Talk:Tagged (website)/Archive 3

New proposed introduction based on feedback
Hopefully we can agree on this one?


 * Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States, founded in 2004. It allows members to browse people, play social games, share tags and virtual gifts, and suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. Quantcast reports Tagged has 6.2 million monthly unique U.S. visits and 21.1 million globally


 * Tagged has been previously criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail and has paid 1.4 million dollars in legal settlements regarding these practices. Since 2009 the company has adopted privacy reforms and changed its invitation processes. The Office of New York State Attorney General Cuomo has also criticized Tagged for its failure to respond promptly to complaints about inappropriate content.

Including the amount of fines did not seem like a big deal so I added them back in. If there are no major objections I will go ahead and make the change.

Happy Holidays! A. Ward (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing has really been changed here – the past controversy about Tagged remains in the lead of the article which is inconsistent with every other social network as well as not being currently notable. I maintain that the lead should be concise and consistent with others and controversy should be included in the appropriate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCSS (talk • contribs) 03:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You still haven't given us a reason why it ought to be consistent with others. That's not Wikipedia policy. "Not being currently notable" does not make sense--notability is NOT temporary. That IS Wikipedia policy. And, again, the accusations from the New York AG were only six months ago, so there's no reason to think they're not completely current, especially if you can't offer a citation that things have changed. Also, again, the only reason Facebook doesn't have controversies in the lead is because YOU removed them. I think they belong there, too.


 * I don't have a big objection to Anne's proposed rewrite. I don't particularly prefer it, either, but I'll wait and see what others have to say.Brettalan (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A few comments:


 * 1) I'm assuming you don't mean to remove the existing wikilinks and refs.
 * 2) I'm not sure why you've changed "games" to "social games" in the first paragraph.  Does Tagged not offer single player games?
 * 3) Apart from that, I think your proposed first paragraph looks good, and flows better than the present wording. (Note the Quantcast figures were updated today... By someone who even updated the access date on the ref!)
 * 4) You're proposing to change "Tagged has been widely criticized..." to "Tagged has been previously criticized..."  I'm not sure about this... They were indeed very widely criticised, and the following sentence makes it clear the process has changed.
 * 5) I'm a little uncomfortable with the proposed removal of "at least" before 1.4 million dollars, because the 1.4 million is just derived from the reported settlements.  There may be others we haven't found.  I couldn't find a source that explicitly states the amount is 1.4 million dollars.
 * I found a source that notes the $1.4 MM paid and placed it in the article.Goalloverhere (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Inappropriate content" is an extremely vague term for which more precise alternatives are available.  It's also arguably a euphemism, which we should avoid (see WP:EUPHEMISM).
 * 2) As described in the linked ref, the problems Cuomo found weren't only about content, but also about Tagged's failure to act when notified of "adult users who sent inappropriate sexual communications directly to underage users".  This has been widely reported  and is clearly something anyone who wants to read an encyclopedia article about Tagged would want to know. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)

I disagree that this particular issue was "widely reported". Compared to Tagged's spam incident in 2009, this has not really had that much coverage. In addition - lots of other sites, particularly social networks - have had run ins with AG's. Cuomo in particular and others as well, over content and adults luring minors. This is not an issue unique to Tagged but, the spamming thing seems to be. I still have to take some time to try to follow this whole debate but I still really don't see why some of you feel that there shouldn't be a warning that the debate is going on in the first place. Hope everyone is having a nice Christmas.Goalloverhere (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Coverage of this particular issue:


 * NBC: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Cuomo-to-Internet-Site-Tag-Youre-Served-96104844.html


 * CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20007503-504083.html


 * ABC: abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7490328


 * Fox: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/national/cuomo-taggedcom-ignores-child-porn-20100610-akd


 * Wired: www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/andrew-cuomo/


 * WPIX (New York CW affiliate): http://www.wpix.com/news/local/wpix-cuomo-suing-tagged,0,4276170.story


 * I think that qualifies, no? Brettalan (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well... most of those look to be local news as compared to their spam which was, if I remember correctly, on one of the national morning news programs and Time and a lot of other places beyond local NYC news. This Wired piece you cite is one of their minor blogs vs. the main edition. So in comparing to the spam - it's really night and day. Another way to determine this might be what actually ends up in print vs. the internet. I remember the spam stuff in print. Not sure about the porn and unresponsiveness, but I do not think so. Goalloverhere (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ackk where to start? How about with a Happy New Year to everyone!


 * Agreed that euphemisms aren't good practice, but "Inappropriate content" is verbiage taken directly from the headline of the AG's press release. Surely we can compromise somehow on that... Yes, people do want to know about scandal and interesting events related to the company. However, out of context the controversy gives undue weight in relation to the rest of the company's information. I thought my introduction gave a good summary of controversial information without being overly detailed.


 * The goodness or badness of a company is subjective and NOT for us to judge. Tagged is no better or worse than any of the other social networking sites out there, so far as I can tell. Unfortunately, just about every other social networking site has also had some sort of run in with child safety or inappropriate content. Some online / real-life community sites (like Craigslist) have been directly linked to serious and violent crimes, yet the crimes aren't spelled out in the introduction.


 * Also, re: discussion of Facebook edits from NCSS. My suggestion would be to let that one drop for purposes of this discussion, because it could possibly be construed as Wikihounding…


 * Taking all of the feedback into consideration I will come up with another revised introduction unless anyone else would like to take a crack at it. A. Ward (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you say, it's not our place to judge the goodness or badness of a company, but since you put your opinion out there, let me remind you of the opinion of NY's AG - he referred to it as "one of the worst social networking sites we've encountered". I don't think any other site has that dubious distinction.


 * Contrary to Goalloverhere's assertion the accusation about child pornography was widely reported by CNN, Newsweek, Business Week, ABC, NBC and MSNBC among others. It is a notable fact.


 * The press release from the AG's office was headlined "ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO TAKES LEGAL ACTION AGAINST SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE THAT IGNORES PROLIFERATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" (see The original press release). No where in the press release does it use the phrase, "inappropriate content". The press release makes it painfully clear that what is being discussed is pedophilia. I'm not opposed to finding a compromise phrase, but in my mind, it's got to be a bit more direct than "inappropriate content" and must make it clear that the topic is child pornography. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading the lengthy discussion here I have some thoughts. 1. Time should have no bearing on whether or not the AG release is mentioned in the introduction. The guideline speaks to notability rather than chronology. 2. I do not feel as though controversy has to be in the lead at all. 3. I agree we should not be trying to decide if Tagged is a good or bad company. Also many other services like Tagged have gone through similar controversies, but they are not in the introduction.

Here is my proposed edits to the introduction that hopefully will meet everyone's criteria.


 * Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States, founded in 2004. It allows members to browse people, play social games, share tags and virtual gifts, and suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. Quantcast reports Tagged has 6.2 million monthly unique U.S. visits and 21.1 million globally.

The rest of the article clearly explains all of the controviersies and relevant information.NCSS (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You know very well that your proposed introduction does not "meet everyone's criteria" and does not conform with Wikipedia policies. You continue to "feel" that there shouldn't be controversy in the lead, but Wikipedia guidelines say otherwise. And you still haven't answered the question of whether you work for Tagged. Brettalan (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another proposed introduction
Hi there. Hopefully the third time is a charm...

Brettalan, Ucanlookitup and NCSS, I understand your points on the intro. Let's assume good faith of our fellow editors and collaborate with one another. Wikipedia is typically a fun place for me to edit, but WOW this article has been tough!

How about this:


 * Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States, founded in 2004. It allows members to browse people, play social games, share tags and virtual gifts, and suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. Quantcast reports Tagged has 6.2 million monthly unique U.S. visits and 21.1 million globally.


 * Tagged has been previously criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail and has paid 1.4 million dollars in legal settlements regarding these practices. Since 2009 the company has adopted privacy reforms and changed its invitation processes. The Office of New York State Attorney General Cuomo has also criticized Tagged for its failure of responding promptly to complaints about child security.

I wasn't sure if child safety or security was better phrasing. In my opinion, security is the stronger term. Can we finally agree on this, please? I want to get back to my other Wiki pet projects.

Thanks :) A. Ward (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not simply "The Office of New York State Attorney General Cuomo has also criticized Tagged for its failure of responding promptly to complaints about child pornography". It's accurate and concise. Ucanlookitup (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not really a change from the existing intro... :) I think that phrasing makes it sound like Tagged embarked upon creating the inappropriate child content, which they clearly didn't. It is a confusing controvery and needs to be explained in full context. Would you please compromise? If the goal is to inform the reader of relevant company information in an overview and get them to read the rest of the article, which it should be, my proposed introduction accomplishes that. If at least a few of the other editors sign off on my intro, we should go ahead and make the change.
 * A. Ward (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. There's a few things I have issues with but in the spirit of compromise I think this works .Goalloverhere (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I’ve been following this discussion and responding the the request - I think this proposed intro reads better.--Magentabanana (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to accept it as a compromise if no one has a strong objection/argument against it. Brettalan (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the first paragraph reads better, as I've said before, though I still have no idea why A. Ward wants to change "games" to "social games". The second paragraph remains problematic.  The "previously" is still redundant: "has been" already implies it was in the past, and "previously" is an unnecessary intensifier.  "Complaints about child security" makes no sense.  No-one would complain about child security – they'd complain about the lack of it.  Even if that's being too literal, the implication of "complaints about child security" is that inadequate security measures left potential for harm.  But Cuomo's investigation didn't just find potential for harm, it found actual ongoing exploitation of children.  Cuomo's findings are summarized in four bullet points in the original press release.  The first bullet point is about child pornography.  The other three bullet points are not about pornography, but about a variety of illegal behaviors that could be summarized as "child exploitation".  So how about this:


 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this version Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is going backwards and makes me feel that some of the arguments for removing all past controversy from the opening and placing them in the controversy section of the article - similar to every other social network article - might make more sense. Right now we have 4 votes for the revision from A. Ward and 2 for the one by A. Hunter. Goalloverhere (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia is not a democracy and Question 4 of the FAQ.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that reference Adrian - interesting. I'll read through the discussion and information again. Goalloverhere (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I still do not agree that controversy belongs in the lead. Almost every other social network has had the same issues.


 * The main source for all of this controversy mentioned is a press release written by a politician who was running for office at the time. Reliable Sources should be used. Where is the editorial oversight for a Politician?

Please read: NOTRELIABLE


 * Every other bit of associated press on the scandal just pulls information from the press release. I believe that a reference check is needed: WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCSS (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article only says the the AG said something. The AG's press release is a reliable source for the assertion that he said it, which is different than asserting that what he said is true. It's hard to imagine a more reliable source than that. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This speaks to the point, it is NOT notable nor reliable enough to be in the lead of the story. An AG said something – under suspect motivations and therefore is NOT a reliable source. From my research it seems to me Cuomo's sound bites were picked up on some AP wires for a day and nothing more. I contend that this issue is not notable nor noteworthy enough to be included in the lead of this article. I also do not think the past spam issues are either – by the way. However, this AG issue is clearly out of place. NCSS (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Show me where in any Wikipedia policy it says that being accused of serious wrongdoing by a state attorney general and having that accusation be covered widely in the media is not notable. It's a serious accusation, and the fact that it received more media coverage than almost anything else about Tagged other than the spam controversey proves its notability.


 * Has Tagged seriously disputed the allegations? Brettalan (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tags.  NCSS, what you're disputing is reliability, not verification, so if you want an outside opinion, the place to get it is the Reliable sources noticeboard.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

FAQ
I've created the FAQ transcluded at the top of this page for the reasons described therein. The text is transcluded from Talk:Tagged/FAQ. Additions and revisions are welcome. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adrian - thanks for taking the time to do this! Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro done
Hello!

It seemed to me as though we had consensus from almost every editor here on the last introduction revision. I went ahead and implemented the introduction changes. Hopefully this is amicable for everyone. If it isn't agreeable, let's please discuss here rather than do a wacky revert war :)

Cheers, A. Ward (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro still needs work
I still do not agree with this introduction, because it is hardly an improvement with regard to content or tone. Lately I have seen a lot of interesting press about Tagged. However, if you take a look at the introduction of this article it still doesn't seem to reflect the fact Tagged is a major player in the social networking arena - #6 as noted by Experian Hitwise.

The key differentiator between Tagged and Facebook seems to be that Tagged encourages and allows users to meet new people.

The introduction should reflect the notable feature(s) and/or purpose of the site to be appropriately descriptive of the subject at hand. The controversy of its past, as I have mentioned before, should be in the appropriate section.

When my schedule permits I will be proposing my own introduction.NCSS (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, note that references don't really work on talk pages the way they do in articles. Better to just give the link.


 * If you think it's worth adding a sentence to the intro about how it emphasizes meeting new people more than other social networking sites, that would seem to be supported by your links. But again I must say that the coverage of the controversies in the opening is both the consensus of the editors and the result of Wikipedia policies. Any intro without that will be a non-starter. Brettalan (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead must accurately summarize the article. Trying to remove mention of the controversy from the lead would therefore be against policy. On top of that, the controversy is the most notable thing about this company. Whereas people have heard of MySpace, FaceBook and others for their impact on social networking and so forth, most of the people who have heard of Tagged only know of it because of the misleading spam they received from them and other bad behavior.  DreamGuy (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New introduction
Given the recent news about Tagged's growth and changing position in the social networking scene, I think this introduction needs updating. Please see below:

Tagged (stylized Tagged) is a social network service and website based in San Francisco, California, United States, founded in 2004. As of 2011, Tagged has 100 million registered members and has experienced three consecutive years of growth [1]. Quantcast reports Tagged has 6.2 million monthly unique U.S. visits and 21.1 million globally. [2]

Referred to as a "social network dark horse" [3], Tagged's site emphasizes building its feature set around meeting new people rather than fostering existing friendships. The website allows members to browse people, play games, [4] share tags and virtual gifts, and suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. [5]

Thank you. NCSS (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick correction: (stylized Tagged) NCSS (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet again: Why are you continuing to suggest that the controversies be taken out of the lead when the guidelines CLEARLY indicate that they belong there? I understand you don't WANT them there, but that's not relevant. And since you've repeatedly refused to say whether you work for Tagged, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you only want them out because of a financial motive. Everyone else seems to agree here.


 * I have no problem with adding the extra sentence about the site's emphasis. But the controversies stay.


 * On a smaller note, there's also a grammatical problem with "the website allows members to...suggests new people..." This error is already in the lead. How about: "The website suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. It also allows members to browse people, play games, [4] and share tags and virtual gifts."?Brettalan (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we discuss the substance of my edits rather than hurling accusations? My contributions seem to be welcomed in other articles, but for some reason they aren't here. Your perceptions of Tagged should be based on the information available today. I would agree that back in 2009 the company's email issues seemed to be the most notable thing. However, Tagged appears to be quietly overtaking their competitors. The web constantly evolves every day, every week.

Frankly I think that the rapid growth and success of the site is currently more notable and so it should be explored more adequately in the introduction. I don't think controversy belongs there – it is old news and not representative of the firm and the millions of people who use the site today.NCSS (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am *not* opposed to adding more information about its current growth and success. As I said, I think the extra sentence about the site's emphasis is fine. Since no one else has objected, go ahead and add it. If you have additional (properly sourced) information about what the site is currently doing, I have no problem with adding that.


 * But the fact remains that the controversies were widely covered and therefore qualify as notable, and that Wikipedia policy specifically says that notable controversies should be included in the lead. Calling them "Old news" is not relevant, because this is an encyclopedia--it isn't supposed to only be focused on what is current. (And the controversies aren't all that old anyway.)Brettalan (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * NCSS, I honestly am trying to understand your point of view here, so please help me see it from your side. When I look at Alexa and other page ranking information I see a site that peaked in popularity back in 2009 and has been declining ever since: (Alexa). Their page views now are about 1/3 what they were then. An obvious interpretation is that the company boosted their page views through the use of deceptive emails but were unable to maintain the audience once the practice stopped. What "rapid growth" and "sucess" are you referring to? Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Independently of Alexa, Quantcast also reports more-or-less steadily declining pageviews, people, and visits for Tagged since 2009. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I had some time to quickly read through this discussion again. The spam controversy may or may not be worthy of being in the opening - there are solid arguments on both sides of the issue. However, the lack of response to child porn reports is covered in plenty of detail in the child safety section. This was an allegation and there seems to be no follow through that I can find and no ongoing media coverage beyond the initial reports around the time of the press release by Cuomo. Hardly widely reported and not significant enough to be an issue that would be in the opening of an article - so I have removed it. I will continue to monitor the discussion on the spam issue but for now - can see how it may be significant enough to remain in the opening.Goalloverhere (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As this has been a much debated issue and a compromise arrived at after painstaking discussions, it is inappropriate to simple unilaterally make changes without achieving a consensus first Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok - fair enough. I'd like to call on other editors then to weigh in on the issue and if they feel this allegation is notable enough to be in the lead of this article. How can an allegation that received very little actual coverage at the time it was made and had no discernible follow on coverage (unlike the spam issues) be considered that notable? It simply can't. Furthermore, I also feel that the article should be flagged because there is disagreement on this point - yet some of you seem to remove these so I will ask for the opinion of others as well. Should this article carry a dispute flag and does the one time allegation by the NYAG belong in the opening. Ucanlookitup - why do you feel it belongs in the opening? Goalloverhere (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How many times do we have to go through this? As detailed by Brettalan above, your claim that the incident "received very little actual coverage at the time" is simply not true.  I've summarised the relevant sections of Wikipedia's guideline on the lead in question four of the FAQ at the top of this page, yet you continue to ignore it completely.  There's no "disagreement" worth flagging until one of you makes a decent arguement supported by a reliable source or Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.  I can't see that there's anything more to be said by the regulars at this talk page that hasn't been said a thousand times already.  If you really want to "call on other editors", initiate a Requests for comment and be done with it.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes wide coverage and I have read the FAQ section. Thank you for the advice on initiating a Request for Comment - I will check into that. We also have a difference in opinion as to flagging an article too.Goalloverhere (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Adrian – you state that “There's no "disagreement" worth flagging until one of you makes a decent argument supported by a reliable source or Wikipedia's policies or guidelines” and I maintain that this is completely within Wikipedia's policies.  We are debating the merits of the content of the lead of the article and its notability and relevance as a it relates to Tagged as a company overall. I respect that you or others do not want to re-hash past arguments – so I won’t other than to say – there is no consensus and Wikipedia policy states that flags should not be removed in situations like this one. I would kindly request that you or others do not remove these – as you have several times in the past.


 * Based on the recent press I have been seeing, I will work on adding the other notable company information about growth - industry positioning, etc. I still maintain that the controversy does not go in the lead! This is my opinion and I have the right to express it.


 * I noticed that the controversy about child safety comes from the NY AG Press release. A press release from a politician who was running for office cannot be considered academic or credible on its own. A press release from a politician is a primary source and doesn't meet the standards set forth by Wikipedia. Since I haven't seen the child safety issue anywhere online other than Wikipedia and a primary source has been used for claiming notability of this controversy, this article appears to contain original research.

NCSS (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you had scrolled up, you would have seen *six* secondary sources which I gave earlier to establish notability. I have added two of those sources to the article and removed the tags accordingly.Brettalan (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All of those sources are associated press, aka local New York new outlets that paraphrased Cuomo’s press release at or very near the time it was published. A few local stories and very minor blog posts that occurred with the release does not constitute wide coverage.


 * I get it that the things reported in this instance weren't good, but this wasn't exactly widespread. We have to look beyond the taboo of the subject matter. As compared to other coverage of not just Tagged – but every other major social network – this is nowhere close to widely reported.


 * It appears we are in a stalemate. In an effort to resolve this dispute I am going to place notice on the original research noticeboard. I have removed what I feel is original research until we can get a 3rd party opinion. NCSS (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The CBS story is from the national CBS news site, not the local news. And, anyway, I don't see what that has to do with the point. You claimed it was original research, so I added secondary sources. You seem to be just looking around for any excuse to put a flag up.


 * The story was picked up by at least one national news network and all of the local TV news outlets. I think that's more than enough to establish notability. Can you show me where any news sources of that prominence have reported on any of the positive things about Tagged in the lead? Let alone show evidence that those things are *more* notable?


 * We're only in a stalemate because there are a few editors who refuse to acknowledge what Wikipedia policy actually is here. I don't think you're going to get far on the original research noticeboard arguing that it's original research because the secondary sources used primary sources. That would basically mean that *everything* is original research, because ultimately everything is rooted in primary sources. Again, we've established that Cuomo made the allegation and that it received sufficient coverage to be notable, and we've established the Wikipedia policy says to include notable controversies in the lead. Case closed. Brettalan (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I’ve been following this discussion for quite some time and I disagree with the notability of this particular issue. Nearly every social network has had allegations thrown at them and none of them have this covered in the lead of the article. On other social networking pages there was hardly any coverage of this or similar incidents. It really is not appropriate or warranted to be included in the lead of the Tagged article. --Magentabanana (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV flags
It seems to work that way on every other article and everything I see and work on with Wikipedia. I am perplexed by the manner in which a few people feel they control this article. It seems to me as though there is a Cabal.

I have reverted again and added the appropriate flag. If you remove and/or revert again without building consensus then I feel it is time to escalate.NCSS (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You still don't have a leg to stand on. No one's trying to control the article. (Well, no one who is against having the tags, anyway.) We're trying to *follow Wikipedia policy*. "Escalate" all you want--if someone in a higher position on Wikipedia can settle this, I'm all for that. But, AGAIN, notability has been proven, and "that's not how it's done on other social network's pages" is NOT an argument--especially when people specifically removed controversy from the leads of other social network's pages to advance this argument. It really ought to be restored to the lead of the Facebook article, if it hasn't been.Brettalan (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Google results prove that allegations are not noteworthy
As we know, there is a significant difference of opinion on the notability and 3rd party coverage/ original research of the NYAG allegations of non-responsiveness to reports of child porn from June of 2010.

If one does a Google search for Tagged.com – there is mention of the 2009 spam issues on the first page of results, as well as on a few follow on pages. There are a number of other stories too, as well as links directly to the Tagged site. However, there is absolutely no mention of the NYAG allegations from June of 2010.

This is a highly reliable, third party methodology to establish that the allegations of 2010 are simply not noteworthy enough to belong in the opening of this article. Try it for yourself – I went 10 pages deep in Google and not a single reference to this issue.

NCSS, the spam issues are on the first pages of Google results, so due to this I concur with other editors that it is a notable enough event for Tagged to remain in the opening of the article at this time.

This once and for all proves the fact that the non-response allegation by a politician running for office is neither worthy nor reliable and perhaps most important – not widely covered or notable enough to have any place in the opening of the article. Period.

The Google results are a much more reliable and convincing way to say, “case closed “ than any single or multiple editors’ opinion. I have therefore reverted the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalloverhere (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the flag because of the above argument. The spam incident should remain - for now at least Goalloverhere (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply search tagged.com and select "past year" on the left. The story is on the first page Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried it for myself. A Huffington Post story on the Cuomo allegations came up on the third page, fourth result. (http://www.google.com/search?q=tagged.com&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=1dX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&ei=Nc2XTbGLOsTm0gHwgpX6Cw&start=20&sa=N) That was well ahead of any of the positive things that that are featured in the lead--is it your contention that THOSE are non-notable, or does this "Google standard" you've just made up only apply one way?


 * Again, the coverage I've already provided more than meets the established standards of notability. If you're going to continue to argue for this flag, you need to *address that*, and address the other arguments that have already been made on this page. Brettalan (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Making any conditions like "select past year" does not make sense. Seeing results on the third page that you saw on your individual search (I did not see this myself) proves it is not notable. The coverage you provided Brettalan does not meet established standards of notability. I am starting to get the sense that there is a biased towards Tagged from you because your arguments are not reasonable. As far as positive things - I don't see anything positive in the lead at all - simply facts about the site and its service but we could certainly address those if you think it is needed. Google standard should apply both ways for sure. Reverted to what is accurate and best until consensus is reached. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I also placed the Inc 500 ranking in history in response to your concern that it may be seen as "positive" and not ranked high enough in Google results to be notable enough to be in the opening of the article. I hope you will appreciate this compromise. Goalloverhere (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe Google search results vary according to who's searching and from where, but for what it's worth, when I put "tagged.com" into Google News the first two results I get are "Alleged perv charged with sexual assaulting boy" and "Cookstown man accused of luring, sexually assaulting 14-year-old". Goalloverhere – you're never going to achieve a consensus you'll accept among the regular participants at this talk page using the kind of arguments you're making.  That's why I suggest initiating a Request for Comment.  That should attract experienced Wikipedians with no prior experiences this article, who you'll have no reason to suspect are biased.  Meanwhile, it's past my bedtime, but you or anyone else may want to read Search engine test.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and insights Adrian. Again - I am not searching Google "News" but rather just a standard Google Web Search to provide the test of notability. If you search any company for news you are going to see just the latest articles which can't be used to establish notability. Rather - articles that show up in the first page or perhaps two of a regular Web search would prove that they are more widespread and notable. In this case - articles on Tagged's spam issue of 2009 remains in the first 2 pages. I will look into the Request for Comment too. I would ask that we leave the current opening as is until further notice. Thank you for not reverting it and good night.Goalloverhere (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Goalloverhere, There are several ways to establish notability. This item passes the notability test on several of them. Creating a specious definition of notability for the purpose of acting on your agenda is not helpful. Please note, you cannot change the article to your liking and then claim it should stay that way until there is a consensus. The current state of the article is the result of a long, sometimes painful, effort to build a consensus. If you want to work to change that consensus and if you are editing in good faith, then build the consensus here on the talk page before changing the article. Ucanlookitup (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you guys aware of how you will say *anything* to get a flag up or take the controversy out of the lead? Not long ago you were claiming that the Cuomo allegations shouldn't be in the lead because they're "old news"; now you're claiming that being in the current news doesn't establish notability. Of course, neither is the standard.


 * AGAIN, you refuse to address the fact that notability HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED according to the actual Wikipedia guidelines. I am *begging* you to respond to that.


 * My point about the positive stuff in the lead was NOT that it should be taken out. My point was that it shows that the "Google test" you were proposing was not a valid one. I have no problem with that information being in the lead. Brettalan (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments but I maintain that it has been proven that the NYAG allegations are not within any guidelines whatsoever to be notable enough for the opening of the article. Notability HAS NOT been established and the Google test is just one means that proves this among many. Other editors also agree with this point. I concur with you Uncanlookitup and Brettalan - the spam issues of 2009 have been established and are notable. Reading your position and researching this area led me to the consensus with you on this point. The NYAG allegations, however, don't come close to being established on many levels. I am editing in good faith and I will continue to do so. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalloverhere (talk • contribs) 21:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be editing in good faith, but you're not discussing in good faith. You say "it has been proven that the NYAG allegations are not within any guidelines whatsoever to be notable enough for the opening of the article" but you are providing NO evidence to back that up. You claimed that it wasn't notable because it wasn't contained in the first ten pages of Google results, but you've since been shown that A) no such standard exists, B) it DOES appear in the first ten pages of Google links, and C) it comes up more prominently then many things which you did not object to being in the article. All you have are "other editors agree", which means nothing when it's obvious that the only people arguing this are going to argue against including this in the lead no matter what. (And, really, I have a VERY hard time not concluding that you're all on Tagged's payroll in one way or another, since you've all refused to respond to that question.)


 * You have not shown us ANY Wikipedia guideline which gives us reason not to include the allegations in the lead. Wikipedia policy CLEARLY states that notable controversies are to be in the lead, and equally clearly states that significant press coverage establishes notability. Indeed, the Notability in Wikipedia article notes: "Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy).[1] Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources 'exercise some form of editorial control.'[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia) We've provided you with multiple mainstream newspaper sources.


 * "I maintain" isn't an argument. We've proven the case. Either address it, or stop wasting everyone's time. Brettalan (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Brettalan - I would say your claim "we've proven the case" is both inaccurate and also unreasonable by many standards. I have provided the evidence and a reputable 3rd party reference (Google) to demonstrate that this matter is not notable enough for the opening of the article. This allegation simply did not have significant press coverage and this is where I think we disagree. Could your definition of significant press coverage be flawed? A press release by a someone running for office that gets picked up in local media outlets for 1 day does not constitute significant coverage. There was no ongoing investigations or articles. None. Don't you see that point at all? I ask the other editors to weigh in here as well. I will also investigate Adrain's suggestion to request more opinions because it is important to me to both edit and discuss in good faith with you. Goalloverhere (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not *my* definition of significant press coverage. It's Wikipedia's. Something that was covered by multiple television stations and other news outlets is, under the guidelines, notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of an article. The only time I've seen anything about requiring ongoing coverage is in the standard for having an article of its own, and no one is suggesting that these allegations merit an article of their own. Do you have any evidence that Wikipedia requires ongoing coverage to estabish notability as defined here? Brettalan (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary
From the Wikipedia:Notability: Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It Meets the criterion for notability
Web content is notable if it meets any one of the criterion listed here



It was published by:

Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CBS
 * MSNBC
 * CNN
 * Information Week
 * ABC

Thank you for these references. As I review the Wikipedia criteria that you provided – I believe it shows that this allegation does NOT meet the criteria.

Each of these follow on reports are all essentially re-prints of the press release. There is no independent additional reporting in them – just some slight rewording of the press release. The criteria (pasted below) specifically states this to be an exception:

1.	The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following: o	Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5]

I think you are taking an extremely narrow and literal translation of the “guidelines” much too far by maintaining the notability in this particular case.

While the initial press release, on the day it was sent, did get distributed over several (not dozens) news outlets (most of which were local only – further supporting the lack of notability) that was the extent of the coverage. Again – there was no ongoing or follow up reports unlike the spam incident which had a significantly higher amount of follow on coverage over several weeks. I have not done an actual count but I am sure it is 10X the amount and over a period of months. That IS notable.

I implore you to reconsider your position. I would ask Adrian to weigh in here. I know that you placed the allegations in the lead with your Big Edit shortly after the allegations and at the time that may have seemed appropriate. Do you still feel it really meets the criteria? If we were to use this same criteria on any company, article introductions would be filled with single case – but widely reported – news items. Not helpful to the reader.

I am asking for your reconsideration based on the above and I look forward to your reply. Although I feel there is justification for a flag – as well as a change – I will respectively await your response. I am confident that you will see the reasoning and thank you for your consideration. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your misinterpreting the exception. As the reference on the exception makes clear, it is intended to exclude sites like prweb.com that simply reprint press releases from a company. That is not the case here. Nor is it true that the news outlets just slightly reworded a press release. The CNN Article, for example interviewed and quoted tagged.com's general counsel.  Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Coverage of the Attorney General's accusations may be based in part on the press release, but the guidelines refer to *re-prints* of press releases. None of these articles are even close to that. These news organizations all considered the incident to be worth carrying a story on; that makes it notable. The clear purpose of that guideline is so that companies cannot place their press releases on different sites or in small newspapers which will print them as is, and use that as evidence of notability. Brettalan (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually not clear to me how relevant the notability criteria are here. The primary purpose of the Guideline on notability is to determine whether a topic merits its own article.  The guideline for what belongs in the lead is Manual of Style (lead section), which explicitly states, "The lead should... include mention of notable criticism or controversies".  My understanding is that the word "notable" there is being used in its everyday English sense, not in the Notability in Wikipedia sense, though I could be wrong.


 * Goalloverhere states above, "If we were to use this same criteria on any company, article introductions would be filled with single case – but widely reported – news items." This point has been raised before, and I do understand it.  It would indeed be possible to find terrible but isolated cases associated with all kinds of companies.  For example, this was a single, isolated case in which Tagged was tangentially involved, and which does not merit inclusion in the lead.  But what the Cuomo investigation found was repeated and systematic failure by Tagged itself to respond to reports of child pornography and child exploitation.  You can read the findings yourself.  They go way beyond a single case.


 * My original motivation for mentioning Cuomo's findings in the lead was simply that the lead is supposed to provide the reader with an overview of the topic. I thought then, and still think now, that being publicly castigated over poor handling of reports of child pornography and child exploitation is significant enough to merit inclusion in an overview.  If I wanted an overview of Tagged, I'd want to know about that.  Wouldn't you?


 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input and I am pleased to read this from Adrian: "It's actually not clear to me how relevant the notability criteria are here" I will look to do more research and present additional examples of why this really is not notable enough for the opening. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability issues with AG
Starting a new thread here. I guess nobody else remembers, but back in June of last year I did the research and added the NY AG controversy to the history section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tagged&diff=prev&oldid=367290096

I thought at the time it seemed notable for the article, but I never intended it for the introduction. After watching press on Tagged for the past year or so I have evolved my opinion. It is clear to me that Tagged has undergone a sea change and has been working to overcome the issues they once had. Why should the company be smeared over a minor controversy? I am the one that brought this information to the article and I feel horrible having done so, because it didn't represent a full picture.

Given the way some editors are picking and choosing from Wiki's rules, it looks like by the standard set forth in the last thread every other social networking service is remiss in featuring their own issues… Wiki is not the place for breaking news, that is tendentious editing. NCSS (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think there's been a sea change, add information about that sea change. No one has opposed adding additional positive information so long as it's properly sourced. But this item has been shown to be notable and belongs where it is.


 * I don't believe that "every other social networking service" has such notable controversies, but, yes, it does seem that in at least some cases the leads there should be changed. Certainly in the case of Facebook, I think you should have left the most important controversies in the lead.


 * I do appreciate that those of you who disagree have refrained from further editing. Again, if there are things that you believe should be added, I want to work with you on that. Brettalan (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Images requested
reqphoto

NCSS (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV flag and issues
Wowa. I see this intro hoopla is still going on! One group of editors still doesn't want controversy in the lead and another group does. Both seem to have good arguments, but nobody is compromising. What seems to be missing is objectivity. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view!

Something doesn't seem quite right to me. It's troubling to see that an editor has flagged the article for original research, then said explicitly said they "did the research" to add the child safety info into the history section. Then that flag was instantly reverted. If what NCSS commented was true then I think the items covered in the lead needs to be revisited. Perhaps an outside POV check could help. Failing that I can do an RFC.

Taken directly from the POV guideline page:


 * "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

We seem to be stuck exclusively on the verifiability part of the article and have ignored the neutral POV and no original research policies, which are just as important. Taken from NPOV dispute page itself: "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral."

Cheers! A. Ward (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What's your point? You put the flag back, and you offer a bunch of platitudes about how Wikipedia has to be written from a neutral point of view and how just because something is a fact doesn't mean it's neutral...but nowhere do you offer ANY reason to dispute the neutrality of THIS article.


 * WHY do you find it "troubling" that when an "original research" tag was added, I immediately provided third party sources and removed the tag? *That's what's supposed to happen.* The purpose of the "original research" tag is to dispute whether something has been verified and treated as notable by a neutral source. There were more than enough third-party sources to confirm that there was no need for the flag.


 * We've already long since established that the allegations in question are among the most widely reported facts about Tagged, which makes them notable. That the fact that the allegations were made (which is all the article says) is verified by both primary and secondary sources. And that Wikipedia policy specifically states that notable controversies are supposed to be in the lead, which means that including them is clearly in keeping with Wikipedia policy, and that omitting them would clearly violate NPOV. In short, there is no plausible reason to have the tag. Stop wasting everyone's time.Brettalan (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect - Brettalan - we have not established that the allegations are notable. There is, and has been, an active debate - particularly around the AG allegations of being unresponsive to reports of child porn. While the spam controversy is questionable - I can see your point, and the other few editors with negative feelings towards Tagged, that it is indeed notable enough for the opening of the article. The allegations from June of 2010 are not notable and do not meet the guidelines. Using your view - the lead of this and every Wikipedia article would be full of various short term news reports and paraphrased press releases. Nobody's time is being wasted here - rather an ongoing discussion is being attempted by some editors including me. Yet you and a couple of others are trying to stifle this reasonable discourse and at the same time block routine elements of Wikipedia - such as this article having a flag/tag. That is very unfortunate. Goalloverhere (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But the "active debate" consists of certain contributors making sound arguments, and certain other contributors ignoring them. Just one example: in your post immediately above you wrote, "Using your view - the lead of this and every Wikipedia article would be full of various short term news reports and paraphrased press releases."  I addressed that point above in the second paragraph of this edit, but you've ignored what I wrote.  So we're just going around in circles.  If the flag was up, we'd continue going around in circles, you'd continue ignoring us, and then you'd use the continued "debate" as justification to keep the flag.  Need I direct you to Requests for comment a third time?  I see no other way to resolve this issue.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree Adrian - certain editors are ignoring the fact that this is a disagreement among a number of sound arguments from various editors. And I would include you in that group.

To illustrate that your entry was not ignored I will paste it here with comments on why it is not a valid argument:



Please note, this is a SINGLE allegation. A SINGLE case. The politician running for office cited "repeated failures" in a SINGLE press release. And it saw very minor short term media reports (almost all local only)- if you compare apples to apples - vs. other media coverage - but let's not run in circles again there... right now anyway. Let's stick with the fact that this was a single incident that has seen no follow on coverage since it was first released. None. And for the umpteeth time - "Cuomo's investigation" is an allegation from a politician running for office. I am confident that you can see these as valid points of disagreement and concern.

Regardless of the nature of the subject matter it does not meet the notability standards in the opinion of several editors. I'll plan to complete some additional research to further support this as well. And in reading through the history of this ongoing debate (or attempted debate if some of you would allow flags to remain while true consensus in reached) there does indeed appear to be a greater negative bias, personal emotions and attacks than I had previously realized. I believe that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is disappointing to see it so prevalent from a few editors. Goalloverhere (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between a single *incident* and a single legal case. There was one case, but the allegation was that there was an ongoing pattern of problems, and that's why Adrian is saying that it's important enough to include in the lead. If you think that's not valid, please explain why. In addition to that, I would say that the point about filling up leads with single cases misses the point that the leads should be filled with what is most notable about that particular entry. Of course with a large company about which many, many articles are written, it takes more to get into the lead. The Inc. 500 thing wouldn't make the lead for most companies, either, but it's one of the more notable things about Tagged. Again, the level of coverage of the Cuomo allegations makes it one of the most notable things about this company.


 * Not allowing the flags to stay up does absolutely nothing to stop the debate. No one has stopped you and others from saying whatever you want to say.


 * As for what you say about "negative bias, personal emotions and attacks", I'd like to see you back up that statement. I think we've been extraordinarily patient with you and the other editors who are insisting on flags. You (plural--I'm not saying you specifically) have repeatedly accused us of bias, have repeated arguments that have already been addressed over and over without acknowledging, let alone responding to, what we have said, and have thrown out accusations like "tendentious editing", "ownership of article" and "cabal" without providing any basis for the charges. Under the circumstances, I think those of us who believe the tag is unjustified have been remarkably patient and polite. The worst we've done is to ask if any of the editors have a conflict of interest, which was completely justified by the circumstances. And we've avoided harping on the fact that not one of you has answered that question. Brettalan (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There’s fundamental issues and valid difference of opinion involved here that warrants some type of notification to readers (such as a flag) while we have this ongoing debate.

For instance, Adrian notes and questions having the non-responsive to child porn allegation in the opening. But he concludes that he personally would want to see this and then offers a challenge to editors that disagree. It is his opinion. An opinion that other editors disagree with because it is not notable enough to be in the opening – for all of the reasons previously listed. Should readers be made aware of an allegation that has been made to other, larger firms? I think yes and the controversy section or similar section in the body of the article is the correct place for something like this. That’s my opinion.

Others have said that this allegation meets the criteria for notability but this is another disagreement based on several factors including concerns with original research, the possibility of political motivations, and the fact that the reporting, regardless of the claims, was not really widespread and exceedingly brief in nature (unlike the spam stuff). Again, this was a one-time press release – picked up 1 time almost exclusively by local media stations and then dropped. To maintain that this is widespread and notable in nature is a stretch of WP guidelines and deserves to be, at the very least, noted as such with a flag.

Why do a few editors get to have their opinion and interpretations overrule that of others? Based on comments and remarks in discussions and talk pages, it appears some editors are seeking revenge or trying to punish the company. Punishment is even suggested in some remarks peppered through out these pages - particularly upon reading some archived entries. As we know, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia and the fact that a few continue to stifle the ability for this article to evolve, notify readers of debate and accurately reflect the information for the reader remains a concern.Goalloverhere (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that we get to have our opinions and interpretations overrule yours. It's that *actual Wikipeida policies* overrule your opinions. Are you even aware that you're repeating the same talking points that have already been addressed? Brettalan (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A significant part of the disagreement is in the way the WP policies are being interpreted. And this is where a few editors collaborate together and work to stifle any debate or the ability to place a legitimate notification that there is a disagreement.Goalloverhere (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, when you say "stifle debate"--how so? You complain about attacks, and then you repeatedly make this completely baseless charge. We've been very, very patient as you and others have made the same points, over and over, and ignored our responses. I've already asked you to support this charge once, and you said *nothing*, yet here it is again. Either explain what you mean, or apologize.


 * What policy do you think has been misinterpreted? The one about controversies in the lead is very clear. The rules about notability as they apply here are very well established. We've dealt with every substantive point that has been made, and that's why there's no need for a flag.Brettalan (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your responses have not been ignored. As far as stifling debate goes - you have not established that any of the above apply for this particular instance whatsoever. In fact what you have written above is yet another example of the ongoing article ownership and form of protectionism that you a a few others have claimed for some reason. Thanks for making my point.Goalloverhere (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How does "you have not established that any of the above apply" *in any way* address the issue of "stifling debate"? It's a lie, of course, but even if it were true, how does our failure to establish something stifle debate? That doesn't make a lick of sense.


 * Now, please explain HOW any of this is an example of "article ownership" and "protectionism". Are you just throwing out random accusations?Brettalan (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion and reviewing WP policy, if anyone has been patient in this debate it has been those that have not reported the removal of obviously warranted flags by those trying to intimidate others with a different and valid point of view.

Your interpretation of WP policy in this case is just one opinion. As an example, Adrian weighed in honestly, which is appreciated, and questioned the legitimacy of the NYAG allegations. However, in his personal opinion he stated he would want to know about this single instance on an allegation of being nonresponsive to reports. And then he offered a challenge to other editors to agree with him. That does not seem to be in the spirit of objective and fair editing. In regards to repeating the same arguments over and over,I agree, you are doing exactly that - over and over.

It’s pretty clear – there is a significant and valid disagreement on the notability of the single NYAG allegation, which had little media coverage as compared to other events. The arguments presented do not override the fact that, at the very least, the article should be flagged as the group works towards consensus. This is really obvious and the more thought given to it the more it seems that anyone removing the flag is working against the policies and sprit of Wikipedia. That is really unfortunate from group of what otherwise appear to be good WP citizens and contributors. And that is one example of how you are stifling debate.Goalloverhere (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really think I've "questioned the legitimacy of the NYAG allegations", then I'm afraid we're having a great deal of trouble communicating. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Goal, HOW is that "stifling debate"? You say it, but you don't show any logic behind it. Not having a flag doesn't stop anyone from saying anything. And I notice you're not even trying to defend your claims of "protectionism" and "article ownership". You're making accusations with no basis whatsoever. Stop it. Brettalan (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, please allow me to clarify - you questioned if the allegation was worthy of being in the lead. You concluded that in your opinion you would want to know. I would too, but believe it belongs in the controversy section and is not notable enough to be in the lead of the article. Coumo's allegations really did not receive significant press coverage - certainly nothing compared to the previous spam issues. The "Articles" were essentially his press release re-purposed and nothing more. Goalloverhere (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never questioned whether the allegation was worthy of being in the lead. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But you did appear to question the relevancy of the notability "It's actually not clear to me how relevant the notability criteria are here". Then, in your opinion, you felt it belonged in the overview. Others share that opinion and still others, including me, disagree. Certainly seems worthy of a flag at a minimum but you and a couple of others wont allow it and that is not in the spirit of WP policy Goalloverhere (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Hello, Tagged. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I would like to resolve our issues and move forward with some outside help. Editing this article has become quite difficult for me. It is my belief that some editors may be a little jaded and not open to new opinions, which is antithetical to what Wiki is about.

NCSS (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Digsby Acquasition Notability
This had more coverage than the NYAG allegations – and in many nationwide publications vs. local outlets too. I do not see how this differs from the NYAG coverage whatsoever. Here are just a handful of examples:

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2011/04/19/19venturebeat-why-tagged-snapped-up-social-networking-appl-24171.html

Wall Street Journal All Things Digital: http://networkeffect.allthingsd.com/20110419/tagged-youre-it-social-network-buys-digsby-im-client/

Forbes: http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2011/04/19/19venturebeat-why-tagged-snapped-up-social-networking-appl-24171.html

About.com http://im.about.com/b/2011/04/19/tagged-acquires-digsby-dotsyntax-chief-and-team-heads-to-san-francisco.htm

Rochester Democrat: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110420/BUSINESS/110420019/RIT-creators-social-networking-app-Digsby-sell-California-

Perhaps the better choice is to have both of these events reflected in company history and other appropriate sections?Goalloverhere (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating the false assertion that the NYAG coverage was not national. It was. It also was not confined to the the technology pages, as this is. I would alsoo point out that it fails the "Google Test" which you used above. Ucanlookitup (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Arrington on Notability / Neutrality of the Introduction
Recently the TechCrunch mention by Michael Arrington about Tagged's notability was moved and then removed from the article. I fail to see how this is puffery or simply "opinion" as there was editorial oversight, it is not a primary source. We agree that TechCrunch is a good source.

Michael Arrington is one of the most respected and trusted reporters in Silicon Valley and the rest of the Country. If Arrington's opinion on Tagged's notability in the realm of social media isn't good enough, then please tell me who's is? Wouldn't it be tendentious editing to only feature the negative news in the introduction rather than what is notable? NCSS (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Greg Tseng will be a speaker at Techcrunch's conference in New York next week. Ahead of that, they wrote an article about Tags recent acquisition. In it he included a throw away line about Tagged achieving profitability in the "Facebook era". It was not the subject of the article. It was one line. It doesn't belong anywhere in the article, much less in the lede. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A call for civility
It's pretty evident that none of us are going anywhere anytime soon, so why don't we try and agree on some ground rules? I suggest that before adding content to the article, we post it on the talk page first and give all the editors a chance to make their arguments. In the past, we have been persuaded by reasoned argument and some content in the article reflects those discussions. It is usually only after discussion on the talk page that content remains for any length of time, so not discussing it just slows down the process.

Secondly, can we stop with the tags? There are noticeboards that can be used if you are that unhappy with the tone of the article. Since I (and I believe others) feel that the tags are inappropriate, there is little value in repeatedly adding them. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you forgotten that I and others feel the tags are appropriate and fully justified? There is significant value in adding them because there is an ongoing debate on an element of the article lead. Please respect this. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that being civil means that somehow you get to have your way. It doesn't. The neutrality tag was allowed to remain on the article for more than two weeks. No valid reason was forthcoming as to why it should remain and to this day none has been presented. Disagreeing with the content is not a valid reason. The tags should not be used to attempt to water down negative content or to imply that something is inaccurate about the article. Three times Adrian has offered you an alternative course of action if you continue to feel the article is biased. You have declined to follow that path and instead continue to add the tag. Ucanlookitup (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I’d like to weigh back in on this again. This is lengthy but I hope it will offer a point of view that will place most, if not all of us, on relatively the same page. I apologize in advance to all, and especially Brettalan, because it does bring up past arguments; however, they are contextual to the point as follows:

First, I am not exactly sure what you are implying above in the "Michael Arrington on Notability / Neutrality" section but I think it might be that you feel there is lack of neutrality with the reporting from Tech Crunch. If that is the case, would you consider the same circumstances – lack of neutrality - could be in play with the allegations by Cuomo?

You say that Arrington’s statement is a throw away and I contend the same can be said of Cuomo’s allegations and statement “the worst social network we have found”. This came from a politician working to generate press for himself during an election cycle.
 * No, for several reasons. Simply wanting to be governor does not provide a reason for being biased towards Tagged specifically. Tagged was not running against him. Even if we assume he was trying to generate press for himself - why chose Tagged? Perhaps because it was "the worst social network" that he could find. If we discounted every statement by a government official who wanted to make a name for himself, we wouldn't have many cites left.
 * Secondly, the two statements do not share much in common. Cuomo, in his official government capacity, gave a press conference about Tagged's bad behavior. The line you quoted sums up the content of the press conference. Such a press conference by the AG of a large state is a rare and notable event. Arrington's statement, is one line in an otherwise unrelated blog article. Something that occurs quite often and is certainly not in and of itself notable. Ucanlookitup (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of counterpoints with the above but let me just say that take a look at Coumo's AG site and you will see that his press conferences were hardly rare and not a notable event whatsoever. One could say Arrington giving a company a compliment is more rare in some respects. But let's not waste time to hash out this argument - please see below for the proposal. Goalloverhere (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You mention that there has been changes to content in the article during the course of the debate with reasoned argument and I agree. For instance, when I first came across the article I agreed with others that the controversy about Tagged had no place in the lead and belonged in the controversy section. Every web site and certainly every social network has had plenty of controversy and criticism. But as I read the arguments and discussion I came to the conclusion that indeed the spam incident was very significant particularly as it relates to overall coverage on the company. While I remain on the fence on the matter, I have concurred with you and others that it may indeed be notable enough to be in the lead.

Also, as I have read through the long debate and discussion, I have a clear sense that a few editors have a personal bias and an axe to grind with the company and its ceo. There are numerous indications of this behavior. That is a disservice to the reader and certainly not in the spirit of WP.

I contend that this bias is motivating the ongoing negative slant, the forcing of non-notable political allegations into the lead and the refusal to allow a flag to be in place as well - among other things.
 * Disagreeing with you is not evidence of bias. It is pretty obvious to me that this article has been subject to long standing conflict of interest editing. From Tagged employees acting anonymously, to paid consultants, to single use accounts (it's pretty amazing how many new editors started in Nov., 2010). If I or others seem quick to assume bad intentions on the part of other editors, we have some bases for that assumption. As far as I know, though, no editor arguing for inclusion of negative material has any actual conflict of interest. They have just reached a different conclusion. Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As an example, the NYAG allegations are not even close to the extensive coverage as compared to the spam incident. You and a few others are taking a very narrow application of WP guidelines to contend that it meets the notability criteria. Maybe you are correct (I disagree) but even so, common sense would clearly indicate that this is an apples and oranges comparison. I’ve tried to come up with methods to illustrate and validate this point but they have all been refuted. So now I will just ask for common sense, and civility for that matter, to prevail.

Allow me to clarify, once again, as follows:

Spam incident: widespread ongoing coverage with large fines and penalties paid. Coverage in numerous publications both offline and online including national television over a period of at least 6 months if not more.

NYAG allegations: Limited coverage – primarily local and almost exclusively online over the course of a day or two. No follow on coverage and no lawsuit after the “5 day notification period” either. Nothing more from the NYAG or the company…. maybe there was nothing there in the first place?
 * Do you really believe there "was nothing there in the first place"? If so, I suggest you read the full statement again. When you mention that there was no follow on coverage - that cuts both ways. Where is Tagged's righteous indignation? No loud articles proclaiming there innocence. No explanation of how these results were erroneous. Instead, a muted statement of how they were working to resolve the situation. The silence and lack of action would suggest to me that they did, in fact, resolve the situation to the AG's satisfaction. It's not unusual for both parties of a legal settlement to agree to refrain from any public statements. Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about any of the speculation you state above ... I am just pointing out the difference in coverage - that's all. You have to agree that the difference was huge and I think this should be the standard to base notability for inclusion in the lead. Goalloverhere (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference in coverage and notability is massive. One can easily be argued as being notable (spam) and the other (NYAG allegations) may not even qualify to be in the article much less the lead.

I propose the following revised lead to the article. If you and other editors accept this then I will join you in agreeing to no further flags and no further changes without editorial discussion first. Of course, I have no control over any other editor. However, with this lead revision, I will not only accept but also endorse and support that the article not be flagged or changed without editorial discussion and consensus first.

Proposed new lead (all citations will remain the same)

Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States, founded in 2004. The website suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. It also allows members to browse people, play games,[3] and share tags and virtual gifts. Tagged has 100 million registered members and attracts approximately 20 million visitors each month. (site Quantcast - http://www.quantcast.com/tagged.com)

In 2009, Tagged was criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail[7][8][9] and paid $1.4 million dollars in legal settlements regarding those practices.[10] The company has since adopted privacy reforms and changed its invitation processes.[11]

Tagged is an Inc. 500 company ranking #476 on the 2010 Inc. list of fastest growing private companies.[15]
 * The current content is the result of a compromise. It is considerably watered down from previous versions. If, once we obtain consensus, one of the participants can simply say "well, I don't agree, let's start over" - as you did with this issue, then there is no point in having the discussion to begin with. Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well - let me just sum it up with this....you will have another editor in me - joining you - on supporting no changes or flags without editorial discussion first with the above proposed lead. As noted below - the Inc. 500 mention may need to go elsewhere in the article along with the NYAG allegations to hold to a standard of coverage that we all agree on.Goalloverhere (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to your response and thank you for your consideration. Goalloverhere (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This does indeed rehash past arguments, and contributes nothing new. All I'll say is this: if the standard we're applying is that something has to be as widely covered as the spam allegations to be in the lead, then NOTHING else qualifies. The lead would then look like this:


 * Tagged is a spam generator. In 2009, Tagged was criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail[7][8][9] and paid $1.4 million dollars in legal settlements regarding those practices.[10]


 * Now, of course, I don't really think that would be at all advisable. But that's where we would go under your standard. The Cuomo allegations were certainly more widely covered than Tagged's Inc. 500 ranking. So do you really believe in that standard, or not? Brettalan (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and patience with the past arguments - again my intent was to offer a clearer perspective for everyone's consideration. I appreciate your point of view on coverage and you also speak to the common sense approach that I am proposing. Thank you. As you have demonstrated, if everything was simply based on press coverage for most articles - the opening would not be accurate nor make sense to the reader. Although I would point out that the company has had a fair amount of coverage for things beyond spam or non-responsive allegations over the last year - but that is another story.


 * I do, very much, believe in the standard as proposed. I think the Inc 500 ranking is noteworthy and adds important perspective for the reader. I also see your point on comparable coverage. Perhaps both items would be better placed in respective areas within the body of the article. How about this:


 * Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States, founded in 2004. The website suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. It also allows members to browse people, play games,[3] and share tags and virtual gifts. Tagged has 100 million registered members and attracts approximately 20 million visitors each month. (site Quantcast - http://www.quantcast.com/tagged.com)


 * In 2009, Tagged was criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail[7][8][9] and paid $1.4 million dollars in legal settlements regarding those practices.[10] The company has since adopted privacy reforms and changed its invitation processes.[11]

Thoughts? Goalloverhere (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated in the previous discussion leading to the current content, any lede that does not include a reference to the child pornography issue is a nonstarter for meUcanlookitup (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to hear that - based on everything presented I think the compromise makes total sense. If it is a non-starter for you then - at the very least - the flags / tags should stay in place. Please reconsider your position. I welcome other input too. Please consider the facts and truly how notable this issue is as compared to other articles, social networks and this particular company. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was intended to help us get to a resolution more quickly and with less raised blood pressure. It was not an offer to rehash arguments that have already gone on too long. I'm sorry if it doesn't seem like a sensible suggestion to you. Ucanlookitup (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing against the suggestion whatsoever and I am sorry that you fail to see the logic in the the fact that the NYAG allegations are simply not notable. Having this issue in the lead is a non-starter for me. I have offered 2 reasonable compromises. I have provided a compelling and obvious case. You don't agree with me and I don't with you. Now what? Goalloverhere (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not provided a compelling or obvious case. In fact, you have provided no case at all beyond "it's not as highly publicized as the spam thing" (which I've already clearly shown to be a ridiculous standard) and "I don't like it." What happens now is that you accept that having this issue in the lead is consistent with Wikipedia policies and you move on with your life. Brettalan (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That does not seem very civil of you and I have indeed provided an obvious and compelling case. We will just have to continue to work to make the article as accurate for the readers as possible and request that you halt the edit wars and stop removing justifiable flags. Please do not remove the flags any longer - I and others have made this request numerous times. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already demonstrated over and over that you have no case. SAYING you have a case without actually responding to what I wrote pretty much proves that. Stop putting up the flags--they are completely unjustified under Wikipedia policies, and you know it. Brettalan (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok - I will try to work with you here (although you are not working very well with me and the flags are justified as I understand it). Can you please specify exactly what I have not responded to from you? This has nothing to do with what I or any one may "like or not" but rather facts. However, it appears that I am missing something from your perspective and I want to edit and discuss in good faith - as always. What have I not addressed? What have I not responded to and what do you feel is a "ridiculous standard"? Please advise and I will address each point. I look forward to hearing back. Goalloverhere (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, we have established that this has been widely covered in both the national and New York media, and that that meets the standard for notability. We've also established that Wikipedia policy explicitly calls for notable controversies to be covered in the lead. More recently, you claimed that the Cuomo allegations shouldn't be in the lead because they weren't as widely reported as the spam issue, and when I pointed out that NOTHING about the company has been as widely reported as the spam issue, but it doesn't make sense to have the lead only talk about spam, you didn't have a real response. You have not provided any reason at all not to put this in the lead that is at all consistent with the guidelines. Moreover, you keep accusing me and others of "stifling debate", and when we have asked you how we are doing that, you have no answer. Yet you have the nerve to tell us that we are being uncivil.


 * It's been said before, and repeatedly: the guidelines clearly indicate that this should be in the lead, as a notable controversy and one of the more prominently covered items about this company. When the flag was first put up, it was allowed to stand for weeks while we asked for reasons to question the decision. When all the arguments which were raised were answered, and no one gave any reason not to accept those answers, the flags were taken down. That's supposed to be the end of the story. Instead, you and NCSS have continued to insist on a flag without providing a good reason for it, and to top it off the two of you have repeated made personal accusations about me and others while providing no basis whatsoever for those accusations. The fact is that this issue was covered enough to qualify as notable and that the guidelines call for notable controversies to be included in the lead. Unless you have something that negates those facts, it's time to let it rest. Brettalan (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I'll work to address each point in the near future. Goalloverhere (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification for Brettalan
I’ve taken extra time to review this discussion and your position closely. Thank you again for detailing your argument and concerns. I have addressed each of your points below for further clarification and request that you reconsider your position of including the NYAG allegations in the lead of the article.

Also, you have asked for an apology and I’d like to offer one. I apologize for past instances of suspicion and accusations and will assume good faith and that you are concerned only with following WP policy and guidelines. I am confident that I have outlined below succinct and direct rebuttals to your arguments and we’ll agree to remove these allegations from the article lead.

For clarity sake I have labeled your comments with a B: and my response with a G:

B: First and foremost, we have established that this has been widely covered in both the national and New York media, and that that meets the standard for notability.

G: I’m sorry but this simply has not been established whatsoever. Please stop making this claim, as it is inaccurate.

The level of coverage for any article is subjective but, a reasonable person would agree that these allegations were not widely covered. There were a few brief stories, mostly local and only for an extremely short period of time (1 maybe 2 days). There was no follow on coverage or any ongoing investigations or opinion columns.

This does not meet the standard of notability.
 * As I demonstrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tagged&diff=prev&oldid=422435998 cover was national and wide spread. Please quick suggesting that it wasn't. The period of coverage does not prevent it from being notable. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how you can conclude that this was widely covered and I am not alone. So no, I am afraid we have not established that this was widely covered and if anything I have demonstrated with reasonable arguments and methods (such as a Google search results) that the matter was actually barely covered at all.


 * We have established that it is widely covered, repeatedly. I believe any objective view would agree. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please consider that your interpretation of “wide” is actually extremely narrow. The spam issue, however, I agree that is wide coverage. The NYAG allegations – not even close. Please look at this comparisons – it is clear and evident.

B: We've also established that Wikipedia policy explicitly calls for notable controversies to be covered in the lead.

G: Yes, I think everyone agrees that notable controversies belong in the lead. However, the interpretation of exactly what constitutes a notable controversy is also subjective. You do not have final say on this matter, although for some inexplicable reason a few of you think you do. That is incorrect and inconsistent with WP guidelines as well.

B: More recently, you claimed that the Cuomo allegations shouldn't be in the lead because they weren't as widely reported as the spam issue, and when I pointed out that NOTHING about the company has been as widely reported as the spam issue, but it doesn't make sense to have the lead only talk about spam, you didn't have a real response.

G: I disagree, I had a succinct response to this and it included the following:

As you have demonstrated, if everything was simply based on press coverage for most articles - the opening would not be accurate nor make sense to the reader. Although I would point out that the company has had a fair amount of coverage for things beyond spam or non-responsive allegations over the last year - but that is another story.

I did not reference specific articles but suffice to say – this is a large web site used by millions of people and it has had plenty of other coverage in the media beyond the spam issue of 2009. Furthermore the guidelines say the lead must define the topic and establish context. Using press coverage alone fails to do this for nearly every topic. The key disagreement, I believe, is the subjective definition of prominence in controversies. I think you would agree that this is the one item where there is significant difference in opinion.

B: You have not provided any reason at all not to put this in the lead that is at all consistent with the guidelines.

G: Again, I firmly disagree. I have provided a clear reason and justifications. Guidelines say this about the lead: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

The reason that the allegations should not be in the lead is because they are not and never were prominent.

B: Moreover, you keep accusing me and others of "stifling debate", and when we have asked you how we are doing that, you have no answer. Yet you have the nerve to tell us that we are being uncivil.

G: I’ll clarify for you once again – as noted above – the allegations simply do not meet the criteria and your interpretation is, with all due respect, flawed. In addition you do not have final say yet you act as if you are the judge and jury. That is what I mean by stifling debate. As an example, you will not allow the debate to at a bare minimum be noted in the form of a flag.

B:It's been said before, and repeatedly: the guidelines clearly indicate that this should be in the lead, as a notable controversy and one of the more prominently covered items about this company.

G: It is not clear whatsoever – as noted above. It is not notable and has not been prominently covered. I am at a loss to why you continue to claim that it is notable. It is simply is not true. Also, while the allegations themselves sound controversial by virtue of the topic they remain only allegations and there has been no controversy around this issue. Again, the allegations are out of proportion with being in the lead.

B: When the flag was first put up, it was allowed to stand for weeks while we asked for reasons to question the decision. When all the arguments which were raised were answered, and no one gave any reason not to accept those answers, the flags were taken down. That's supposed to be the end of the story.

G: I do not believe the flags were allowed for very long at all but that is not too important. As I am now doing, and I and others have done before, the reasons are being articulated here. They are clear and valid. Your “answers” have never been acceptable and I am confused as to why you claim they have been.

Instead, you and NCSS have continued to insist on a flag without providing a good reason for it, and to top it off the two of you have repeated made personal accusations about me and others while providing no basis whatsoever for those accusations. The fact is that this issue was covered enough to qualify as notable and that the guidelines call for notable controversies to be included in the lead. Unless you have something that negates those facts, it's time to let it rest. Brettalan (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

G: Everything above completely negates your position. You do not have any facts. You have an interpretation and one that is grossly inaccurate. In the overall coverage and history of this company, the suspect allegations by a politician running for office that are unproven and barely covered in the press have no place in the lead of the story. Period.

To summarize my viewpoint:

-I have given solid arguments (above). Saying I have no argument is not an argument in and of itself.
 * You have yet to present an argument that is supported by the facts Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

-This topic is subjective, we are confusing controversy with notability
 * The topic is subjective, but the facts and policy support the conclusion that it is a notable controversy Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

-The allegations were made by a politician running for office - this article reads like charges were filed, they were tried and guilty. They are still allegations and should be noted as such. Furthermore there was no reported outcome – further supporting the fact of both none controversial and particularly not notable whatsoever.
 * Again you suggest that Cuomo is biased against Tagged but present no reason why he would be. Running for office is not sufficient to discard his statements Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

- Overall coverage was minimal and fleeting with no follow on – hardly notable.
 * Simply not true, as shown many, many times Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

All of this clearly justifies the removal of the allegations from the lead and placing them in the body of the article. I’ll plan to do this in the coming days and you can then place a flag on the lead if you feel so inclined and I will not remove it. Goalloverhere (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to keep this succinct, partly because I don't have a lot of time at the moment.


 * I think Ucanlookitup handled the most important point well. The Cuomo allegations were covered by several national news organizations, including CBS, ABC, CNN, and others. That makes them notable and, as he points out, notability is not temporary. In comparison to other things in the lead, such as the acquisition of Digsby or the Inc. 500 ranking, it's been more widely reported. And those are things that are not strictly necessary to explain what Tagged is.


 * You do raise a fair point about making more clear that this was an allegation. I'm very open to rephrasing the statement about the Cuomo allegations if you'd like to suggest something that you feel would make this more clear. Also, if you can find anything about the current status of the case, we should add that. I am still convinced, however, that under the guidelines mention of this should remain in the lead.


 * I still do not see how I am "stifling debate". I may remain firm in my position, and I have the support of the other editors in this, but no one is stopping you from making your points (and making them again and again). You say I'm acting as "judge and jury"; I say I'm following Wikipedia guidelines, and if anything I think you're acting as judge and jury by insisting on a flag when there are no more significant issues which haven't been fully addressed.


 * I hope that we can find some common ground and reword the sentence about the Cuomo allegations to make their nature more clear and thereby address your concerns. I hope that will allow us to finally put this matter to rest. I'd be happy to offer a rewrite, but I hope that offering you the first chance would make it easier for you to accept a compromise. Thank you.Brettalan (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate both of your input. Also - thank you for offering an opportunity to reword the entry, however, that is not not addressing the real issue that it shouldn't be in the opening. This appears to boil down to a single point, is this one incident truly notable. It isn't and I will revisit this again soon to further support that this incident is simply not prominent enough for the lead of the article. In terms of stifling debate - you continue to remove flags so that is what I am mainly referring to with this. I'll give it some further thought and respond in the not too distant future. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ucanlookitup and Brettalan - can you please point me to the WP policy on determining notability that you have cited above that would support these allegations being in the opening of this article? Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the major policy in question would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28lead_section%29


 * In particular, note "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." And, of course, the references to including notable controversies in the lead. Brettalan (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...I'll review further. Appreciate it.Goalloverhere (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)