This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DU membership figures

CU user "Bad Cat" wrote a new script that counts DU members in all the non-archived threads of all the forums. He came up with 4069 individual user names that are currently "active" (not archived). [1] I just posted a reply asking if he will lend out the code for verification. Crockspot 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think with a little work, it can be used to come up with a RS. The script is being made available to me, and runs in java, and can be run by anyone. It seems pretty empirically verifiable. If several people run it, and post their results to a "reliable source" website, then maybe we can use it.Crockspot 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Have a newspaper publish it or it didn't happen. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a competent technical blogger be an acceptable alternative? BenBurch 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, Crockspot, post the code for the java program, and I'll verify it at least, though I have no doubt that it is probably at least 90% correct. I might modify it to include all of the big five forums as once though as some people post in one of them exclusively. BenBurch 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what this all proves. 4000 or so current active users ain't all bad (considering that the big forums like GD, LBN and the Lounge get archived pretty fast). And that's just the people posting there. Let's face it, DU ain't MySpace. They're not gonna get millions of people on at a time. That's crazy thinking. And if they did, I'd hate to post there. Way too many people. Hell, I'll bet your neocon knockoff site probably has about 20 or so active people on it (what does your little Javascript program report for that?). One would have to be pretty naive to think that everyone that posts on a message board posts on a regular basis for life. I actually went about six months without posting at DU (just stopped by occasionally to lurk and catch up on stuff - didn't really have much to say). I was a more frequent poster a few years ago. What is your beef with DU anyway, Crock? Never seen anybody so worked up over a site they don't like. Why are you so adamant about the DU Wiki article anyway? Don't you have better uses for your time? Remember, there's a million other websites/message boards out there. I don't obsess over websites I don't like. Why should you? --Fightingirish 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, FightingIrish. But I still want to get that code and verify it, because there are so many ways such an applications could have errors that would not be obvious. (And not intentional on the part of the author, I might add!) BenBurch 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, the only people who are allowed to make contributions to this article are individuals who are febrile, unquestioning sycophants of DU, DUmmies themselves, or people who have no objection to the fringe political views expressed on this website, is that correct?

Is this some new Wikipedia policy?

Only those who aren't critical-in any respect-of a particular organization, website, political figure or movement, etc., are allowed to edit an article relating to the same?

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would love for you to delineate precisely how Crockspot is any more obsessive-as you would put it-over this entry than Ben Burch.

And if Crockspot isn't, then I would like to know why you are not admonishing Ben Burch in the same manner.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be "admonishing" anybody. We're supposed to be discussing the facts. Ad hominem attacks are both unhelpful and against the rules. No personal attacks is a serious policy on Wikipedia, and making personal attacks is absolutely unhelpful when trying to build an article. - CheNuevara 09:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I sure missed a lot while I was "obsessing" over this article. I do not have the java code. I can try to get it from BadCat. I sent the executable to BenBurch via email, and it can run in verbose mode, so you can see what it is doing. I'll see if BC is willing to part with the code. But frankly, this is not high on my priority list, despite what some may believe. I just thought it would be good to document the real numbers, after I had to edit out "DU membership consists of nearly 100,000 activists, each one fighting for the Democratic cause." This isn't the first time FightingIrish has personally attacked me. I'm sure it won't be the last. I've been accused of worse things. Crockspot 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am running that jar file you sent me... And I have to say that it is half done and showing MANY more active posters than BadCat claims to have found with the same program. Right now, it shows 11,249 active posters, and half of the threads have not yet been scanned. I'll post the final result tomorrow. BenBurch 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Final number was 12,710, but it appears to have processed only 45,000 of the 74,000 threads it initially identified. I suspect that if it had the number would only have been a few hundred or so higher as the rate at which new posters was found dropped off exponentially as the program progressed. I'll have a more definitive statement once I can examine the source code and possibly debug it a bit. I had a lot of string bounds exceptions as this ran. BenBurch 14:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What are the time periods that the various runs of the script have been analyzing?

Atlant 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is unclear. I ran it for all public forums, 20 pages of links back. For something like GD that is not that far in the past. For something like the Wyoming forum, that is likely to be since it was started. The script does not access archived topics. I now have the source code, and one of the things I plan to do is have it save and reveal the date range. I am also considering giving it a cut-off date so that it will not look at history older than a certain date. However, first, I have some streaming servers to reconfigure, and some podcast code to revise. :-) BenBurch 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. 'Cause otherwise, I will, per my posting a ways above us, have to prepare to be astonished as I claimed there wouldn't be more than 10,000 distinct posters "during any given month or maybe even quarter", so I'm on tenterhooks here. ;-)

Atlant 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really going to depend on what forums are chosen. Like Ben said, if you pick the wyoming forum, you are looking back a long long time, and might be including members who were tombstoned ages ago. I have sent Ben the source code too, and it looks like he received it. I think he's on the right track by modifying the code to exclude posts before X date. That should take care of that problem. Crockspot 16:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

notable members / Ben Burch

Ben, I re-added you. It says "have posted at some point", not "currently post". You fit those criteria, and you've already been deemed notable. - CheNuevara 23:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Notable" in terms of Democratic Underground, or notable with respect to the broader culture?

If it's the former, then I would agree.

However, if it's the latter, i.e. you are implying that he is "notable" in the generic sense of the term, then I would beg to differ.

I remember this discussion arising during the afd debate on the Ben Burch article, and a consensus being reached that he was not notable. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Che's point is that Burch was deemed a notable member of DU, and since the section of the article is "notable members and former members", his transition to ex-member shouldn't affect his suitability for the article. But my gut reaction is that we should respect Ben's decision to remove himself from the list. VoiceOfReason 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia precedent is to objectively judge the subject matter, despite what the subject thinks. Take, for example, the articles on Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley. While I sympathise with Burch's apparent desire to be removed from the article, members of the Wikipedia community do not get special treatment in the article namespace. Sorry. - CheNuevara 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.

Something else that I noticed-after clicking on one of the links-was that the David L. Wolper article essentially consisted of a stub.

I'm not an expert on Hollywood producers, but it seems like there would be more information about-and material for a possible article available-someone who is responsible for so many popular films.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Violating WP:EL

Is there a reason that we are using a blog when there is a substantially better, critical source that does not fail WP:EL? We had come to substantial agreement that the DUF link sucked and that a link that did not violate WP:EL would be better. What changed? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sites that are the same as DUFU. How are they somehow okay, but DuFu is not?--Tbeatty 20:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we reached any substantial consensus regarding the DUmmie FUnnies link in this article or whether it violates WP:EL.--RWR8189 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There was consensus that if we found a better link - which we found, the blog would go. Apparently the politics edit warriors don't like that consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a consensus that if a better link was found that it would go. I have seen no consensus that the link which replaced Dummie Funnies was better. In fact its somewhat inactive, whereas dummie funnies are updated 5 to 7 times a week Dman727 02:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dman is correct. The new link sucks. I don't agree that DUFU sucks. It should be relisted.Crockspot 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the DUFU link, the present one speaks to one event that happened quite a while ago.--RWR8189 05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I support readding DUFU. While I suspect it may restir the pot, its a superior link to the rather inactive replacement Dman727 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)— Dman727 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not single purpose. Just sour grapes from someone who disagrees with my support.

Thank you, single purpose accounts, for acting with the single purpose of engaging in wikipedia as a game. Your contibutions make life harder for the rest of us. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

People who insist on including the link have the obligation to show the link fails to violate WP:EL - the old discussion had all of the not-politics-edit-warriors in strong agreement that the two articles were far better than a blog that engages in WP:OR, which is a massive violation of our WP:EL policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF? SPA account. I've not touched the DUFU link in ages, and somebody is apparently blind to my other contribtutions. WHat BS! Could someone kindly advise me on how to answer this person who doesnt like my opinion? Also I welcome you do submit my id for socket puppetry identification - Its your time to waste. Dman727 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you owe Dman an apology. I just looked at his contribution history, and you have absolutely no justification for calling him an SPA. He may not have the most prolific history, but there are quite a number of different articles edited. Maybe you were referring to me? (which would be even more rediculous.) Making such accusations really harms your credibility and calls into question your NPOV on this article. Crockspot 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the DUFU link back in, since Hipocrite removed it, and THEN added a dispute tag. If there is going to be a tag disputing content, the content should be present. Also, as stated above, his accusations against other editors makes me seriously question his neutrality as an editor of this article. Crockspot 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing unusual comments

I added one line to the section, with a link to USA Today [2]. LynnSin got a mention in the article for her CT comments on the recent airline terror plot.Crockspot 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Make that two lines. Crockspot 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Columns

I have been told that DU user Mr. Benchley was responsible for writing the Bob Bouderlang column. Benchley was banned a few days ago, so that column may now be defunct. I guess we'll see tomorrow, as the column is posted on Fridays. Crockspot 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a source that confirms that Benchley wrote the Bourderlang column. That was proably 2 years ago, so it may take me a bit to find it, assuming its still available. I find this bit of news interesting, as thats two long time prolific posters (ben & Benchly) who've been banned within the last 30 days. Dman727 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Deriving Data

It is not okay to derive data that is not published. Simplified example: If DU publishes that they have 1 inactive account and 1 active account but they have no published data on Total Accounts, it is not okay to derive total accounts from what they published (adding inactive to acitve). Simply say what they publish. Wikipedia is not in a position to verify either the math or the method needed to derive anything. It is explicitly against No Original Research to do this. Put in the sourcable data. Don't synthesize. DU can be used as a reference for all data they publish but if they don't explicitly claim it, it can't be deduced. --Tbeatty 06:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the DU home page before reverting based upon the comment? The count that you reverted was not synthesized. It was "derived" by reading the exact number. It was lifted directly off the page. Surely copy and pasting is not counted as synthesizing. Why so much splitting of hairs over such a non controversial subject? Dman727 06:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not true. Adding two numbers that appear on the same webpage (or in the same book) is totally acceptable. It's numbers that come from separate sources (two different pages, two different books) that can't be used. The style of a source should not affect the information retrievable from it, and adding one active member and one inactive member to get two members total is not only acceptable, it's common sense. - CheNuevara 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable members

THis section was completely unsourced and it is not clear that the persons listed were notable outside of DU (or that even DU considers them notable) nor was it verified that the DU members that are already notable (e.g. John Conyers) were actually members. If their membership is notable it should be easy to find a source that verifies it (e.g. Does John COnyers official web page claim he is a member? I couldn't find it). --Tbeatty 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The best I could come up with on Conyers was this and this. If it was him, he only made one post on DU. Crockspot 21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it may be less controversial to add {fact} tags to each of the entries, rather than just remove the section. Crockspot 21:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be considered negative information so I removed it per WP:BLP. See the Ben Burch piece above as he apparently doesn't want to be listed. --Tbeatty 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It could NOT be considered 'negative information', and doesn't fall under WP:BLP. Quit vandalizing the article Tbeatty!

NBGPWS

WP:NPA WP:AGF And yes, persons who do not want to be associcated with DU like Ben Burch would consider it negative and they have asked to be removed. We have no idea what the others might think without a reliable source that links them. --Tbeatty 04:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the notable members list to Democratic Underground/Notable until they can be verified and moved back.--Tbeatty 04:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Talk:Democratic Underground/Notable. Wikipedia policy is to not use subpages in the main article space. - CheNuevara 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Added back in - they're verified

NBGPWS 06:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Burch removed his name from that list after Skinner and the DU administration suspended his account.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING defies WP:NPOV and thereby the foundation issues. I can't think of a single time when it needs to be invoked, including this one (see my comments on Ben Burch / notability above). Saying "remove all unsourced negative material" is like saying "remove all boring copyvio" -- it gets removed because it's unsourced, not because it's negative. While I don't personally know the links for the confirmations, I remember seeing the notices about Conyers and Clark on the DU site, and clearly Burch was a member. I agree someone should source them, but they are fact. - CheNuevara 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the list of people qualifies as a biography. It's just a list. If there is a linked article, then that article would fall under WP:BLP. Their simple listing as members does not connote negativity. They joined DU of their own free will.Crockspot 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all information about living people. We cannot include information that could POSSIBLY be negative without strong sourcing. Belonging to a forum that sometimes has extremist views posted is possibly negative, especially to a politician or journalist. As such, lists of people must be sourced. If strong sourcing is provided, please reinclude them. JBKramer 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to hold myself to a standard of moral clarity here, and retract my above statement. I have delved into WP:BLP heavily over the past few weeks, and I understand now that it is a special, much more rigorous standard, that trumps all else. If BenBurch does not want to be listed, then it must be accepted that he feels it is negative, and it goes. However, we shouldn't assume that all of those that were listed felt it was negative. For example, Carl Sheeler appears to be proud of his membership there. He actively posts there, seeks support from DU members, and has been well verified that he is indeed CarlSheeler. For any editor to presume that being a member of DU is automatically negative is drawing a conclusion, which is Original Research. This is a sticky one for sure. Crockspot 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliant tag

The insinuation that the sites criticizing DU are not relevant creates the impression that only a positive view of Democratic Underground is allowed. I will not participate in the debate on the links themselves, but do note the current resolution is leading to a major bias problem. ShootStraight 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— shootstraight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Welcome to WIKI! Good choice in picking DU as your first ever contribution. I disagree that the linked articles are only positive. In fact most of the reverting and arguing has been over articles that are negative to DU. The most contentious article is easily to the most critical - Dummie Funnies (of which I support being on the page and IS on the page). Dman727 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome. I have seen the debate, and while I don't have any public views on each link itself, I do believe that casting all criticism links as irrelevant whilst not doing the same for all pro-Democratic Underground links is bias. I would say the same if this were the FR page. ShootStraight 03:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— shootstraight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Respectively, if you are not going to take a stand on the links, then how can you take a stand that the links represent bias? If there are links that you feel need to be added, then please add them (or propose adding them). If there are links that you feel need to be deleted, then delete them or propose to delete them. Its not helpful to throw out accusations of bias and then shrink back from specifics. Dman727 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I back the noncompliant tag on this article and I agree that removal of it is vandalism until the issue has reached consensus on the talk page. PresidentClinton 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— PresidentClinton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Respectively I disagree. The external links section is already tagged appropriately. Expanding that tag to the entire article is disengenious. Dman727 03:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ShootStraight: an article is -not- noncompliant if there are disputed links. Noncompliant articles are vastly or systematically noncompliant. As you can probably see, the rest of the article is in pretty good shape, and there is constant discussion on the link section. Let's not saw our legs off at the knees just to clip our toenails.

PresidentClinton: Good faith edits are never vandalism, period. Removing a tag that you believe does not belong is not vandalism, ever. A mistake, maybe, but not vandalism.

- CheNuevara 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI: User:PresidentClinton has been impeached (for possessing an improper username) and won't be back, at least under that name.

Atlant 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Added info on TOS to criticisms

I added this:

Although the TOS that all members agree to clearly states that Democratic Underground is for meant for 'Democrats and other progressives' who are 'supportive of progressive ideals' conservatives and libertarians routinely complain of censorship when they are banned.

NBGPWS 07:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Is it really necessary to have four separate links to pages that are essentially constituent parts of DU, or sites maintained by DU?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have one link to DU's main page, or a link to DU's main page and a link to the forums section of DU, which is its most active component?

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RUthfulbarbarity - Actually those links, the "xyz Underground" links are all seperate sites. In fact I think the Democratic underground folks are actually banned from discussing, or linking to conservative underground. Dman727 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the four links under the disputed template, but the three above it.

DOH! I see what you are talking about. I agree with your assessment, I think its a bit redundant but I don't feel strongly about it either way.Dman727 04:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Campaign Underground redirects to a thread on Democratic Underground from the 2004 elections.

There might be a more recent link related to the upcoming congressional elections, but I don't believe DU has a fund raising apparatus akin to Net Roots, or other progressive/left Web forums, although I could be mistaken.

In any case, it's not of any great importance one way or the other.

I did move the link to the Wired article from the list on the bottom of the page to the one below the "external links" rubric, since I think an independent report should be differentiated from critical weblogs related to DU.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable members round 2

Hey all, I'm back at school and ready to go, so here's my thoughts on what's been going on here. I'm sure we can reach an amicable solution here.

WP:LIVING doesn't say don't print negative material about people. It says exactly what WP:VERIFY says: source your stuff. So ... let's source it.

It might also help to include a sentence or two about when and to what extent the person posted. Clearly Conyers was not a 'member' in the same way that Burch was, but his post probably deserves a mention anyway. So, here goes:

I saw the links to source the Conyers post above. He can go in.
I think it's reasonable to consider Skinner an authority on DU members. I remember seeing a post by Skinner which validated the authenticity of a well-known poster at least once or twice. I can't search the archives, but if someone can, that would be great.
Sheeler's listed as a DU member in the 2006 race forum on DU. I don't think it should be hard to come up with something to back that up -- he even links to DU from his campaign site.
Burch already sourced his membership many times. Even though he's not a member anymore, it's clear that he was. Wikipedia precedent (Daniel Brandt, Angela Beesley) shows that it stays in even if he removes it.

I don't think sourcing should be too hard. - CheNuevara 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ego time...

I'll source myself ;) Democratic Underground Homepage - Added to homepage Wed 18th May 2005, 02:59 PM (Page number changes) Riede (DUer Rabid Nerd) wins McSherrystown mayoral nod Add back at your leisure if I'm worthy.. I didn't put me there to begin with. Herb Riede 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool! - CheNuevara 00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing Burch?

He removed himself from that list after he was banned by Skinner, and obviously doesn't want to be associated with that site any longer. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Whether or not he wants to be associated with it, he was associated with it -- he sourced that information himself. If he weren't a contributor on Wikipedia, we wouldn't even be having this discussion about him. Wikipedia does not take down information just because its subjects want it to, period. If you don't believe me, ask Angela Beesley or Daniel Brandt, both of whom requested their articles be taken down, and both of whose requests were denied. WP members do not get favorable treatment. If it can be sourced -- which it clearly is, as he sourced it himself -- it can go in. End of story. - Che Nuevara 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is difficult to source any of these people with sources that meet WP:RS. Most of the sourcing is going to be from other blogs. Of course, we are talking about a blog. It's a paradox within the rules of WP:RS. Crockspot 14:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an absurd comparison.

Burch is not as famous as either of those individuals-and I hadn't even heard of the latter until you brought him to my attention-and his sole claim to notability is his prolific posting on the website in question.

His vanity article was deleted because it didn't meet notability requirements-under even the most generous definition-so I don't see how he would meet those very same standards in a separate article.

It makes absolutely no sense to make such a case. Ruthfulbarbarity 00:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization of my "absurd comparison". My "absurd comparison" was to demonstrate Wikipedia policy and precedent on removing people based on their own wishes, which is exactly the argument you were making when you said:

He removed himself from that list after he was banned by Skinner, and obviously doesn't want to be associated with that site any longer.

And if you want to argue about his notability, Google (burch + "white rose"). You'll come up with over 26,000 hits. That's notability.

The facts are quite clear, and point to Burch being in this article. - Che Nuevara 02:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How does that denote notability?

I could Google the online pseudonyms I've used on various large websites I belong to and come up with hundreds of thousands of results, if I so chose.

Simply because he once posted on a relatively popular website-under his real name-does not denote notability.

If that were the case, then we would have Wikipedia articles on every person who spends an inordinate amount of time congregating among online communities.

Even if I conceeded that Ben Burch was a notable person-which the deletion of his vanity article would seem to disprove-in order to place him in a category of "notable" DU members he would have to be a member of DU, which he is obviously not.

Otherwise you would have to create an entirely separate category of notable former DU members, which I don't believe Ben Burch would qualify for either, since he wasn't very notable when he still belonged to DemocraticUnderground. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The text does not specify that they are current members. In fact, all it says is "have posted at some point". He qualifies there. You may have a legitimate argument on the notability, although I believe that The White Rose Society (website) pretty much justifies his appearance in this article. (It's not a particularly stellar article, but we've kept it around.) But he fits the criterion of "have posted at some point". It's not a list of current notable members, it's a list of notable people who are or were involved in the site. - Che Nuevara 04:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the numbers for White Rose-which are so anemic that it calls into question White Rose's notability as a website-do not signify any sort of popularity.

Burch is a tireless promoter who attempts to plug his website at every opportunity.

There are spam advertising services that-through the sheer persistence of their owners-would probably qualify for Wikipedia under that unusual criterion. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

alternative journalism

I'm not going to edit war over this, but read the tag sentence to our article on journalism:

Journalism is a discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and presenting news regarding current events, trends, issues and people.

News analysis counts as journalism, which means that Plaid Adder clearly is journalism, and (as ridiculous as it might be) the Top Ten is a news summary/analysis. I also consider satire of current events to be alternative journalism (and the Miama Herald, who has Dave Barry on their payroll, would most likely agree with me), which makes Boudelang journalism as well.

Just because you don't think it's quality journalism doesn't mean it's not journalism. - Che Nuevara 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're stretching the concept. One could make the same argument about almost any blog. The columns are simply blog rants that come at regular intervals. DU has never broken any news story, unless you count Ribbongate. - Crockspot 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Having broken a news story is not part of Wikipedia's definition of journalism, so that's not really a particularly powerful argument. Take this pull quote from online journalism, whose lead definition is "Online journalism is defined as the reporting of facts produced and distributed via the Internet.":

Bloggers write on web logs or blogs. Traditional journalists often do not consider bloggers to automatically be journalists. This has more to do with standards and professional practices than the medium. But, as of 2005, blogging has generally gained at least more attention and has led to some effects on mainstream journalism.'

"Standards and professional practices" do not a journalist make. DU is a news source for many people. You could call a lot of blogs alternative journalism, and there is a certain amount of journalistic / analytical expertise that goes into the DU blogs. Did Tom Friedman stop being a journalist when he started writing Op-Ed? - Che Nuevara 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the standard definition of journalism is not what's found in Wikipedia.

Using Wikipedia in order to buttress your assertion is not only self-referential, it's not valid for the purposes of this discussion.

A proper definition would come from OED or some other legitimate, longstanding dictionary or encyclopedic reference work.

Secondly, nowhere on its website does Democratic Undgeround describe itself as a journalistic news source-alternative or otherwise-and I've yet to see any other major media outlet describe it as such. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First: On the contrary, we have to use Wikipedia definitions to justify wikilinks, otherwise the concept of wikilinking is totally useless. We wikilink so that it's clear what we mean when we use certain terms. If we wikilink / categorize / whatever based on definitions that aren't (necessarily) consistent with our definitions, then wikilinking becomes a stupid, arbitrary practice.

Second: Here's a "proper" definition, from Merriam Webster 2003:

1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press

Third: I'm pretty pretty sure that, for instance, Joseph Goebbels never used the term "anti-Semitic" to refer to himself, but he's in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Whether or not someone/thing calls itself something is not the be-all-end-all for category inclusion.

Fourth: Yes, some columns on DU do claim to be journalism. For instance, read the bio of the co-editor of The Crisis Papers:

Bernard Weiner, an activist journalist and public speaker, holds a Ph.D.in government and international relations, has taught at various universities, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers.

Fifth: Project for Excellence in Journalism has published a number of reports on blogs, and has come to conclusions such as "ironically, the most fervid blog readers are journalists — the group perhaps that feels most threatened by them", and "readers of those blogs learned of some of the same stories that were in the traditional media that day, but often from a different angle or different source"; it frequently refers to blogs to "similar to traditional news sources", and never once say that blogging can't be journalism.

Are the forums journalism? Clearly no. But I think it's there to see that there is journalism going on here, whether or not it's particularly professional. - Che Nuevara 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But Democratic Underground is not a news site.

It is a Web forum where people discuss current events.

In order to qualify as a journalistic enterprise it would have to attempt to actually replicate what journalists do, i.e. break stories, report news-not recycle or regurgitate news from other media outlets-carry out investigations, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

DU meets none of those criteria.

I'm not disputing the fact that certain weblogs independent of large media venues do under certain circumstances constitute what is normarlly referred to as "journalism."

However, the fact that Democratic Undeground carries certain non-notable bloggers-whose journalistic credentials are circumspect or non-existent-does not mean that what DU does is journalism.

If every weblog and message board that carried links to articles published in the mainstream media was considered journalism, then you could attribute journalistic properties to millions of websites and the definition of the term itself will have been rendered utterly meaningless. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. The fact is that DU has carried The Crisis Papers and Plaid Adder for quite some time, and only recently turned them loose on the forums. Clearly the DU forums are not journalism, and I wouldn't even dream of making that claim. What I am claiming is that Crisis Papers, Plaid Adder, etc. are journalism, and just happen to be on the same site as these forums.

I'm not saying that every joeshmoe with a blogspot account is a journalist, but it seems to me that what the official columnists at DU do (and did long before their blogs were forumized) counts as journalistic news analysis. - Che Nuevara 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But these two occasional columns are not the end all and be all of DU. If they were, you'd have a case and I would, in fact, support it. But they aren't. They are minor additions to the primary focus of DU: the forums (see my earlier post below). Jinxmchue 05:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, DU does NOT qualify as journalism ("alternative" or otherwise) in any way, shape or form. Websites like the Huffington Post and Mother Jones probably would (as far as I know - I rarely read the former and never the latter), but not DU. DU has some kind of news feed (I suspect the articles are specifically chosen to be posted on the main page) from other sources and online user journals, but it's main focus is its forum - a fact confirmed by the website itself. What do you see directly by the DU logo on the main page? Links to the "Latest" and "Greatest" forum posts, the main forum page, the journals, the forum options and help pages and the forum login page. And immediately below all that is a line showing the current totals for forum registrations and forum posts. DU is an online forum, not anything that falls within the "journalism" category. As your quoted sentence states, journalism is a discipline. Posting messages on an online forum is NOT a discipline. (Of course, I would go along with categorizing DU as "journalism" if it meant that CU is "journalism," too, which it would have to be. I would heartily enjoy the usual hypocritical frothing-at-the-mouth by liberals over the latter that would no doubt take place on DU and probably here, too.) Jinxmchue 05:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Skinner

Info is here but not really relevant to article so I would leave it as a reference but not name him. --Tbeatty 06:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The full post is here. It's signed David Allen. "We think you should be aware that the Secret Service contacted us today. Posted by Skinner in General Discussion Thu Oct 26th 2006, 02:43 PM In the five-plus years since Democratic Underground was started, we have had legal issues arise on a fairly regular basis. When that happens, we almost never make any sort of public comment about it, mostly because we think giving would-be legal adversaries any unearned publicity would only encourage them. But an issue has come up this week which we feel we should probably share with you, because we think you should know what we are doing to protect your personal information.

As you are probably aware, the Democratic Underground detailed rules include this short passage:

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president or other high-ranking official in the United States government. In the case of the president, do not even post jokes, as the Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor. Fortunately the members of DU are generally level-headed and respectful of the rules, so we have not had any problems with this issue in the past. But today we have had two separate inquiries from the Secret Service about posts on our website.

The inquiries involved three posts by two separate visitors to our website. Incidentally, both of the people in question were banned last week -- before we were aware that the Secret Service was looking into their postings. I'm not going to go into the details of the posts in question, except to say that all three of them would have been covered by the passage from the Democratic Underground rules that I posted above. (One of these posts was deleted by the moderators, two were not.)

The United States Secret Service has asked Democratic Underground to hand over any identifying or personal information we have about the two individuals in question.

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:

The administrators of Democratic Underground take the privacy of our visitors very seriously. Even though the two people in question had already been banned from our website, we will not hand over any personal information from them or from any of our visitors unless we are legally compelled to do so.

After talking with the Secret Service -- who were polite and professional throughout -- we immediately contacted our lawyer to get his advice (as we always do whenever a legal issue arises). We will continue to consult with him throughout this situation so we can ensure that our rights and your rights are protected. On the advice of our lawyer, we have declined to voluntarily hand over any information about the two individuals in question. That is where matters stand at this point.

The Secret Service has informed us that they intend to get subpoenas in order to compel us to hand over the information. If and when they do, we will consult with our lawyer before we do anything.

Please feel free to post in this thread if you have any questions.

David Allen Democratic Underground Administrator Read entry | Discuss (396 comments) "

If I may be frank (and you can be Dr. Forrester if you want), that's just nutty. He posted with his screen name and "signed" with his real name and position. Why can't this be used here to verify his name? Jinxmchue 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why argue about it? Skinner/Allen isn't under suspicion so I'd rather leave out his name than get in an edit war with Derex over the content. I would think putting founder information is relevant. Real name is probably irrelevant in this context. --Tbeatty 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment here. However, I'm not going to edit war. I stated the objection that this was unsourced. J fixed that. I have no reason to battle about it. ...... However, looking more carefully, I think it's a matter of interpretation whether that proves Skinner's real name is David Allen; clearly some admin there has that name, but Skinner is simply the poster of an official message. I don't think that's strong enough to go on. While a reasonable inference, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of indisputable or sourceable fact. Derex 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added more sources to the "Owners" section which prove without a doubt that "Skinner" is David Allen. Jinxmchue 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that he's not under suspicion. He's the one posting the message about the incident. I mean, House Speaker Dennis Hastert wasn't under suspicion of IM'ing lewd messages to underaged Senate pages, yet his name was used constantly in regards to the Foley scandal. Jinxmchue 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Jinxie, Dennis Hastert is merely under suspicion of sleeping with his male "assistant" lo these many years ;-) BenBurch 04:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Benny, when you guys actually come up with proof of your "suspicions," let us know. You can do it at the same time your "big news" about CU finally materializes. Meanwhile, we'll continue to enjoy watching actual proof of the Democrats' misdeeds roll in. Jinxmchue 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! And nothing is beyond suspicion at the "hive of scum and villainy"[3] that is DU, anyway. Has Wikipedia ever been contacted by the Secret Service about any of our many banned lunatics here? (I've seen explicit presidential death threats). Quick, somebody go write a section about it here. Derex 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I know how you can find out :). --Tbeatty 08:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now don't go tempting me, T. Derex 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some changes to Forums and Online Community

Hello folks who are watching Democratic Underground.

I made some changes to this page that I thought were neutral, verifiable, and did not constitute orignal research. Most of what I did was some reorganization to the Forums entry and the Online Community entry. I tried not to delete content that other people had written. What I added were some descriptions (which are common knowledge) of the major forum subdivisions that occured after the 2004 elections, and some terms that are in common use.

Here is the appearance of the page as of my last edit:

[4]

Would some of you take a look at my edits and give a new user some pointers on how not to get reverted in the future, please? Thank you very much. Gregarious Lonewolf 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I probably was too hasty in reverting your edits; please see my reply to you on my talk page.

Atlant 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Atlant. I saw that, and I left you a reply. Cheers.

Gregarious Lonewolf 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum? Right now, there really aren't any... Wickethewok 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading through the history, and there seems to be a lack of consensus on what independent sources are appropriate. (This is somewhat of an understatement.) This site was under temporary protection recently because of an edit war, and it kind of looks it is headed for another one. Gregarious Lonewolf 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that both DU and FR are so lacking in acceptable sources that both should be AfD-ed. Not that either would get removed as we all know that a flash crowd would descend to defend either one. BenBurch 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Proably. But I think that your prediction is true and the only result would be hard feelings for all involved. Dman727 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandal 194.8.192.4

Could someone address the vandal coming from 194.8.192.4 and spa? Here is an example of his vandalism [[5]], in addition to blanking of sections. This section took awhile for a consensus to develop and was part of a long edit war. I hate to see it happen again because of one malicious individual. Dman727 03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not a vandal and I really resent that. I believe that I was right that this was a bad section. I also think I am right that Free Repiglic is noted for its atrocious spelling and grammar. I probably also could have added the hideous ugliness of the thoughts expressed on there, but that is only opinion. The spelling and grammar are verifiable and true. Is this how you treat everybody who makes an edit that offends you politically? 194.8.192.4 14:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One key point, of course, is that there's no need to characterize Free Republic here in the article about Democratic Underground; that sort of characterization belongs over in the other article, not here. But you also do need to realize that any editing in a political article can be "touchy". On the other hand, folks who are characterizing "content" changes as "vandalism" are probably wrong, even if they disagree with the content changes.

Atlant 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Amsterdam? Sure it is. Jinxmchue 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

dnsstuff.com says this about that IP address;

IP address: 194.8.192.4 Reverse DNS: [No reverse DNS entry per ns1.netcologne.de.] Reverse DNS authenticity: [Unknown] ASN: 8422 ASN Name: NETCOLOGNE (NETCOLOGNE AS) IP range connectivity: 1 Registrar (per ASN): RIPE Country (per IP registrar): DE [Germany] Country Currency: EUR [euros] Country IP Range: 194.8.192.0 to 194.8.223.255 Country fraud profile: Normal City (per outside source): Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen Country (per outside source): DE [Germany] Private (internal) IP? No IP address registrar: whois.ripe.net Known Proxy? No Link for WHOIS: 194.8.192.4 BenBurch 06:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Be nice to the Newbies. If he wants to declare the consensus off, then so do I. You have no business trashing people who are IP users. I hereby re-open this topic. BenBurch 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the diff I posted above..Good faith? really? This was after a section was blanked. Good faith is being stretched quite a bit. If I added to the article "Du has a reputation for posting crazy conspiracy stories" after blanking out relevant liberal links, I highly doubt that most would grant me the favor of good faith. Btw, your (posted) position on the consensus hasnt changed. The only thing new to the consensus is the opinion of one anonomous person who I welcome to join the discussion in a productive manner. Just a question (feel free to decline to answer)...are you still banned from Democratic Underground? Just wondering if they still consider you persona non-grata.Dman727 05:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it. He has a right to make what he thinks is a constructive edit. And yes, I was part of the consensus, or I would have been removing that section myself each and every day. BenBurch 05:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease enlighten us poor schlubs as to how the addition of "known for the lack of grammar and spelling skills of its participants" to describe Free Republic is "a constructive edit," Ben. I'm looking forward to being amused. Jinxmchue 05:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In his opinion, it probably was. Others have made that observation. But probably the difference between there and DU is that DU has a spell checker. BenBurch 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the opinion of at least two established editors, it is vandalism. Other editors who value NPOV would agree instantly. As for DU's much-lauded spellchecker, a lot of good it seems to do them. Jinxmchue 06:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this: a content dispute is not vandalism. It may eventually become uncivil, it may eventually become a WP:3RR violation, but it is never considered simple vandalism and no one is going to get blocked as a vandal for a legitimate content dispute. And please be cautious about accusations of vandalism; such accusations could easily be construed as violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA, any of which might get one blocked if they continued.

Atlant 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have helped them get back the House and Senate... BenBurch 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good. A non sequitur response. Jinxmchue 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the 'PHD's' on FR wrote today, regarding the Repub beating, "We're screwn" LMAO ! Maybe it was that 'Moran' guy ! - F.A.A.F.A. 10:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yay! Time for the edit wars to start up again. Anyway, I seriously doubt this is a newbie. My guess is that it is a sockpuppet using a proxy or "anonymizer"-type site for the sole purpose of disruption/vandalism. Jinxmchue 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Conspiracy Theory from one of our resident Conspriracy buffs! Why am I not surprised? - F.A.A.F.A. 10:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another lame personal attack from one of our resident disrupters! Why am I not surprised? Jinxmchue 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking the other day thats its nice that this article has finally settled down and no one had tried to stir things up. Oh well. it was nice while it lasted. Dman727 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it had settled down and this is all just a Hologram. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

BenBurch and 194.8.192.4 contest consensus on "Other" links

Please state your case(s) for the removal of these links (and do not remove the links while the issue is being discussed). I must insist that your case(s) must be made up of entirely new arguments that were not presented in any way, shape or form in previous discussions regarding the links. I make this stipulation because the links have remained for months despite the old arguments made against them. Making the same arguments as before will lead nowhere fast. Jinxmchue 05:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove those links. Retract that, please? BenBurch 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? If it does not apply to you, then simply ignore it. It most certainly applies to your nameless friend, thus the line remains. Jinxmchue 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No one accused you of vandalising. Jincxmchue is simply asking you to support your decree of no consensus. Id really like to hear it as well. Dman727 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I support it because it is not a consensus if it does not include everybody. And now it does not. I am simply defending a new user's right to edit the article. Can you tell me why this section ought to exist? What value does it bring to the encyclopedia entry? That is a valid question. Can you cite a reliable source that associates those links with DU? Convince me. (Which you probably can if you make a good argument.) BenBurch 06:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A consensus does not require unanimous agreement. Nor does a consensus evaporate just because one person declares it. Please reference the archives for the answers to your questions. Dman727 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but seems to me we have two for and two against here, and that eliminates any thought of consensus. Now, if you want to be negative and not answer my question, then your chances of getting me back into the consensus are minimal, at best. I'm holding you out an olive branch here. Make a good argument if you want to take it. BenBurch 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You just completely ignored everything he just said, didn't you? There was a consensus before. It lasted for months. Now one anonymous vandal and you are contesting the previous consensus. That's fine, but please follow "established procedure" on Wiki. If you want the links gone now, make your arguments for their removal. If they are the same arguments as before when consensus was reached, what's the point? Jinxmchue 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will remind you again: There appears to be no basis to call our anonymous editor a "vandal"; stop doing that. And I know you know the vandalism policy because you've cited it to other people on your talk page.

Atlant 15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not have any Stare Decisis and may be overturned at any time even if the arguments for that overturning are unchanged. Which it just has been. BenBurch 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Olive Branch? My thought was bait. Im not going to rehash the same argument. If you would like those answers, simply click the archives button at the top of the screen. There you will find your own arguments, along with everyone elses. Not much point in copying and pasting. Dman727 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the irrelevent links to CU, LU, and NU - low traffic little visited forums of minor importance compared to DU and FR. Several of the editors who keep inserting these dubious links should state that they are posters on those forums, and are trying to resurrect deleted Wiki articles on at least one of them - lest they be accused of conflict of interest. A link to the 'category' political discussion forums is OK. Shilling forums totally unrelated to DU isn't. I realise there are a LOT of bitter losers here after the humiliating loss of the house and senate, but don't take it out on Wiki! - F.A.A.F.A. 07:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And I put them back. The previous consensus stands and the links remain until a new consensus is reached. Just because a couple of people are contesting the consensus doesn't mean the links automatically and instantly go. Jinxmchue 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: Jinxmchue wrote: "I must insist that your case(s) must be made up of entirely new arguments that were not presented in any way, shape or form in previous discussions regarding the links." - LMAO! - F.A.A.F.A. 07:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is an outrageous insistence. I might under the same rubric eliminate all of Jinxie's previous arguments, no? BenBurch 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No I have to agree with them, what is the point of going through the same arguements over and over again. If a concensus was established before and you are not introducing a new arguement, then you are simply added to the total opposed people and if you are not bringing a new arguement, you are not bringing a reason to review the situation again. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus established before of editors that were previously uninvolved in this terrible article and internet-politics-slapfest was that the link was wholy innapropriate. The link had been replaced with a better link. You ignored this consensus to continue internet politics arguing. JBKramer 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It would appear that the consensus has evaporated on this topic, and on the relevance of the DUFU link as well. Given the bias of the previous consensus on the unsuitability of this link, and the current apparent consensus that it does not belong at all, I'd say we have basis for removing it outright. Unless, of course, somebody wishes to make a good argument on why it adds to the encyclopedic character of this article. BenBurch 14:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't have a basis for removing it. The consensus from before still stands. You have not proven your current case against the links with any substantial arguments. The links stay until a new consensus (involving more people than you, FAAFA and our anonymous vandal) can be reached one way or the other. Jinxmchue 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you are alone in asserting that any consensus exists to add those links. BenBurch 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus that was reached months ago still stands, Ben. Your current objection to the links does not immediately nullify that consensus and does not give you license to immediately remove the links which have been there for months. It's been only about half a day since your new objection to these links was made. No one outside of your group (you, NBGPWS and our anonymous vandal) has had any say on the issue and you have made no new arguments against the links. You have simply assumed consensus. If all editors did what you are doing, Wikipedia would be a chaotic mess. You could just get one or two people to agree with you on any well-established material in any article and simply edit it out based upon your own arrogant biases. Jinxmchue 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Resorting to personal attacks now? Sorry, a new consensus has been reached. Accept that, hard though that may be, and move on. I'm sure you have other wiki articles that you can make constructive edits to. BenBurch 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I commented supporting the removal of the link to the not-notable, not-reliable some-guys-blog that publishes unverified origional research. JBKramer 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you did. But I am still waiting for one of the people who want those links to tell me why they add to the encyclopedic nature of this article. I think they are just linkspam and add nothing. Nobody wants to address the question I asked. Had they done so, there might not be a changed consensus now. I am still willing to hear a rational, cogent argument on that topic. BenBurch 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Drumming up supporters on CU now, Jinxie? [6] BenBurch 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Making baseless accusations again, Benny? No, I do not "drum up supporters" on CU. I vent and say the things I choose to keep off Wiki. Nothing wrong with that and it is, in fact, something you yourself have done on DU (so your complaint here seems highly hypocritical to me). You are certainly welcome to go there and defend yourself, though I doubt you would succeed. Jinxmchue 15:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would call folks' attention to Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. Please note that this is an official policy of the encyclopedia.

Atlant 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Address the question please? Can anybody tell me why the former "Other" section added anything whatsoever to the encyclopedia character of this article? Nothing is there that Google would not get a websurfer, and Wikipedia is not a link repository. That is what DMOZ is! Convince me and I will change sides in this. BenBurch 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus surrounding these contested links. If anything there is no consensus and that reverts back to the previous status quo. I will revert the links back.--RWR8189 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do so, you are violating consensus. Did Jinxie recruit you so that he would not violate 3RR himself? BenBurch 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not in violation of 3RR. This article has been on my watchlist for months thank you very much.--RWR8189 16:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was part of the previous consensus that the links should stay, and I have not changed my opinion. Crockspot 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not but since its not a requirement to be, I think the links should stay also, they show a healthy perspective on the other side of the political arena and make good for comparison sake as well. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lynx Browser problem

Sorry about that. I was experimenting with the Lynx text-only browser from the command line. The IP address is the same one I always post from, but I have no login cookie in Lynx (yet). I hit the right arrow when I should have hit the down arrow. So I fixed it right away from my regular browser where I already know what all the keys do. Wikipedia seems to be not a great site when you use Lynx, BTW, which is a test of accessibility. In particular, editing is very clunky, which I am not sure that anything can be done about. BenBurch 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert Warriors

Stop reverting. Now. JBKramer 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Question: What is "the external link in question" that is referred to immediately below? Can someone clarify that please? I thought we had hashed out a consensus on most of the ELs some time ago. - Crockspot 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Further - I will not participate in a "structured discussion" that is so poorly defined (see previous comment requesting clarification). I was part of the previous consensus that the links should remain in the article (I still do not know what particular link this structured discussion refers to), and my opinion has not changed. I noted that Ben was taking a count of consensus above, and he apparently "forgot" to count me. There is no authority asserted binding "the consensus" to this "structured discussion". You anti-linkers can play here all you want. But don't think you can declare a new consensus because some of us are not playing in your preffered section of the page. Crockspot 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL, and engage in a discussion regarding the link. Structure it however you would like. I believe I have laid out a serious problem with the dummiefunnies link - that it is a blog that is engaged in origional research of little interest. JBKramer 20:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith before accusing other editors of being uncivil. Do you not see the irony of disputing an EL on the grounds that it is a blog engaged in OR, when the subject of the article is itself a blog that engages in original research? Many of the WP policies are very web-unfriendly, and make additions to WP:WEB articles somewhat difficult. There needs to be some leeway in this case. If not, I will redirect my efforts toward getting the WP:EL policy modified. - Crockspot 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believed that the tone of your statement was bordering on incivility, specifically, the categorizing me as an "anti-linker." You can see other, non-politics related work by me, on the same topic, at Derek Smart, where I also attempted to structure discussions and remove what I believed was an innapropriate external link. I recognize that I am allied with those who want the link removed because they are in a political slapfest. I am not one of them.

Secondly, I see no irony. This is an article about a website that engaged in origional research. We, however, do not engage in origional research, nor, except in very limited cases, do we link to origional research from non-reliable sources. Wikipedia policies ARE unfriendly to blogs and other websites, and there is a movement to change this - a movement I disagree with, but if they are successful, I will support the return of your link. You should discuss your concerns with User:badlydrawnjeff. In the meanwhile, there cannot be leeway without strong reason - and I see no strong reason. As such, I must insist that you allow me (not Ben - ME) to remove the links to what I consider websites that violate WP:EL. JBKramer 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not doing this for political reasons, but because I see this as not in line with an encyclopedia. I am no longer a DU-er. I was banned from there. In fact, I harbor some hostile feelings for the operators of the place as a result of this and other disrespect they have shown me in another venue. But I won't let that cause me to trash them in this article, which should remain objective and in line with policy. These links are not in line with policy at all. BenBurch 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So sorry, but I don't believe you. JBKramer 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to verify that I have been banned from the place, actually. But I really don't need you to believe me to move forward on this, and I am willing to be convinced that these links belong. I think it comes down to what "Mandated" means in WP:EL. Can you shed some light on that? I wish Jinxmchue would address these questions. His absence here is slowing this down considerably. BenBurch 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Crockspot - We most certainly can, and we have. If you don't like it, and if you will not discuss the matter and the questions asked, I suggest the Arbitration Committee is your next step. Unless, of course, you want to play by the rules and make a convincing argument that these links do not violate WP:EL and WP:NOT. Convince me, and I'll try to convince the others. But standing on Stare Decisis is not the Wikipedia way. Go read the basic philosophy documents again. Consensus is only ever temporary, and can break down for any reason, including observing incivility to others, which is what got me started on this. BenBurch 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

further - If you want to consider ONLY the DUFU link by itself, let's do just that, but after we are done I will ask for a similar discussion on each link in the OTHER section, none of which appear to meet the tests of either WP:EL or WP:NOT BenBurch 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Check your tone, Ben. As I said, you can play here on the small field, and I will direct my efforts to the larger playing field: the policy itself. I have become quite adept at arguing for and gaining changes to the WP policies. Crockspot 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense to you is intended. If you dislike the policy and want Stare Decisis to be an official Wiki Doctrine, have at it. I am sure that others who are better at forensics than I am will put up a good argument on that topic! But please join the structured discussion here. We are trying to play by the rules. BenBurch 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Below is a format for a structured discussion on the external link in question. Please submit evidence that relates directly to our WP:EL guideline. Do not edit other people's evidence section. JBKramer 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this format for this discussion. Oh, Jinxie? We want to hear from YOU, too. As I have said, I am willing to be convinced, but will not accept strong-arm tactics. Just because you have no more reverts left today doesn't mean you can't discuss here. BenBurch 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. JBKramer 20:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying, brother, I'm trying. BenBurch 20:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot, please take a wikibreak. JBKramer 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He just got back from a wikibreak, and he returned with less humor than when he left. Crockspot 20:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JBKramer

The link in question was initially added as a vanity link. ([7]).
The link in question is a blog.
The link in question does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.
The link contains contains unverified original research.
I would argue the site is designed to promote the helicoptor kites.
The link does not provide a useful point of view beyond some indiviual responding to DU posts.

Analysis

For all of the above, I see no way this link is in harmony with our external links policy. The old arguement was that it was the only evidence of disagreement with DU. This is now covered by the wired story, also could be by the removed article by Tony Phyrillas [8]. JBKramer 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I Concur with your analysis. BenBurch 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be nice if the Wired article would be cited in the text as was pointed out by our IP editor colleague from Germany. BenBurch 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by (BenBurch)

Violates WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided category 2 as it contains factually inaccurate AND unverified original research.
Violates WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided category 7 Links to blogs
Fails WP:EL#What_to_link as it is neither useful nor appropriately tasteful
Violates WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
Violates WP:NOT#SOAP

Analysis

This never should have been here, and should be removed now. The consensus is for removal of the OTHER section, and all of the links therein. BenBurch 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by (User:194.8.192.4)

Just read WP:EL and it seems to violate much of the links to avoid part.

Analysis

I still don't think the whole OTHER section is proper for this article as it adds nothing encyclopedic to it 194.8.192.4 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by F.A.A.F.A.

NOTE - I will address why DUFU - AND LU, CU and NU, are all in violation of WP for external links.

DUFU

Innaccurate and unverified (see Links_normally_to_be_avoided category 2 - innaccurate and unverified OR)
blog (see Links_normally_to_be_avoided category 7 Links to blogs}
distasteful ( see What_to_link as it is neither useful nor appropriately tasteful )
more to come later today

Analysis

More to come later today

Evidence presented by the gregarious lone wolf.

Conservative Underground and DUmmie Funnies do not violate WP:EL because,

Both have longevity
These articles represent views contrary those held by members of DU without giving them undue weight
They are relevant to the article on DU

These two links do not violate point #7 of Links to be avoided, because they are mandated by the subject of the WP article.

Comments

In my opinion, Ben and Jinx lack objectivity. Both of them refuse to reach consensus and instead are pushing their own points of view.

Note the full meaning of point #7 from Links normally to be avoided:

Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.

It is pertinent to note that DU is itself a blog. People like to talk, and people like to talk about talking. In this sense, the Wikipedia article for DU should not exclude links to other blogs. Also, the links to DUmmie Funnies and Conservative Underground help establish the notability of Democratic Underground.

Liberal Underground and Neutral Underground, on the other hand, do not meet WP:EL or WP:WEB. Neither has the readerhip that Conservative Underground does. According to Alexa, Conservative Underground often falls within the top 100,000 sites, while the other two do not. Conservative Underground has been around since 2002, and neither Liberal nor Neutral have been around that long. Neither Liberal Underground nor Neutral Underground devote a section critical to DU, whereas Conservative Underground has such as section, and that is the purpose of the DUmmie Funnies blog.

Therefore in a genuine effort to reach consensus, I suggest a compromise. The links to Liberal Underground and Neutral Underground should be dropped, while the links to Dummie Funnies and Conservative Underground should be placed next to the article from Wired mag.

The section should read:

   * Democratic Underground homepage
         o DU Forums
         o Demopedia
         o Campaign Underground
   * John Kerry and the Lost Kos - Wired article mentions Democratic Underground.
   * Conservative Underground - Conservative message board with one section devoted to criticism of DU.
   * DUmmie FUnnies - Blog which criticizes DU and its forum activities.

Good argument. I'll consider this. BenBurch 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One question though, what does "Mandated" mean? I took it as meaning that the article would have to be ABOUT such a site, or be unintelligible without such a link. Do we have any record of original intent of the framers on this issue? BenBurch 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have serious concerns - I do not believe blog mentions go to the notability of anything at all - and WP:WEB agrees with me. JBKramer 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read WP:WEB and you appear to be correct on that. BenBurch 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. I will never concede to allow a link to an extremist hate site like CU. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that and your below comments.greyleonard 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern centers mostly around the DUmmie FUnnies being included in the external links. While this is a blog, there is no original research presented as the primary source of the material is the DU forums. The articles cited as alternatives to DUFU may be relevant, but at least one is several years old. DUFU is updated several times a week, and receives hundreds of replies and thousands of views on a regular basis. It seems a main motive by some who wish have this link be deleted is to supress criticism of Democratic Underground, and this is not acceptable.--RWR8189 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS - "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." Posts to a message board are not reliable sources. The only sources used by the blog are not reliable - thus, it publishes origional research. My main goal in having this link deleted is removing links to someguysblog. JBKramer 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your first line. I am absolutely trying to be objective and Ben and I (and others) reached an agreement months ago and the links remained untouched for months. Then, all of a sudden, some anonymous user whose IP traces back to Amsterdam (???) on ARIN WHOIS shows up out of nowhere and their first act is to target those links, insult the members of Free Republic and nothing else. Very suspicious, in my opinion. Jinxmchue 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My first line is a quote from WP:OR. JBKramer 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

External links: an alternative suggestion

To deal with the recurring issue of external links on this article, and with the deletion of Conservative Underground and other articles about political websites: Let's create List of websites about U.S. politics which would list everything, wikilinking to the article if there is one and hyperlinking to the site if not. Inclusion in the list would NOT be dependent on satisfying WP:WEB or any other standard of notability for a stand-alone article. Then the DU article would have a "See also" link to the list. The rationale is that there are quite a few websites besides CU, NU, LU, and DUFU that have political comments and that might sometimes refer to DU. Singling out a few for listing here seems arbitrary. Also, it would give Wikipedia a way to accommodate information about CU and any other site that can't survive the deletionist assault. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can get behind that idea. BenBurch 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to continue to argue against the inclusion of links to random, nonotable blogs at another page. JBKramer 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please see my notes on CU below. I do not feel that Wiki should be used as a vehicle to popularize and legitimatize 'extremist hate sites' like Stormfront and CU. In the case of CU DUFU, and others, if they're not notable enough to have an article on Wiki, they're not notable enough to link to. Note that NO one has objected to the link to FR, a site that is approx. as 'important' as DU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be a vehicle to convey knowledge, and let the chips fall where they may. I believe that, in general, disseminating information about vile sites like Stormfront will work against them. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as Brandeis said. It's always possible that a Wikipedia reader will learn about the site from our Stormfront (website) article and thereby go on to become a rabid white supremacist, but that possibility is no basis for censorship. Nor does the existence of a Wikipedia article "legitimize" the subject -- we have articles about many unsavory people and organizations.

I also disagree with "if they're not notable enough to have an article on Wiki, they're not notable enough to link to." An external link is appropriate if it provides additional information about the article's subject, even if the site linked to doesn't merit its own article. There are two different questions involved: whether a site is generally notable, and whether it's a useful external link on one particular article. JamesMLane t c 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would add that those who are adamant that all links must qualify under WP:EL should also read WP:IGNORE, though Gregarious Lone Wolf makes a good argument above that the links do indeed meet WP:EL. Crockspot 05:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A vehicle to convey knowledge? Of course. However, that doesn't mean, for example, that the Chevrolet article should have external links to a non-notable Ford enthusiast blog that primarily exists to trash GM with extreme and irrational bias. Who would most likely disagree? Fans of the Ford blog who are 1. Trying to get free advertising by leeching off of the Chevy article, and 2. trying to contaminate an encyclopedic entry with the typical POV of the Ford blog. None of the links in the "other" section at the moment should be in this article, mainly because wiki articles aren't meant to be link repositories. It's also fairly clear to me that the links(at least 2 in particular) were added by people who were much less interested in improving the knowledge value of the article than they were of disrupting it. greyleonard 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

links "discussion"

Okay, everyone, please take a step and take a deep breath. Really -- everybody. Also, please everyone take a moment to remember that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF are all official policy. Seriously. Following policy is not optional, even if you're involved in a dispute, even if you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right (which, by the way, you should never be). Policy is policy.

It's pretty evident that this issue needs some more discussion. However -- no disrespect to any of the involved parties intended -- this does not appear to be a discussion. A discussion implies dialogue or multilogue; what we have here is intercut monologues pitted against each other. Opinions do not a discussion make.

This doesn't need to happen. This can be discussed rationally, reasonably, and maturely. But that's not what's going on here, and that's not what will be going on if this continues.

With the support of those involved here, I would to become involved in mediating this discussion. I did it before, and I think I rather clearly demonstrated my commitment both to this article and to fairness. This article needs 1) a stop to the edit warring, 2) a return to civil and reasonable discussion, and 3) a proper solution to the issue at hand. I would like to take on the task of mediating and moderating this effort.

I don't see any other way this can come to a reasonable conclusion within a reasonable amount of time than organized mediator. If anyone else has any other ideas, let me know, but I'm skeptical.

But I don't want to waste my time. If you're willing to have me on as a mediator, please indicate this below. Because without a commitment to work civilly and reasonably from the involved parties, my time would be better spent elsewhere.

I look forward to your responses. - Che Nuevara 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I requested your intervention and would support you as either arbiter(final decision authority) or mediator(with authority over process). JBKramer 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I accept that. Either as mediator or arbiter. BenBurch 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I accept your mediation or arbitration, but note that I strongly believe that WP takes precedence over Admin opinion which may run counter to that WP. - Thanks for your offer. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, FAAFA. But for the record, I'm not an administrator. In any case, I want to build consensus, not implement my own vision. Re below, I have to request that you hold off until we have everyone on board -- it's just easier that way. And since I'm not an admin, I couldn't delete it from the article if I wanted to, so it's a moot point. - Che Nuevara 05:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would accept your mediation, from my encounters with you on WP you have always seemed to be very fair minded.--RWR8189 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless the remaining parties consent to this, I will file an RFM tommorow. JBKramer 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am skeptical about the outcome of this proposal and think that it is completely unnecessary (since an agreement about these links had been reached months ago), I'm willing to give it a chance. Jinxmchue 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, does this mean you are unwilling to consider any solution but your preferred solution? JBKramer 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I said I'm willing to give it a chance. However, I am skeptical because of what history has shown. I will abide by whatever solution/agreement is reached, but I don't expect it to last any longer than the previous solution/agreement did if one or more of the links in question are retained. Jinxmchue 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

on CU

Comment; There is no way that a link to Conservative Underground, a site that was AfD'd from Wiki for being entirely non-notable, and a site that other sites have documented to be what many consider an 'extremist hate site' should be included, or even need be discussed. Some examples.

"Sticky: CU Admin admires abortion clinic bombers, Eric Rudolph, David Koresh and Tim McVeigh"

"Sticky: Rosa Parks is "Low class bitch" - CU Admin"

"Sticky: Gator (CU Admin): Sirhan Sirhan performed a great service for America"

Documentation of CU 'hate speech and extremism' - F.A.A.F.A. 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So? CU finds and discusses on an daily basis many instances of hate speech and extremism by several members of DU. Perhaps you should also start arguing that DU shouldn't be included or even discussed on Wiki. Jinxmchue 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this article meets the standard that we should have for notability. If you nominate it for deletion, I will support such. JBKramer 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean DU? If so, I currently don't have any intention of arguing that it's not notable. This is mostly due to the fact that I believe it is somewhat notable, but also because of the trouble that would result if it were nominated. Seriously, if you think this links issue was a problem, you probably cannot fathom the caca-storm and AfD nom would trigger. Jinxmchue 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that some editors defend non-notable articles for reasons that they consider far more important than the encyclopedic value of those articles, much in they way other editors defend non-notable links for reasons they consider far more important than the encyclopedic value of those links. Perhaps we have reached consensus to remove the link, now? Are you prepared to be the bigger man? JBKramer 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My final word on this matter

Obviously this cannot get resolved while I'm here, so I'm going to stay out of it. However, I believe I have made a compelling case that all of the links in the OTHER section have no place in this Wikipedia article, nor do similar links have a place in ANY Wikipedia article. That isn't because I say so, it is because of Wikipedia policy. Policy that ought to guide editors rather than their personal emotional prejudices. If you are honest with yourselves and others, you will agree to that. Now, you can do whatever you want, but if you do not respect these rules, you already know what you are. BenBurch 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for defending me. I did not mean to cause you problems. 194.8.192.4 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the structured manner in which the discussion is to take place will allow you to participate. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Important to note what was posted to PAIN

As per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, I have removed the comment that was originally here. The diff can be seen here. - Che Nuevara 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pot meets kettle. So are you stating people that have made personal attacks, and admiting to violating Wikipedia policy should not be afforded the same respect as others? Or are you saying AGF no longer applies after a certain point? Its important we discuss the topic and not eachother, and its also important that instead of attacking the editors you simply state your case and leave DU/CU drama where it belongs. Everyone has hsitory including myself here at Wikipedia, so unless you want people to drudge up your comments, you may want to cease drudging up others comments. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And from the information I found and posted on my talk page, it eliminates the assumption of Good Faith regarding yourself as well (according to your own reasoning). Pot meeting kettle big time. Jinxmchue 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. If all of you would stop editing the talk page and the article, the rest of us could work something out. JBKramer 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The attacks from CU that I reposted here were from YESTERDAY, and referenced THIS article - thus were relevent to this article. I contend that they provide proof that certain editors have such hateful grudges that they're incapable of working in harmony with certain others - and that any claims that they only want to 'improve' the article must be questioned. Note that several editors already stated LONG ago that they would no longer afford me good faith. As an act of good faith on my behalf, I will drop this issue as long as certain editors amend their bad behavior. - F.A.A.F.A. 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

everyone PLEASE STOP!

It would really make my day if everyone would cut out this silliness. Seriously. It's counterproductive and unfair. FAAFA, I've removed your reposting of the aforementioned personal attacks.

I can read the talk page myself. I can also find the PA Noticeboard myself. Reposting other people's comments is unhelpful and inflammatory. I will, in my own time and without the assistance of anyone involved, survey what has happened on this talk page and article recently. If I were to rely on people involved in the dispute to point out the shortcomings of the others, it would completely invalidate the process and compromise my neutrality.

Now I was seriously in what I said before about being both civil and reasonable. And it doesn't just cut it to agree to be civil and reasonable and then not be. So let's try this again.

Are you, or aren't you, willing to have a reasonable, civil, constructive discussion free of namecalling, mudslinging, and teethbaring? It's a rather simple yes or no question. If the answer is yes, please let me know so we can work on this. If the answer is no, please let me know so I can work on my statement to RfC or ArbCom. - Che Nuevara 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to give it a go! - F.A.A.F.A. 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All I wanted was for links which had remained after an agreement had been reached months ago to remain until after discussion regarding a "new" objection had been completed. Some people decided that the objection in and of itself warranted the immediate removal of the links. That is not how Wikipedia works! If it did, Wikipedia would be a chaotic mess. Jinxmchue 20:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at the agreement, it appeared that the agreement was to remove the link when a better link was found. A pair of better links were found, but the link remained. JBKramer 20:15,

10 November 2006 (UTC)

That was regarding just the DUmmie FUnnies blog link. I believe that was added after the links to CU, LU and NU and no better link for DUFU had yet been added. In any case, this isn't just about the DUFU link. All those links were being removed this week with no discussion or Wiki-based reasons. They were being removed and removed immediately without discussion simply because of simple personal objection(s) to the links. If all of Wiki were to be given the same treatment, it would be a chaotic mess. Jinxmchue 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as the mediator in the last case, in all actuality the issue was that no clear consensus was formed. I left the links with the caveats that a) there had to be a better replacement out there somewhere for DUFU, and b) discussion could continue, because there was no clear consensus. Clearly, where no consensus exists, unilateral action is inappropriate. But the need for further discussion was clear. That's what I'd like to do now. - Che Nuevara 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The wired article was added as a better example than someguysblog back in the day. A newspaper editorial was also aded, but then removed. I will pick the low hanging fruit (DUFU) first, and then discuss the forums and their relevence as external links. I also consider them of little relevence. JBKramer 20:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I contend that there is nothing better about the Wired article. It is dated, over two years old, and does not speak to relevant contemporary criticisms of DU.--RWR8189 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note : I contend that no amount of 'consensus' should take precedent over this WP guideline: (links to be avoided) "Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." Criticism of DU from acceptable WP: RS + V sources already exists. A link to the conservative 'competition' to DU, Free Republic, exists. Links to DUFU, and the 4 minor non notable forums are in NO way 'mandated' and are in violation of this guideline. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that "no amount of 'consensus' should take precedent over ... WP guideline" is inherently contradictory -- it's a guideline. Guidelines are intended to be not explicitly universal, otherwise they would be policies. Community consensus can, does, and should override guidelines. - Che Nuevara 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

When the 'community' contains several members of a minor 'conservative' forum - editors who many feel have an 'agenda' - who are clearly are in favor of inserting a link to the forum where they post - and whose interest in the article possibly violates WP:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest these factors must be weighed.- F.A.A.F.A. 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is, quite frankly, a silly argument. One could easily argue that there are several Wiki editors who are members of various "major" and "minor" liberal forums and that some of them, too, have an agenda. Bringing up WP:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest is nonsensical as I don't see how either can possibly apply to members of a website. Besides, it's hypocritical, too, since many, many members of DU have been involved in editing the site's article. I don't see you complaining about that! Jinxmchue 03:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a DU member, albeit neither a particularly active nor a rather avid one, which I outlined quite clearly when I first came to this article. I would like to posit myself as evidence that personal bias does not necessarily (although of course it can) rule one's actions in the face of WP-sense. - Che Nuevara 03:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm sure my comment will be met with derision from at least one, if not two or more, Wiki members, I, too, have tried very hard to keep my personal biases off Wiki. I've accepted that CU is not currently notable enough for its own article and agreed most recently that Hacking Democracy warranted its own article. I haven't always been perfect, but then no one is. Jinxmchue 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to Jinx. I have 'complained' that it would be better if members of a political forum, AND those opposed to the forum's politics NOT edit that article. I argued it about PW. Wiki suggests that if a subject is notable enough to have an article, that there should be enough interest from editors who have NO undue ties to that subject - ties that could affect NPOV and be seen a conflict of interest, to edit it. Sadly, almost every contoversial issue on Wiki has become a battleground. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. WoW. Wow. =

I step away from the computer for a couple days and Im shocked at what a mess this turned into. What a shame. This whole thing seems to be a very fine example of WP:POINT.

Lets review. A new, anoymous user from Amsterdame adds disparging remarks to a rival website and blanks links to websites critical of Democratic Underground. I (perhaps wrongly), called this new anonymous user a vandal. The results? A normal, rational response to in approproriate behavior (either mine or the anon?). Nope!.. This is what we get [[9]]

Ben, starting up a massive revert storm is not the answer. But I see that now you have ducked out of the debate, now that it passions have inflamed.

Btw, faafa asked me (and others) to state where I post. Fair enough. Im an avid poster at DU. I've been there for a couple years. I've also got an account at Freerepublic. Its been there for a couple of years to, although my post count is under 50 (I had an earlier account however I was banned early and quickly). I don't have an account at any of the other links, although I have visted twice or threes times in the last year.

Finally. If are going to reopen this can of worms, err consensus, on the links. Then we should open it on ALL the links that were discussed in the original consensus. The consensus reached last summer eliminated a number of links. A proper way to do this is to review them all, not just the "winners" from the last round. Otherwise, politic warriors will just keep opening this can of worms every 6 months until they get their way. Dman727 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A number of links were deleted as clear violations of WP:POINT, which Ben (the person who posted them) so much as admitted, with unanimous or near-unanimous support for removal. There's no reason to revisit those discussions. - Che Nuevara 21:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Theres no need to revisit these either. Even the instigator of this mess (Ben) has choosen to not take part. Dman727 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ben isn't the instigator. The anonymous user with the IP addy in Amsterdam started it. This same user has inexplicably vanished now that Ben has bowed out. Jinxmchue 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still here though really dismayed at the shark tank I fell into. And I have a life that happens when my Thinkpad is folded up and in my briefcase, too. What is the problem with you people? Seriously? I saw something that I didn't think helped this article in any way and I took it out. First I get called a vandal, and then it becomes a case for Interpol. I think you all need to take up Skittles and lock the computer in the shed for a few months. Maybe read a book? The sort they print on dead trees, not a PDF. 194.8.192.4 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yet the mess continues. Interesting. Dman727 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every editor posts multiple times every day. I suggest and request that you AGF and quit casting aspersions on other editors. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(delete question/misread post). Seems that Jinxmchue just made a statement of fact...in fact he did it after defending Ben. Perhaps AGF on your part would be justified as well. Dman727 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've NOT reconsidered

I wrote neither of the bits that were formerly here. What is going on here? I was unprepared for this malicious crap when I started with this. I am about quit of Wikipedia. You people are loons. 194.8.192.4 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something is fishy here, and it appears to be you. Why are you using an open proxy? I checked and this number is in at least one blacklist as having an open SMTP and Web proxy on it. Either you are very dumb about managing your computer, are paranoid about people knowing who you are, or have been gaming all of us here. Which is it? Regardless, I have asked that this IP be blocked as an open proxy in acord with policy. Note to everybody else - I checked this IP with dnsstuff.com before this mess started, and it did not show this as an open proxy, or I would never have stood up for this guy. My sincere apologies on this matter. BenBurch 21:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Important to note

I think it important to note what CP argued regarding blogs like DUFU on another article:

"Blogs generally can only be RS as a primary source in an article about the blog, or its parent organization (to source claims about the blog or its parent org). Blogs belonging to notable organizations, such as newspapers, can be reliable sources, depending on the context and author. Obviously, something written and signed by staff (if it can be verified that they did indeed author it) would lean to the reliable side, a rant posted by a reader would not. It's a grey area that would need to be hashed out on a case by case basis. As far as using such a source to cite negative information about someone living goes, I do not think it would be a solid enough source. WP:BLP requires solid, unquestionable reliable secondary sources. - Crockspot15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)" - F.A.A.F.A. 10:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[Redacted personal attack. Please review the page guidelines in the middle-right tan box at the top. Jinxmchue 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)] 194.8.192.4 18:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jinx, I would recommend against people who are involved in the dispute removing others' comments, even if they are clearly personal attacks. I removed FAAFA's comment above because it was nothing but a reposting of attacks from somewhere else, but if disputants start editing each others' comments, it can't go anywhere good. - Che Nuevara 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! It seems a whole bunch of stuff on this talk page got deleted. What IS going on here? Is this the post you're referring to Che, the personal attack? post in question I suppose many would consider it a personal attack. - F.A.A.F.A. 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a single way to interpret that as not a personal attack, being as it's pretty much as straightforward as one can get. So, yes, I was referring to the attack. I stand by the judgment that it is unwise for people involved in disputes to edit comments related to the dispute that they did not leave.

Can you show diffs for the other stuff that's been deleted? Besides, of course, the comment which I deleted, which I already provided a diff for. - Che Nuevara 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, but it's a rather mild personal attack in comparison to those recently posted on a certain unnamed board. Here are some other deletions. As Ben or Jinx discovered, 194 is some sort of proxy, and several contradictory posts came from people claiming to be the original 194 poster. 194 posts - F.A.A.F.A. 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since the 194 address is some sort of anonymizer service, I highly suspect that there is no "original" 194 poster. This has sock puppet/disrupter written all over it. Nonetheless, faafa why do you downplay the attacks? Frankly I don't think "no fair, his attack was worse" is a very good defense. Dman727 00:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not even a service. I found a list of all of the outbound ports of subscription proxy services, and this isn't on it. I suspect that it is some poor soul's PC that has been attacked and made into a zombie machine. The owner probably doesn't even know why his Internet access is so damned slow. Likely the 194 guy is a black hat hacker, or a group of them. I *hate* skript kiddiez, and I'm steamed to have been taken in. BenBurch 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I was only trying to be helpful. In the future, I will simply report such comments to you if I see them. Jinxmchue 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I find that unlikely. If this guy has hacked into someone else's computer, he probably could find much easier ways to do a lot more damage than this. - Che Nuevara 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he hacked it himself. Most skript kidz do not do their own hacks. They go onto IRC and other people pass them the addresses of these machines. 31337 hax0rz (Elite Hackers) is what they usually call themselves. BenBurch 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ack. - Che 01:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

note to dman: I characterized the attack the way I did mostly because it was so 'G-rated'. Not a profane word in the entire screed! Perhaps the user's a Wiccan. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What the heck does the user's religion have to do with him calling someone a moron? - Che Nuevara 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get that one, either! Especially as I have known many foul-mouthed Wiccans, Druids, Thelemites, and Presbyterians. BenBurch 22:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Inside joke - sorry.- F.A.A.F.A. 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was a hack. I think it's a simple case of someone using some anonymizing service or proxy or what have you to sockpuppet and someone else tracking it down and using it, too. Jinxmchue 04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people create open proxies intentionally, given the liability, but that is neither here nor there, this was somebody who was out to deceive. BenBurch 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what the relevance of my quote opening this section has to do with this discussion. It was a policy opinion given as a member of the WP:BLPP, and addresses the use of blogs as sources to statements in articles, particularly WP:BLP articles. As I am consistent, I stand by that opinion. THIS discussion is about blogs as external links. Two completely different criteria. What is the point of this section, except to personally attack me? Shovelfull by shovelfull, one editor keeps getting deeper and deeper. - Crockspot 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC) PS - Is there a particular reason why you failed to post a diff of my quote? Wouldn't hurt to see it in context, if my edits are as biased as you claim them to be. (I don't even remember what artile I made that stement on.) Crockspot 19:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- [10] JBKramer 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-posting your own previously offered views on blogs is 'personally attacking you'? Wow. Now I've heard it all! - F.A.A.F.A. 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.

I thought we had reached consensus that including links to random blogs and message boards was a bad thing. I'm interested to hear about how links to this website are permissible - I'm not interested in hearing about how so and so is a hipocrite, anyoymous disruptor or whatever. JBKramer 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't see how, either. Clown Posse is clearly in the same situation on the FR article, where I deleted the link. Regardless, there isn't a consensus here. BenBurch 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, Im not aware of a new consensus. The anonymous open proxy guy opened the conversation and has since vanished. Some insults were traded back and forth, we talked about open proxys, talked about an ongoing Rfc and someone was going to mediate this discussion. But we never got going.

The links now in dispute offer a direct critic on Du. They are directly related to Du. Anyone inclined to learn about DU on wiki would also want to learn about those that critize them and what those critisms are...and thats why they should be there...Not for us that are aware of the site, but for the dude that wanders in off the street to learn more context about DU. I support the decision that was reached 6 months ago and before the latest edit war instigated by our now vanished friend. Dman727 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Critical" is not a reason to violate WP:EL. There is no doubt the site is a blog. We don't allow links to blogs. Why do we allow links to this sight? JBKramer 16:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Du itself is a blog but I don't think it should be deleted. Dman727 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Dman727 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject itself is an expressly provided exception to WP:EL. JBKramer 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should all be aware that we are having this conversation ONLY because of a disruptor...Who it seems his only goal was to create such a disruption. There is something very unsettling about continuing with this dispute that is only a dispute because disruptor got their way(and creating doubt in the consensus) and vanished. he's gone, but his "work" is still active. There was a consensus. Its only gone because a dishonest person has seemed to have gotten their way. I don't like seeing wiki (and us) manipulated in this way. Dman727 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What other usernames have you edited under? JBKramer 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? That attack is uncalled for. You know VERY WELL that Im talking about the anonymous open proxy disrupter. If you don't read the talk page.Dman727 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I might ask you the same thing, since the disrupter seems to have served your purpose of opening the links, but I have more class than to accuse you of that. Dman727 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There was *NOT* a consensus. Have you ever edited under the username BigDaddy777? I asked that we focus on the subject and not discuss anyoymous disruptors, but you ignored that. I attempted to refactor your comments, and you undid that. You used a number of similar phrases as that user did. Are you him? No problem if you are, but I'd like to know. JBKramer 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No Iam not Bigdaddy777. Are you 194.8.192.4? I know that you didnt want to discuss the antics of 194.8.192.4, but that is unfortunate for you. Im discussing it. The ONLY reason this conversation was opened was because of disrupter/vandal 194.8.192.4. Are you 194.8.192.4? Dman727 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Selected conversations reposted

Hmm.

I thought we had reached consensus that including links to random blogs and message boards was a bad thing. I'm interested to hear about how links to this website are permissible - I'm not interested in hearing about how so and so is a hipocrite, anyoymous disruptor or whatever. JBKramer 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't see how, either. Clown Posse is clearly in the same situation on the FR article, where I deleted the link. Regardless, there isn't a consensus here. BenBurch 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, Im not aware of a new consensus. The anonymous open proxy guy opened the conversation and has since vanished. Some insults were traded back and forth, we talked about open proxys, talked about an ongoing Rfc and someone was going to mediate this discussion. But we never got going.

The links now in dispute offer a direct critic on Du. They are directly related to Du. Anyone inclined to learn about DU on wiki would also want to learn about those that critize them and what those critisms are...and thats why they should be there...Not for us that are aware of the site, but for the dude that wanders in off the street to learn more context about DU. I support the decision that was reached 6 months ago and before the latest edit war instigated by our now vanished friend. Dman727 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Critical" is not a reason to violate WP:EL. There is no doubt the site is a blog. We don't allow links to blogs. Why do we allow links to this sight? JBKramer 16:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Du itself is a blog but I don't think it should be deleted. Dman727 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Dman727 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject itself is an expressly provided exception to WP:EL. JBKramer 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

An exception is also provided if the article mandates it. In my view, the article mandates a complete view of the site including critizims. (ps...I gotta step away for awhile to do some real work...will get back to this later this evening) Dman727 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This view is not supported by any statement on any policy or guideline page. I suggest you get those pages changed to allow for blogs by non-notable anonymous individuals to be included as either EL's or RS's if they are incredibly important to the subject at hand. Untill such, this link is just plain in violation. JBKramer 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On reverting and discussion

JB. Please don't continue to revert the article. I believe that you have violatd 3rr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman727 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 November 2006

You are incorrect. You are also unable, or unwilling, to engage in dialogue on the talk page as opposed to continue engaging in futile revert wars. I am shocked protection was removed from this article, and will shortly request it again - I suggest that people who are not me engage in dialogue about the issues, rather than about the other participants. JBKramer 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We were having a conversation you started reverting. Why did you blank my comments and your accusatios? (or where did you put them). Dman727 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Scratch the blanking comments..nvm I see(sorry). Nonetheless, Im willing to have a dialogue..and we WERE having one till you starting rv'ing again. Dman727 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Our conversation ended when you stopped responding to substantive points regarding external links and instead discussed anonymous disruptors. If you would like to respond re external links, I belive I currently have responded to your most recent concern (we already link to a blog, you wrote, but said blog was the subject of the article, a link that is an expressly exempted blog) JBKramer 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Our conversation hasnt stopped. However seems that you have stopped listening. The vandal discussion is relevant because the vandal is the one to have proclaimed the consensus off. He's gone now but some are continuing his work. That IS RELEVANT. I have made my case and will continue to do so why the links should stay. However..its not just you and me. There are other editors who have taken an interest in this and you should have listened to what they have to say before your starting reverting the consensus reached 6 months ago. FWIW, I agree that protection should not have been removed...it seems that as soon as it was removed immediately someone declared their view the new consensus. Dman727 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Untill you converse about external links and not anonymous disruptors and 6 months ago (which I deny was any sort of "consensus"), we're not conversing - you're talking about irrelevencies. JBKramer 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt that you disagreed with the consensus. However the fact that we are continuing the work of a disruptor is relevant imo. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the relevance of the disruptor. Naturally the conversation is open and will stay open until its closed. But as I posted in my comment above (that you keep trying to move), the fact that WE ARE DOING HIS work is unsettling. Dman727 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Dman, unsettling. I'd rather discuss this matter here than edit war. Now I am sorry that I asked for unprotection; I thought this was blown over. Now, if we want to discuss this, I think the issue is what is meant by MANDATED in the policy? The definition is;

mandate

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): man·dat·ed; man·dat·ing

Date: 1919

1 : to administer or assign (as a territory) under a mandate

2 : to make mandatory : ORDER; also : DIRECT, REQUIRE

Which I take to mean literally required, as in the article could not stand on its own or make sense without it. I don't think you can make a valid argument that this is the case with DUFU any more than you can make the case with Clown Posse on the FR page. Now, what did the framers of the document understand Mandate to mean? BenBurch 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben asked me here I imagine to boltster what I said on the FR page, blogs are frowned on. "Its a blog, delete it as a reference" is not a bad wikipedia policy. If the blog was notable, and the blog specifically is mentioned on the origating blog, as in a blog war, then that would be a grey area. I have nothing else to add here. The "loudest screamer wins" is a bad way to edit wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(UI) There is no valid justification to ANY of the 5 links in question. 1)The article already contains crticism of DU, so no ELs are 'mandated' to provide criticism. Add more sourced criticism if it lacks enough for you. 2) No one is asking for the removal of the FR link. FR has posts EVERY day critical of DU and it's members, so it is providing exactly what other editors say DUFU and CU are providing. 3) A link to the 'political forums' category will , in essence, provide links to these forums anyway. 4) Not only is DUFU a non-scholarly blog written by 'some guy', and a commercial site designed to sell kites, it is an 'attack site'. Any of these reasons is enough to argue for exclusion. All three considered together mandate its exclusion. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Tote Board

Initial opinions (not votes) based on reading of the comments. Feel free to edit your opinion summary to better reflect your POV on this matter. This tote board is something we can point to when we say there is no consensus, or, by some miracle, if a consensus develops.

FOR BLOG LISTINGS

Crockspot

Dman727

gregarious lone wolf

Jinxmchue

NuclearUmpf

RWR8189

AGAINST BLOG LISTINGS

194.8.192.4

BenBurch

Captkangaroo 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

F.A.A.F.A.

greyleonard

JBKramer

Robocracy 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OTHER

Dominick

BenBurch 17:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I rearranged this "tote board," to make it look a little more presentable, if you don't mind. I also added my name to those who oppose listing the blogs. Robocracy 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Address the question, Please?

How are any of these blogs "Mandated"? In what way does the article not stand by itself without the bare listing of these blogs? I might be more friendly to their existence here if they were cited in any of the text of the article, but they are not. And I see no real way to work them into the article or I would have done it myself already. As such, these are just a listing of blogs. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a web directory. If you want criticism of DU, I submit to you that this is found in spadefuls on Free Republic, whose entry is linked here and not contested by a soul. Now, DUFU is an organ of Free Republic, and can freely be mentioned in that article due to its status within that institution, and so that is the appropriate way to have this information linked into Wikipedia. BenBurch 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

DUFU is an offshoot of FR? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. It began as regular postings on FR before it had its own identity. BenBurch 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you look at that? That casts a whole new light on things. I had no idea -- thanks, Ben! :) - Che Nuevara 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

From looking over WP:EL, I think the only of these blogs that should be included is DUFU. The other links serve some other primary purpose than their connection to DU and the connection might not even be picked up by the casual reader.

DUFU exists only to satirize DU, and as far as I know DUFU is unique in the fact that it is the only forum that is devoted to satirizing DU, and it is updated several times a week. Because of its timeliness and the unique nature of the blog solely devoted to criticizing DU, I think its inclusion is mandated in the article.--RWR8189 05:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The question from above seems to be: what part of a good article mandates having satire of the article's subject in the EL section? - Che Nuevara 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the question I asked, for which that answer is non-responsive. You may address "Mandate" either in the dictionary sense or in the sense of original intent of the framers if you can document that from archives discussions. BenBurch 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is willing to address my question? If so, you are consenting to a new consensus by default... BenBurch 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that "mandate" is whatever consensus determines it to be for a particular article. Many in this article have described why they believe the link is mandated by the article, and if that is the consensus they should stay.--RWR8189 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not trump policy. Your consensus relies on the WP:ILIKEIT policy, which does not exist. JBKramer 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So. RWR8189, the language of WP:EL is itself meaningless, and it means whatever we decide it means? I'm sorry, but the words mean something. As a result you still have not addressed the question, but I really want to see you do so. BenBurch 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The vagueness of the term "mandate" leaves its definition and application open to the interpretation of the community to determine consensus on specific articles. Besides which, WP:EL is a guideline, not an official policy.--RWR8189 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mandate is not a vague term at all. It is in Webster's and has been since 1919. Perhaps you wish it to be vague? Humpty Dumpty had to pay his words extra when he wanted them to do tricks like that. BenBurch 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So this link is WP:VERYIMPORTANT to this article that it's worth ignoring guidelines? Will you agree to go with the results of a WP:RFC, or WP:3o, or agree to binding WP:MC? It's obvious that there's nothing more to discuss here - and, as I've said before, it's obvious to me that there is a substantial, and honestly, reprehensible bias towards "LOLPOLITICSONTHEINTERNET" from the keep side, with the only honest player here being, well, me. JBKramer 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not counting me as a "player", otherwise I might be offended ;)

There is in fact precedent for doing something despite policy -- it's WP:IAR. However, the people arguing to ignore the rules and keep this have still yet to outline why they feel this link actual improves the entry. That's what's at issue. - Che Nuevara 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a strong believer as WP:ENC. If anyone can convince me that a link to a blog that consists merely of sniping at various posts makes the encyclopedia more informative, I will support the inclusion of this link. I have filed a request at WP:3o - but given that the LOLPOLITICSWARRIORS ignore every other opinion given, I suspect that will fail dramatically. JBKramer 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed your 3O before I even saw your message here (I have 3O on my watchlist). It's for disputes with only 2 participants, which this clearly is not. If you'd like to file an RfC, I'll make a formal statement on it, or I can (which may be preferable and less redtape) drum up a straw poll. - Che Nuevara 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have filed an article RFC for the issue and will eventually file a multi-party user-conduct RFC for the politics edit warriors. All of you. From both sides. JBKramer 23:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I will of course make a statement on both. Thanks for leaving a notification here. - Che 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening

The last paragraph has got to go. It was obviously written by a hater of Democratic Underground, and they didn't even spell activities right. It's all POV. Captkangaroo 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when that appeared, but it does at the very least need re-working to not be POV. I'll take that as a to-do item when and if un-protection happens. BenBurch 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that startted when Jinx added a whole section of the supenoa from the Secret Service, but had to delete most of it because it was OR. Some remained. see - F.A.A.F.A. 02:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to removing that para. While there is just a kernal of truth in it, its so far POV that it needs to be scrapped altogether, or totally reworded to be NPOV.Dman727 05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not add a vote I added an opinion. It was not as simple as "blogs are evil", it was "blogs are not sources", and I noted that sometimes inclusion is a gray area. Please dont simulate that I am voting on anything. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I clarified what the tote was for and removed the opinion I inferred from reading your words. BenBurch 17:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ongoing discussion

As I'm very busy in real life, I'm afraid I can't contribute to this discussion quite as much as I'd like to. I think the RfC got a few helpful things out into the air, and there is no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to discuss civilly and constructively. I will intervene if I feel I'm needed, but I encourage you folks to go on your merry way discussing. I don't think there's a reason for me to introduce a structured discussion. - Che Nuevara 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It does not appear to me that anyone in support of the link is willing to present a substantive argument as to why such a link needs to remain - referencing either policy, guideline or precedent. I have heard many times that it's VERY IMPORTANT THAT CRITICIZM BE IN THE EXTERNAL LINKS SECTION, but I don't see the WP:CRITICAL exception to WP:EL. JBKramer 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, JBK. And notice how they are unwilling or unable to address the point I raise above about how this can be seen as mandated??? I hear only crickets. BenBurch 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either of you, but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do. I doubt that there will ever be consensus on this issue among the community that edits it. What I do see is that, even if nothing is getting done here, the name-calling and borderline hate-speech is gone. I suppose if this issue is not to resolve itself, I can think of only one solution: straw polling it and posting it to the community portal in order to see if there's a general community-wide consensus. If there's support for that here, I'll set it up. But consensus between the editors involved in this discussion, I believe, is probably not to be found. - Che Nuevara 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes please take it to the community. BenBurch 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be a radical idea, but I think it would be VERY helpful to have a structured discussion on the EL's of both DU and FR at the same time in the same place. Many of the same editors work on both articles, and use totally conflicting understanding and application of WP to either support or oppose certain EL's. Some might even suspect (not me - I AGF) that there is some sort of motive or agenda behind these actions. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, in my opinion, a reasonable request. - Che Nuevara 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of honesty, I no longer believe the assumption of good faith is relevant to this dispute. JBKramer 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AGF is not optional no matter how much much evidence you see that would require a different assumption. BenBurch 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben, that's not true. The following sentence is bolded in WP:AGF: This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - Che Nuevara 04:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. I had no idea. BenBurch 04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You learn something new every day :) - Che Nuevara 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein wrote; "You live and learn - or you don't live long." BenBurch 04:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks, I just wanted to checkin. I had wanted to take alot more part of the conversation but I've had somethings come up in RL and I've just not had the time here and won't the rest of the week.

Anyway, everybody pretty much knows where everyone else stands on this and frankly I've not seen any movement on anyones part (including my own), and I suspect that we won't see much. While I'd love :) to repeat myself a few more dozens times, so that everyone else can repeat themselves in response:) (Im saying that in jest), I just do not have the time this week. If and when a new consensus is arrived at, I want you know that I'll support it either way....I think that most of folks here are acting in good faith and I trust your judgement. I'll be back next week to either see the results, or join back in the conversation if that is still ongoing. Best Regards, Dman727 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's nothing serious. Be well. BenBurch 05:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Castanaga Outing

(Refactored for readability) BenBurch 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest that we discuss the Chad Castagana issue and how it applies to both DU and FR, especially in light of how this incident and DU's involvement in investigating and proving the allegations are remarkably analgous to the FR involvement in the Killian Documents incident. See Here I look forward to reading a similar paragraph in the DU article, and I hope those editors who were instrumental in making sure FR 'got credit' for the Killian Documents will be equally helpful in documenting DU's involvement in The Castagana Incident. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Castagana is a matter entirely separate from the links dispute. Go ahead and be bold and add the information if you can find reliable sources for it. If you'd like to discuss it, go ahead and do so in another header section, but try not to make a big deal out of it if no big deal need be made. - Che Nuevara 06:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. The FR article's claims about FR's involvement in the Killian Docs has few if any WP RS V sources. It relies mostly upon 'accepted but not documented truth', blogs, and links to the FR posts themselves. I don't want to start an edit war there, over that issue, so I thought it might be better to discuss these similar issues all together. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well give us sources that either claim or show that DU was involved in the Castagana incident and we can try to evaluate them. If there's no evidence to show, but some people have claimed, we can indeed say "X Person claims" or whatever. - Che Nuevara 16:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the most notable one at the moment. "Earlier today, users at the liberal websites Democratic Underground and Daily Kos brought to light the similarities between Castagana's Internet footprint and Costanzo's writings at Free Republic, and RAW STORY has found a series of eyebrow-raising connections between the two men." Co-authored by Larisa Alexandrovna - Deemed RS Raw Story PLUS 414 Ghits "chad Castagana" "democratic underground" Ghits - F.A.A.F.A. 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks just fine to me. I don't see how it would be objectionable as long as you limit yourself to what is actually in the source(s). - Che Nuevara 02:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that this will stop anybody from objecting, of course. --BenBurch 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What's stopping you from assuming good faith? - Che Nuevara 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do. On the part of many, at least. But I have seen it happen far too often that in political topics, it does not matter how well sourced, compliant with the rules, policies, and guidelines an entry is, if it runs counter to the accepted political dogma of one faction or another, it will be objected to, reverted by multiple editors, and eventually given up upon as a lost cause by those who know full well that the entry was perfectly fine. I don't think this can be fixed at all as politics is about bias. I wonder sometimes if we should not have political bifurcation of some touchy subjects; Democratic Undergorund (Liberal Version) and Democratic Underground (Conservative Version) which would be instructive as they would be as different as night and day. --BenBurch 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested regarding the inclusion of a link to the blog. As long as the blog isnt being used as a source or reference for information, but simply in the External links, then it is a question of the worthiness of the link. There are very few external links, so I support keeping the link, KazakhPol 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC

For responses only

(What is the link to this RFC's entry? You can delete this question when you've added it. Thanks!!!) BenBurch 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of an article is its RfC entry. The RfC page contains only a link and a brief summary, which JBKramer supplied as this: Which of the disputed external links (with special attention to the blog Dummie Funnies) should be included/excluded? - Che Nuevara 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah!--BenBurch 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no valid justification to ANY of the 4 links in question. (DUFU, LU, CU, NU) 1)The article already contains criticism of DU, so no ELs are 'mandated' to provide criticism. Add more sourced criticism if it lacks enough for you. 2) No one is asking for the removal of the FR link. FR has posts EVERY day critical of DU and it's members, so it is providing exactly what other editors say DUFU and CU are providing. 3) A link to the 'political forums' category will , in essence, provide links to these forums anyway. 4) Not only is DUFU a non-scholarly blog written by 'some guy', and a commercial site designed to sell kites, it is an 'attack site'. Any of these reasons is enough to argue for exclusion. All three considered together mandate its exclusion.

5) As far as the other forums, (excuse any lack of GF) but I contend that these links are nothing more than SPAMvertising links to non notable forums posted by users of those forums hoping to get some clickthroughs from people reading the DU article. None of these forums have 10% the membership, volume or importance of DU, and the purpose of these 3 links is to LEECH off the DU article. There is a link to political forums categories, where all these forums have links there anyway. There are HUNDREDS of forums similar to the forums listed, but since they are equally as non-important and their members aren't Wiki-Hip, they aren't listed. For members of these 3 forums forums to be adding editorial content TO the links in a self serving effort to shill these forums with stuff like "Liberal message board which monitors DU; allows conservatives to post." is an OUTRAGE. There are DOZENS of forums where both sides of the political spectrum participate. Almost ALL political forums 'monitor' DU, just like they do FR. Enough of the parastic leeches trying to mooch off of DU's success! (I hope that the tone of my screed isn't overly harsh, but I'm sick of this leeching!) The DU article is not an advertising vehicle for other editor's forums that were DEEMED non notable and not worthy of inclusion on Wiki! BASTA YA! (I'm a little drunk too) -F.A.A.F.A. 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing- CU is a hate site too! There is no way that the DU article should be linked to a hate forum where the ADMIN admires Eric Rudolph, Randy Weaver, Timothy McVeigh, Sirhan Sirhan and called Rosa Parks "A low class bitch". It is an OUTRAGE to have that link still on the article, while it's locked!F.A.A.F.A. 09:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My two issues - I fail to see how these links pass the MANDATED test of WP:EL and I fail to see how they add to the article per WP:ENC. And nobody has made a reasoned, coherent argument about either. The best we have had, was that they were mandated because the majority here said they were, which is just wrong on many levels. BenBurch 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL changed

Without my input or comment AT ALL, WP:EL has just become substantially more strict.

Old wording:

"Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked. For example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked even if it contains factually inaccurate material... Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself."

New wording:

"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid...Links to blogs, except those written by a recognized authority."

This removes the last argument of the pro-linkers. Protection should be removed to implement the new guideline. JBKramer 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Out it goes. This overrides all previous talk of consensus and the RFC. A totally different rule set. Please ask for unprotection to we can make the edits. We might have to change some other things too. BenBurch 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just did the request for unprotection myself. --BenBurch 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as WP:EL stays this way there isn't much of an argument for including these links. If there are any substantial changes to WP:EL, I will revisit the issue at that time.--RWR8189 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess things work out eventually after all :) - Che Nuevara 20:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually. I should be more of an optimist. --BenBurch 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the OTHER section in accord with what was decided above

Should I now archive all of this discussion? BenBurch 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)