Talk:Matt Stoller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Vanity wikipedia articles? Who knew!

Thanks to User:206.205.37.2 for the unsigned comment above, his/her only contribution to Wikipedia so far. We could argue about what is or is not a vanity bio, but this one was posted by Stirling Newberry, as you can see from its history. User:Betsythedevine

Contents 1 VfD 2 HEY 3 Questionable Validity 4 Spurious Sourcing and POV 5 concerns about this article's entry in the page

[edit] VfD

For a June 2005 discussion on possible deletion of this page, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matt Stoller.

[edit] HEY

hey.. you seem like you might have morals :D I talked to a guy who told me that Lieberman IS the next pres, and has been choosen for a long, long time. (on the same note.. it's amusing that Senator Palpetine looks so much like 'em) Everything I've heard about the guy is that he's top notch scum. (you hear a rape rumor?)

 you read up on 'Fritz Springmeier'? there's truth in all his work

o.. and http://honorablepassion.wiki.com/steps if you'd like to see a bit of my research direction.

my interest recently is on the 'order of the left handed path' - i saw about 10 of them at a hacker convention in nashville. 'T to the top' one said, who was wearing a hat that said 'abbadon'.

[edit] Questionable Validity

I fail to see why Matt is encyclopedia worthy just because he works on political campaigns and blogs. Has he written any books? Because a blog isn't a credit for publication. Marky48 02:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious Sourcing and POV

It is not appropriate to cite a bio-note at the bottom of an opinion piece that Matt wrote as a "reliable source" that he is a "thought leader in the internet wing of the progressive movement." This is a POV statement unless it has a more reliable source and the source is identified in the text.

Also "prestigious Harvard Lampoon" is POV. This phrase is only used ironically or in PR pieces of former contributors as far as I can tell from a google search

Kaelfischer 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been no response, so I'll be cleaning up those two problems. I should be noted that most of the References appear to be Matt's and this whole article starts to cross the line with respect to the anti-autobiography guidelines.

Kaelfischer 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kaelfisher, you need to restore the "thought leader in the internet wing of the progressive movement." If you google around a bit for "thought leader" and stoller, you'll see that this label is verifiable, is not POV, and is used by both Mr. Stoller and by his critics.

http://tba2007.confabb.com/users/profile/Matt+Stoller

http://www.neworganizing.com/wiki/index.php/Speaker_Bios Jas public 13:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] concerns about this article's entry in the page

As a blogger, if not one as "famous" as Matt then at least wiser as a member of the "old" left -- yes the left responsible for the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement and the war on poverty -- I think it is important to mention that he was in support of the Iraq war while my own blog (no longer maintained as I have moved on) was solidly anti-war from the beginning. I think this article focuses too much on the computer side of things and needs to spend more time talking about ideology of the "new" "left" which is called the progressive movement because they are spending all their time "reframing the linguistics" and in particular what candidates like Matthew Stol[l]er are doing in the participant arena. If the "shareware" political movemnt is to be honest it has to acknowledge the influence of the narrative. If Blogging of the Due Dilignece (sp sorry at work) is covered I think it is important to cover the Huffington Post as well as some of the most important voices . I'm sorry if this is overlong, I am just worried that by a focus on downloading the left (sorry progressive movement LOL) will fail to navigate. -- James Peebleton, ret.

Hello James -- I'm not understanding your objections here. I've done some work on this page, but not much. Can you be specific about what you would like to change? Note that we do cover, e.g., the Huffington Post in a separate entry of course-- we have to keep things narrowly focused on the subject of the article itself. Does this help? P.S.: you can make an account on wikipedia (recommended) and also note that you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Hope this helps! Welcome to wikipedia! 68.174.6.106 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think my objections here are obvious and I question your inability to understand the very simple things I am saying! It is important in our coverage of this material to conclude the aspects -in particular how th eprogressive mouvement epitomized by webloggers and diarists and so forth (not that diarists are to be scorned of course! -not in the slightest.). But the entire point here is being missed that this kind of advocacy for the open neutrality is not a true heir to the left but instead some strange kind of marketing device. I think there are Neutral POV issues that need to be considered here. This article is entirely uncritical of blogs. -- James Peebleton, ret. ~~~~

i just watned to add my concerns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.145.52 (talk) 08:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)