Talk:David Brock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changing the beginning sentence[edit]

I have a problem with this line: "...now works to dismantle the conservative media machine he was once part of." That doesn't sound like a NPOV line. It someone's "opinion" if you think the media is mostly "conservative" or "liberal." -- DraQue Star

Surely it's not a comment on the media as a whole, but on the sections that Brock was a part of. Unless one subscribes to the belief that the media is wholly or mainly conservative or liberal, we all have to admit that both blocks have their own media machines. —This unsigned comment was added by 195.92.67.78 (talk • contribs) .
I took that sentence out while transfering the phrase "conservative media machine" (I'm guessing it's Brook's.) to the next sentence. The introduction makes it clear enough that he is working against the conservative media. I also made a couple minor changes to wording without removing information. I hope that gives a more neutral tone. BTW in general I think an article should have a positive tone towards its subject. That makes it more interesting to read. Steve Dufour 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - older[edit]

I removed the "nuetrality of this article is disputed" label left by 4.158.63.161. Because, really, the neutrality of this article hasn't been disputed--apparently not even by him! Not one posting was added to this page, let alone one which accused the article of a non-NPOV. If he wants that label added, let him contest it here. Ex1le 06:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found that the following statement "and describes how it operates in The Republican Noise Machine," lacks the NPOV. It would be more neutral, I believe, to say, "and describes how he believes it operates..." because otherwise, it seems like it's affirming his statement that there really is a "Republican Noise Machine" as he says there is and/or that it opperates just the way he describes in his book. I'd change it, but I'm afraid of being charged with vandalism. User:Epiphone83 22:07, 28 August 2005
Added "his book" before "Republican Noise Machine" to make it clear that it is his book being referred to, not any proposed "Republican Noise Machine" itself. Tzepish 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - March 2007[edit]

If a user inserted the label, that means he has disputed the neutrality of the article. In any event, this isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a press release that merely echoes Brock's own recent revision of events. Adding a ghetto of "critical" links does not change that. Heck, even many Democratic journalists currently consider Brock dishonest. 70.23.199.239 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that between my changing the tag and writing my explanation for doing so, my change has already been censored. Somebody is stalking me. 70.23.199.239 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review events:
  • At 20:24, 3 March 2007, you deleted the cleanup tag and added an NPOV tag to the article
  • At 21:08, 3 March 2007 - 44 minutes later, I removed the NPOV tag for lack of any explanation on the article talk page and put the cleanup tag back up (if you think the page doesn't need any cleanup, then say so in the section below, please).
  • At 23:00, 3 March 2007, more than 2 1/2 hours after you posted the NPOV tag, you posted an explanation on the user talk page.
Precisely why do you think that you're entitled to post a tag without explaining it? Or is your argument that other editors should wait several hours to see if you're going to come back and explain?
May I suggest that next time, you post on the talk page first, saying the article is NPOV, and then put the tag up? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just restored the NPOV tag, while leaving in the Cleanup tag. Any wagers on how much time passes, before my edit is again censored?
70.23.199.239 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to explain your problems with the article so that we may better address its neutrality? Tzepish 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed Epiphone83's concerns in the section above, and as it stands now, all NPOV complaints on this page have been resolved. 70.23.199.239, please post here again explaining your concerns with the POV of this article, if indeed you still have any. If this is not done, I will go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. In the future, please post an explanation when adding a NPOV tag so that editors may address your concerns. Tzepish 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped links[edit]

Dropped this link:

The WP has presumably moved this article to their pay-per-view archive. Ellsworth

Dropped:

New Yorker has apparently taken down a lot of its recently-published material, presumably in preparation for the rollout of its archive page. Ellsworth 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

This page is a mess, with many redundancies, syntax errors. Help me clean it up.Rhinoracer 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess.

||||

anti-Anita Hill book[edit]

Sure, he would agree today. But when he wrote it, he would likely have said that it was merely an exposé, not an attack. (And while he does characterize it as a hatchet job today, he has not pointed out any factual errors in it, his self-criticism has been limited to tone and slant.) Anyway, the point is, this sentence works perfectly fine without the prefix "anti", it is indisputably NPOV if the prefix is left out, and no information is lost by doing so. The fact that it's "anti" Hill is pretty easy to pick up by reading the whole paragraph. Anyway, those are my thoughts upon this occasion of reversion. As always, I am open to more discussion if you disagree. Unschool 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted?[edit]

The article says he was "adopted as an infant." Although it is uncited I am sure that this was added in good faith that it is true. However it does seem like a kind of odd thing to say when almost nothing else is said about his life before college. Steve Dufour 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reason for saying this to imply that his being adopted contributed to his homosexuality? Otherwise I don't see why it is so important that it was put back, without a cite or any discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this info was probably his book Blinded by the Right.Reelm (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brock talks about being adopted in Blinded by the Right. He says he never felt accepted by his adoptive father and was rebelling from his upbringing by choosing to go to Berkeley. See wikipedia entry on Blinded by the Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.4.57 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay writer category?[edit]

Is this mentioned/covered in the article? TIA, --Tom 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I see where it says due to the open secret that Brock was gay. I tagged that line for citation. --Tom 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"liberal Democrats"[edit]

"Brock announced in 2010 that he was forming a super-PAC, American Bridge, to help elect liberal Democrats"

It looks like it's really trying to help elect right wing Democrats (Hillary Clinton)" ---Dagme (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Project?[edit]

It is odd that there is no mention of his role in creating the Vince Foster murder fiction. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding purchase of Blue Nation Review[edit]

Is it O.K. to add reference to Brock's purchase of the news Web site, Blue Nation Review ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! You should just need to add an accompanying reliable source, like [this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5]. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of William Grey information[edit]

Somebody deleted this passage from the article. Is the deletion allowed ? Here is what was deleted (note that whoever deleted this, left the citation on the page) :

Brock paid former domestic partner William Grey $850,000 after Grey threatened to release damaging information regarding Media Matters donors and the Internal Revenue Service. Brock, who sold a $1,587,500 home in Rehoboth, Delaware, in order to pay Grey, characterized the $850,000 as a blackmail payment. Grey threatened to go public about Brock and Media Matters' finances after he accused Brock in a civil lawsuit of taking $170,000 in possessions. Brock and Grey settled the matter in late 2011. Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what's going on here, but the person who deleted the information says they are William Grey. Grey says the information is libelous. However, since it has been printed by reliable sources and they haven't corrected/retracted it, the fact that it is libelous seems questionable. A lot of the information is just facts of law from court cases. Perhaps it can be rewritten in a more neutral way? Deleting it entirely doesn't seem necessary as it seems pretty relevant to Brock's political career. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems if written properly it would be appropriate to put back.--CSvBibra (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the primary source information? This is very relevant as the reputation of Media Matters's financial position is relevant considering its founders' sui generis political awakening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.123 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just circling back on this. Did anyone have a suggested re-write? Safehaven86 (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenic Poisoning?[edit]

That's a breath-taking assertion w/out sources in the opening paragraphs. The Daily Beast has this to say:

<<Those theories were quickly debunked by both the L.A. police and Deputy Chief Coroner Ed Winter, who told The Daily Beast at the time that Cormier had nothing to do with Breitbart’s autopsy.>>

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/30/no-answers-in-death-of-technician-linked-to-andrew-breitbart.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.246.198 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DB's birthday[edit]

It seems the internet settles on two different dates. But July 23, 1962 is the date that people who know him and verified twitter accounts seem to use as his actual birthday. IMDB shows it's July 23rd. I added the source in the main article. Here are examples of verified people associated with him wishing him happy birthday - you only see this on July 23rd: [[1]][[2]][[3]] Are015 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"[W]hile others believe his tactics led to Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 presidential election"[edit]

How is this even remotely supported by the referenced article? The article is from 2015, for crying out loud, and doesn't even mention Trump.

http://time.com/4028459/david-brock-hillary-clinton-media-matters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.36.89 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much more is available from reliable sources, consistent with BLP[edit]

There is a lot more that most readers of Wikipedia would want to know about David Brock, from this article. E.g., info in this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-poisonous-politics-of-david-brock/ and this one: https://www.thedailybeast.com/dems-to-david-brock-stop-helping-you-are-killing-us Cafeneb (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Brock&oldid=1206442910"