Talk:Daily Kos

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please add to the section "Nonpartisan polling":

Reason: To add information that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas founded his own polling and analytics company. This is important because it provides Wikipedia readers with a better understanding of what Daily Kos does in terms of political activities -- in this instance, commissioning political polling to provide their readers with insight into what Americans think about certain political issues and candidates. It also explains the relationship between Daily Kos and Civiqs.

There are many Wikipedia pages that share similar information or sections. Even though information about Civiqs is on Markos' Wikipedia page, seeing as Markos also owns Daily Kos, which has a relationship with Civiqs, it would make sense to explain Daily Kos' relationship to Civiqs here as well.

Regarding your concerns about the sources, Markos is well known to give his email address and other contact information to many people that he meets, and it is not necessarily an indicator of his closeness with someone. Additionally, it is unclear why it is an issue to directly cite the webpage of the website that explains what the company itself does.

Meow panda (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

because it provides Wikipedia readers with a better understanding of what Daily Kos does in terms of political activities Please elaborate upon what it is, about that better understanding, which requires this cross promotion to be needed in the article? It also explains the relationship between Daily Kos and Civiqs. Please explain what it is, about that relationship between the two entities, which requires them to be cross-promoted in the article beyond the fact that the subject own them both — a fact which has already been placed in the subject's article. If the connection between the two companies is as important as the two companies claim that it is, please provide a reference to this fact which is unconnected to either of the companies and which was not provided by the subject company's owner himself in a quasi-press release-type interview with BuzzFeed's Mr. Smith, the acquaintance who has known the subject "from the small world of political blogs, just a little, for years". When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no.  Spintendo  01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please add to the section "Nonpartisan polling":

Reason: To add information that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas founded his own polling and analytics company. This is important because it provides Wikipedia readers with a better understanding of what kind of work Daily Kos specifically does in terms of political activities -- in this instance, commissioning political polling to provide their readers with insight into what Americans think about certain political issues and candidates. It also explains the relationship between Daily Kos and Civiqs, which should be cross-posted for transparency and to provide the understanding that they are owned by the same individual, but are separate entities that do business with one another. Additionally, it explains where Daily Kos pulls their polling data from, which they use in news articles, press releases, etc.

Meow panda (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Aspen Planning and Evaluation Program is a consultant agency and is not a reliable secondary source. To add this item to the article, please add references which come from non-promotional, reliable, secondary sources unconnected to the subject organizations themselves. Regards,  Spintendo  22:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done edit request is unclear. SportsFan007 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sportsfan007 Was that message meant for me, or Spintendo? Thank you. Meow panda (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes may be promotional in tone.

There is an important section on Markos Moulitsas’ Wikipedia page that isn’t on this page for some reason:

"Since its creation Daily Kos has grown to become the largest liberal community blog in the United States, with over 2.3 million registered users and 8 million unique viewers per month as of July 2018.^[1]

The blog's popularity has attracted the attention of many Democratic senators, members of Congress, governors and candidates who have posted on the site, including Senators John Kerry^[2] and Barbara Boxer,^[3] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,^[4] Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi,^[5] former President Jimmy Carter,^[6] and former President Barack Obama.^[7]"

Please add to: New section about growth

Reason for adding to this page: This is relevant information that exists on Markos Moulitsas' Wikipedia page, but is very relevant (or even more so) to this page given that it is directly about Daily Kos. These paragraphs discuss the growth of the website and detail important political figures who have participated on the site, thus providing a better understanding of the kinds of voices that Daily Kos has been a platform for in the American political sphere since its creation.

Meow panda (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Daily Kos doesn't claim to be "center left" anymore. They're more of a "third way" or even center-right website now, and they even criticize ideas and figures that are too "left".

Most of their main topics and stances these days are not "left" on any spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AA4A:5E00:2DA8:2424:A975:CA6C (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that it should be far-left if we are to be fair regardless of how Daily Kos claims to be. Most media bias rating sites have them at the opposite of end of the horseshoe from publications like OANN which is classified as far-right on Wikipedia. It seems to present a non-neutral point of view and one that isn't based on facts. Davidgarcia84 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Davidgarcia84, please provide reliable sources that say Daily Kos is "far left". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

My argument wasn't based off specific sources calling them far-left but rather that the classification of far anything should be applied across the board equally. I don't consider this chart ^[1] to be from an especially reliable source but it's pretty representative of where most media bias checkers are consistently rating outlets. Daily Kos is generally always ranked as a mirror of conservative outlets like OANN & Daily Caller. Which are labeled from consensus on Wikipedia to be far-right. If you specifically require a source saying they are "far-left" I will see if I can find appropriate documentation and edit it into my reply.Davidgarcia84 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Alright so all the major media bias ranking sites being Allsides^[2] and Media Bias Fact Check ^[3]give Daily Kos the furthest left rating and the chart that I used from earlier that I was unsure of the reliability I found was referenced on a few .edu institutions. So I will take that as acceptable. So not only has Daily Kos been applied the furtest left-wing rating possible it is objectively the opposite of outlets we label far-right such as OANN. I think this is fair to be given the label of far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgarcia84 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Davidgarcia84, there is consensus on Wikipedia that Allsides and Media Bias Fact Check are not reliable sources, as they are both crowdsourced/self-published. Please see and . warmly, ezlev. talk 22:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ezlev, It would seem on examination that most sites that rank media bias are done through crowdsourcing to gauge public opinion as public opinion usually decides what is far outside the mainstream political discourse. Do you have any examples of sources that are deemed acceptable by consensus as I imagine they would be the same. Also those were not the only sources used.Davidgarcia84 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Davidgarcia84, are those even considered reliable here? They say "left", not "far left". "Furthest left" doesn't mean "far left". And how they rate OANN doesn't matter on this page. The reliable sources I see either call Daily Kos "left wing" or "liberal". I'm fine with either of those descriptors, as I think "center left" is inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mubogshu, in what world is Buzzfeed a reliable source? The Washington Post is generally a scrupulous and well-indended publication, but you have only provided one source labeling it "left." If OANN is described as far-right, and the Daily Kos is on the opposite of that spectrum according to thousands of people who say so, would that not be more reliable than two people writing two articles for two news organizations? wolf (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mubogshu, I'd be fine with left-wing but make no mistake how we classify other media sources like OANN does matter. Because if two sites are commonly held to be in public opinion "two sides of the same ideological coin" and you give one a moniker that labels it as far or extreme and the other not it gives the appearance of bias which we have a problem with on Wikipedia.Davidgarcia84 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Davidgarcia84, this is the talk page for Daily Kos. It is for discussing Daily Kos. OANN has its own talk page, which is for discussing that network. Daily Kos is not the "flipside of the ideological coin" from OANN. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Mubogshu, Measured public opinion disagrees with you that they are not equivalents. I'd concede that may not be enough to suffice in this instance. But I think generally it's public opinion that shapes what is far outside the norm or within the Overton window. Davidgarcia84 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Frickiewolf, BuzzFeed is not a reliable source, but BuzzFeed News is. See WP:RSP. Equating Daily Kos to OANN is your WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Davidgarcia84 et al: I've removed the disputed phrasing entirely, as it's redundant; the site is already characterized as focusing on "liberal American politics" later in the same sentence. That characterization is sourced, reasonable, and does not contradict content from the rest of the article. warmly, ezlev. talk 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ezlev, I agree it was redundant and appreciate you cleaning it up but I made the edit of saying left-wing American politics since that's the consensus term that Mubogshu agreed with as well. Let me know if you disagree Davidgarcia84 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Davidgarcia84, liberal is not synonymous with left-wing, and the sources which are currently cited all say liberal. Describing the Daily Kos as left-wing based on sources which describe it as liberal is original research. I haven't reverted your change because I want to avoid violating 3RR, but I'd appreciate it if you changed it back yourself in accordance with Wikipedia policy. warmly, ezlev. talk 01:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ezlev, That seems fair I will revert back to your changes Davidgarcia84 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted here, that the site is Maoist. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be if that was true, but it's not true, so no we won't be "noting" that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please add:

New section: "Advocacy" Daily Kos is involved in progressive advocacy, and regularly organizes people to make phone calls and send letters to their elected officials on a variety of issues and legislation. The organization also delivers petitions to elected officials' offices.^[1]

Using as a reference:

"About Us". Daily Kos. Retrieved 24 March 2021.

--Meow panda (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: The above edit request was declined. The below is a new addition, so I've reopened the request. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Would the following be an acceptable source?

Use as a reference: ^[2]

--Meow panda (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, this text should not be sourced to the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not Done: Need reliable sourcing. Heart ^(talk) 04:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a "guest blogger" section sourced entirely to the website. Frankly this article on the whole suffers from improper reliance on sourcing not indepdent of the website, and this leads to a promotional tone. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Added sources describing its political leaning: 2601:547:500:E930:25AE:536A:32D0:6E91 (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

To start, could you pick out one or two of the best sources, so we can avoid WP:OVERCITE problems? --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Given your activity at The Daily Beast and The Independent, please clarify whether your goal is to remove descriptions of political leaning for left-leaning outlets (but not right-leaning ones). 2601:547:500:E930:25AE:536A:32D0:6E91 (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

If you're unable to identify standout refs, then someone else will. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Here they are: --Hipal (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]}

I'll be removing this from the lede if no one can demonstrate that this information is of the very highest notability. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Done.

We need context for the article body. References that simply apply the label without any further context are no help and should be removed. --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Daily Kos is a political blog and its political leaning is notable. Especially when this political leaning is affirmed by several sources. I have restored the references you tried to expunge from the article. 73.154.135.120 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring and indicate why each and every reference is necessary. --Hipal (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hm, using a different IP. And I can't help but wondering if you have an account. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

I’m starting a new request with suggestions to improve this article. I believe it addresses the numerous problems with past edit requests, like the improper use of primary sourcing and promotional language. My conflict of interest is noted on this Talk Page already. Thanks.

A. Please update the two paragraphs of the lead. This is mostly clean-up of improper citations. I very slightly rewrote the lead for concision, and replaced the primary sourcing, as well as sources that aren’t allowed by Wikipedia (like the PBS Q&A and Daily Kos article) with articles from New York Times Magazine and Rolling Stone, which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. I replaced the New York Times Martin article and Bloomberg article because neither source supported the cited information. I also added “progressive” to the lead, with a supporting source from the New York Times that states Daily Kos is a “progressive” blog. Additionally, I removed “glossaries and other content” from the site description since it’s not supported by the sources. Instead I provided specifics about the site’s polling and campaign data, which is supported by reliable sources. I added articles from Rolling Stone and Politico as references for the “netroots activism” sentence. I also added short ref names for all reliable sources, which had been missing from this article.

From this:

Daily Kos (/koʊz/ KOHZ)^[1] is a group blog and internet forum focused on the U.S. Democratic Party^[2][3] and liberal American politics.^[4][5][6] The site includes glossaries and other content. It is sometimes considered an example of "netroots" activism.

Daily Kos was founded in 2002 by Markos Moulitsas and takes the name Kos from the last syllable of his first name, his nickname while in the military.^[7]

To this:

Daily Kos (/koʊz/ KOHZ) is a group blog and internet forum focused on the U.S. Democratic Party and progressive^[8] liberal American politics.^[9][10] The site publishes blog posts,^[11] polls,^[12] election and campaign fundraising data,^[10][13] and is considered an example of "netroots" activism.^[14][15]

Daily Kos was founded in 2002 by Markos Moulitsas and takes the name Kos from the last syllable of his first name, his nickname while in the military.^[10][11]

B. Change Organizational overview to History and remove the subsections titles Fundraising and Viewership and Reception.

Reason: I’m proposing this change to help better organize this article to match Wikipedia section headers of similar articles such as Billboard (magazine) and Virginia Argus and Hampshire Advertiser, both ranked GAs. “The usual practice is to order sections based on the precedent of similar articles.” MOS:SNO

C. In the new History section, add as the first paragraph:

Daily Kos was founded in May 2002 by Markos Moulitsas in Berkeley, California.^[9][11]

Reason: This information is currently missing from the History section. Changed the previous language to focus on a standard part of an organization’s history - the founder.

D. In the new History section, replace the current the second paragraph (now the first paragraph under the “Funding subsection”: Currently, the source used is from the Daily Kos, which is primary and not supported by Wikipedia sourcing standards. I rewrote the sentence to remove all primary sourcing/attribution, to reflect the information provided by supporting sources, and to better match Wikipedia sentence style. Adds Politico and The New York Times as reliable sources.

From this:

According to Daily Kos, its finances are sustained through lead generation, sponsored content, fundraising, and donations from readers and supporters who have signed up to receive joint petition emails from Daily Kos.^[16]

To this:

The Daily Kos is funded by advertising,^[17][15] fundraising, and donations.^{[citation needed]}

E. Replace this paragraph in the new History section (currently the second paragraph under “Funding”) that says:

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Kos Media received between $1 million and $2 million in federally-backed small business loans from Newtek Small Business Finance as part of the Paycheck Protection Program. The organization said it would help them retain 86 employees.^[18][19]

With:

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Daily Kos owner Kos Media LLC received $1.4 million in federally-backed small business loans from Newtek Small Business Finance as part of the Paycheck Protection Program.^[18][19]

Reason: Updates the first sentence to correct the amount of money from the PPP loan, adds PPP internal link, and removes the broken link for Newtek Small Business Finance. I also removed the second sentence “The organization said it would help them retain 86 employees” - that declaration from the organization was not stated in either source.

F. In the new History section, before the paragraph that starts “In an October 2018 Simmons Research survey of 38 news organizations…”

Add:

In 2018, the Daily Kos launched Civiqs, a division of the blog that provides political polling data from volunteer participants.^[20][21][22]

Reason: I’ve changed the language and added independent secondary references, as requested by a previous editor. Civiqs is a substantial division of Daily Kos that provides polling data cited in national and local media outlets including Slate,^[20] National Review^[23] and the San Antonio Express-News.^[21] A couple, supporting, non-biased or connected sources that mention Daily Kos’s Civiqs division and the relationship include the San Antonio Express News and Topeka Capital-Journal, cited in the addition above.

G. After the paragraph that starts “In an October 2018 Simmons Research survey of 38 news organizations…”, please add a new paragraph:

In 2019 Prism, an independent, non-profit publication focused on covering injustice from the perspective of underrepresented groups, became an affiliate publication of the Daily Kos.^[24][25]

Reason for adding: The addition of Prism as an affiliate of Daily Kos was reported by top publications that cover the world of journalism.

H. In the “Polling” subsection, please add as a new third paragraph:

The Daily Kos Elections tracked redistricting in the United States,^[26] forecasted Electoral College results,^[27] and provided polling data for elections.^[28][29]

Meow panda (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. The proposed changes are mostly good and I suppose that you simply go ahead. Best regards, -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Meow panda: courtesy ping. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Johannes Thanks so much for reviewing these changes and authorizing their implementation! I’m also at Daily Kos, and I have implemented the changes as per your authorization because the original poster is no longer with us. If there’s anything else you need me to do at this point please let me know. Thanks again! Gustywinds42 (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Gustywinds42: it looks good to me. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• David Waldman of Daily Kos and Kagro in the Morning
• https://kagrox.libsyn.com/

..?...0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx: what? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi CX Zoom and Johannes, Thanks again for your help! One last thing: I’ve now realized that even after the recent changes that have been made by me and others to this article, there’s still a flag at the top of this article from May 2021 saying that it “relies excessively on references to primary sources.” Since the article’s changed a lot since that time and many new secondary sources have been added, would you please consider taking off the flag as it really isn’t applicable anymore? Thanks! Gustywinds42 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Of the several sources on the article, #25, #40, #42 are primary sources, but it is no longer excessive, so I'm removing the tag. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Daily Kos. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 412 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

COI: I work for Daily Kos

• What I think should be changed': In the "Reception" section, the article currently gives significant prominence to a 2018 Simmons Research survey ranking Daily Kos among the least-trusted news organizations, placed in a tie with Breitbart News. This finding should either be recontextualized, balanced with more current assessments, or given less editorial weight.
• Why it should be changed': Three concerns: (1) Recency — the survey is nearly eight years old and a single data point from 2018 may no longer reflect current perception of the outlet. (2) Source weight — Simmons Research is a consumer analytics firm, not a media credibility organization, and it's worth questioning whether this carries the same weight as findings from Pew Research or Ad Fontes Media. (3) Contextual framing — the current phrasing places Daily Kos in implicit association with InfoWars and Occupy Democrats, which may mislead readers about the nature of the publication. Daily Kos is a long-running, professionally staffed outlet with a clearly stated editorial perspective. Per WP:UNDUE, facts should not receive more prominence than their significance warrants.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)': No new references are being proposed — the request is about the weight and framing of an existing citation rather than introducing new information.

Iterology (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)