Examples of Political Blogs
Many (dare I say the majority) of us that use Wikipedia are not American.
Therefore the inclusion of only American political blogs to this article is disregarding the existence of other countries in the world which have political Blogs.
Who agrees that international, and not just American blogs should be mentioned as well as "Notable American political blogs and bloggers"? Albert
- Personally I think the whole section of notable blogs needs to go, it's just a pandora's box of problems. Who decides which blogs are "notable"? How do we decide which ones to include and which ones not to, and who is going to deal with the inevitable and unending insertions of various blogs to the list? --Hetar 08:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've created a new article, Political blogs in the USA, to encompass American blogs. This is similar to what has been done for Political blogs in Australia. If anyone wants to add another country's blog list to Wikipedia I recommend creating a page titled Political blogs in [country] and then linking that to this page using the "see also".--Albert 19:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge back from Political blogs in the USA
I've proposed that Political blogs in the USA be moved back into this article because this article has little/no information on political blogs outside the USA, making the new article redundant. If you don't like the "notable blogs" list, kill it - or, better, find ways to mention those blogs in the text of the article itself - but don't just create a new article to house a list that could be better served as a category. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I was following the lead from what has been made for Political blogs in Australia. I was annoyed that American blogs were getting preferential mention and I believed people may, in future, do the same for political blogs from a number of major countries - but on their own page. However, if you would like to initiate a category for american political blogs (and other countries etc.) go ahead. But this may be a long job.--Albert 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Political blogs in Australia is only a stub, and from the looks of it would do much better as a subsection of this article. Come to think of it, I'd much rather see sections of this page describing political blogs in specific countries than have a bunch of small pages on political blogs in each country. Also, the list of blogs you moved from here to Political blogs in the USA followed the consensus of Talk:Blog that individual blogs should not be linked to (as it creates linkspam and drives an article towards the Spam Event Horizon), only their Wikipedia articles, when applicable. The Australian article doesn't follow that. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well. It seems like you've deleted all of the Australian links which now makes Political blogs in Australia a complete waste of a page. I understand Wikipedia isn't a link directory - but how else do you exemplify Political Blogs from around the world.
- We cannot put all of these on this one page. If you really want to continue waging war on separate articles for different countries blogs why dont you just make a page entitled Examples of Political Blogs from around the world and stick different countries' blogs in there under the titles of the countries. --Albert 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, these should be merged back into Political blog. This article isn't very large right now, no need to split out regional articles. They can become sections of this article. Rhobite 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay then! A blog list on this page may suffice as providing examples of political blogs. However, I would like to refer to my point at the top of this discussion "the inclusion of only American political blog [links] to this article is disregarding the existence of other countries in the world which have political Blogs". - therefore, if we are going to include example links to political blogs, do so to a wide example of blogs from throughout the world --Albert 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, if you can cite a list of notable Australian political blogs feel free to list them. The important thing is that we don't turn this article into a link farm, and the way to do that is to only list blogs which have received major outside press. Rhobite 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Merger of Political blogs in Australia to Political blogs
I am in favour of this merger, which in practice will mean that little of the existing content will be moved (because there isn't much) which is fine. Grumpyyoungman01 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I am also in favour of this merger. It just helps tidy things up a bit. Binnsy 10:00PM, 7 April 2006 (AEST)
- So when can it be merged then? Considering that the yays have it, and no keep arguments have been put forward. Grumpyyoungman01 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have carried out the merge. I have restructured this article for clarity but no content has been removed or changed significantly. TerriersFan 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge in of New Zealand blogosphere
This article is almost entirely about political matters and I invite editors to consider agreeing to merge this in where it would fit nicely. TerriersFan 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate, TrackerTV? Maybe give some examples? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the POV tag because no examples have been provided. If an editor identifies that there is a POV issue then the first step is for that editor to try to fix it. If it cannot be fixed by that editor then a detailed note should be placed on here so that other editors can address the issue. TerriersFan 16:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone look over the "notable" US blog list. Given that measuring web readership isn't exactly a rigourously defined process, the metrics used to generate these lists is suspect. Further, anonymous and newly-registered users have been adding links to thesse lists. I've removed some of them, but more attention is required. Frankly, I think the lists should be deleted, but I've left it for now. Mindmatrix 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree a policy in external links? Surely, they shouldn't just be links to political blogs, but good sources on the subject of political blogging in general. Which most of the current ones aren't. BobFromBrockley 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- In absence of response, am removing those which are personal political blogs, leaving only resources about political blogging and portals/directories. BobFromBrockley 12:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Policy wise, a lot of what is being done right now in the IT world is the blacklisting of a lot of political hate sites, there are laws on the books to protect against unsubstantiated claims in linking hate speach to crimes against humanity as far as case law, this is due mainly to the fact that a lot of these anonomous accounts are actually held by Europeans. Some might call it poetic justice, some might call it protecting the united states intelectual property rights.
Much the same point as expressed elsewhere goes to this section. Who decides which blogs are named and what are not - and which ones are linked? We need some consistency on this. Either you allow major UK bloggers to put themselves up, or you permit none. To play the games you are doing merely devalues the site. Richard North —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RAENORTH (talk • contribs) 16:58, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
- I think that listing specific blogs should be kept to a minimum. The tiny number there now (Guido Fawkes, Harry's Place, Iain Dale and Tom Worstall are all fairly notable in the wider public sphere, as indicated by the fact they have WP articles, are regularly cited in the mainstream media, and have huge numbers of incoming links to their blogs. The links on the page are not to the blogs, but to the wikipedia articles about these people. By the way, it is unlikely that the bloggers themselves "put themselves up". There are others who could be added, e.g. Norman Geras, and the current list should not be seen as set in stone, but I think it is helpful. As for the list of sites where blogs are aggregated (which are linked directly), this is also helpful, although perhaps it could go to the external links section, and is neutral and balanced in giving sites that aggregate all UK political blogs or aggregate all those attached to a fairly good range of political perspectives. BobFromBrockley 09:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- After writing this, and then checking Richard North's user talk, I realise that the EU Referendum blog probably should be mentioned in the article. A Financial Times article in 2006 listed the top 10 "influential" blogs in a number of European countries, based on Technorati and Edelman (not sure what latter is), although with the caveat that "UK blogs are ranked manually, unlike other lists", whatever that means. The top 10 for the UK (which, oddly, lists 11 blogs, teh 11th being French not British) includes a small number of political blogs: no.3 EU Referendum blog, no.6 Samizdata.net, no.9 Iain Dale's Diary, no.10. The 2006 Weblog Awards  had a top 10 UK blogs, voted for by readers. This included a small number of political blogs: no.1 EU Referendum, no.3 Samizdata.net, no.4 Harry's Place, no.8 Unspeak (Steven Poole's blog), no.9 Slugger O'Toole. BobFromBrockley 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another good source is the Guardian article "The new commentariat" (November 17, 2005), which features: Perry de Havilland and Adriana Cronin (Samizdata), Harry's Place, Oliver Kamm, Mick Fealty (Slugger O'Toole), Oliver Kamm, Norman Geras, Justin McKeating (Chicken Yoghurt) and Tim Ireland (Bloggerheads). It also mentions Guido Fawkes. BobFromBrockley 10:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Persectution or Prosecution
From the first paragraph, "...but as a result may find themselves persecuted." - I think prosecuted would make more sense, although persecuted isn't incorrect: "prosecute" means hold a criminal trial against someone, while "persecute" is more like hunting down and then torturing or killing. Both could work, though I suggest "prosecute" based on the two sources cited. If you agree, please change it to "prosecute". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. Persecution may take many forms, and need not got so far as "hunting down and then torturing or killing". You are using the most narrow interpretation of the latter term I've ever encountered. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
More Content and Minor Edits
I've added some more content to the introduction section, as I felt this page was missing some info on political blog readership and participation. I also added a citation that was missing. I will continue to try and find more sources for this page. I also changed the word 'peddle' in the first paragraph. I felt that word had a negative connotation. Peplum (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)