get a new copy of the hard cover for $1.75. You can get a used hard-cover for a penny! That is NOT a best-seller. It is pure and simple puffery to say that the book is a best-seller without explanation. The article now neutrally and accurately states that the book appeared on the best-seller list for one week and disappeared the next.

Bookpublishersreviewer (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Bookpublishersreviewer

As you can see in the title, David Keo author, that is what he is notable for, he is not a notable professional bass fisherman and it should not go in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Article

Wikipedia notes several problems with this article. Let's face it, the problems identified cannot be fixed. This was just a page that someone started to promote Kuo for some reason. I mean, as listed in the article the guy's contributions are writing a couple of books most people haven't even heard about and which are both based on things he worked on that he describes as failures. Value America was obviously a failure of colossal proportions and represents the greed, avarice, get rich quick with absolutely no substance of the dot.com era, but Kuo's involvement was really peripheral. He was a PR guy. And the office of faith-based initiatives, well what's the big revelation there? A dispute on MOTIVE and inconsistent statements by Kuo. He can have a page or not, but it certainly won't ever meet Wikipedia's standards.

Bookpublishersreviewer (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Bookpublishersreviewer

• Please do not simply replace the issues that have been removed by neutral experienced editors, you have only edits to this one article, do you like him so much? and it was raised for discussion and has been tidied of the edits you have reinserted. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Who is the "neutral" editor? Read the article. Then decide neutrality. Last version was much tidier and more neutral than what was undone. As to my edits to this article, perhaps I like him as much as writerer likes him since this article is the only one he has edited. What does that really matter/ We're talking content. The things you say and pick at demonstrate your own lack of neutrality on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookpublishersreviewer (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)