Talk:Democratic Underground

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

We need something in here about how Democratic Underground doesn't allow criticism of particular democratic politicians even from democrats who just want to improve the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.2.221.218 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing uncited stuff.[edit]

I removed a bit today. I am wondering though if I ought to remove the DU-glossary stuff. It does add character to the article, but unless reference to DU itself is the source, how can we cite this? I have looked several times and found no real press or book mention of these things anywhere. PLEASE somebody step up to the plate on this? Thanks! (And if you can find RS cites for anything I removed, please feel free to put it back - but DO NOT put it back uncited. I will not edit-war here.) --BenBurch (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing DU itself is acceptable in this instance, because we can cite it in the DU article. It's on that basis that we can cite to DU rules. The glossary does add to the article. I think it should stay. JamesMLane t c 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. --BenBurch (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pro- Democratic Underground bias[edit]

In reviewing the History I see all references to Donations and the purge of Clinton supporters have been removed, revealing bias. Without starting an edit war, would anyone of the pro-DU editors care to defend their edits and explain their connections to the owner of the website? MajorRogers (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit of mine, the information was largely unsourced and the tone was unencyclopedic. People who want to add stuff like this have to find it reported elsewhere. A fair amount of similar material was removed from the Free Republic article for the same reason. Once there was a news story about the purge at FR, though, it could be referenced. This constraint can be annoying but is required under current Wikipedia policy. If some reliable source, like the New York Observer (and not some right-wing fringe site), runs a story discussing alleged purges at DU, we can consider that for inclusion here.
That DU receives donations is in the article already. Does that point need amplification? I have a vague feeling that there was more detail at one time but that most editors thought it superfluous. We could state that most DU content can be accessed for free by anyone, that DU solicits donations, and that donors have some special privileges. It would be properly encyclopedic for our article to report the percentage of the site's income that comes from advertising versus donations. Unfortunately, I don't think that information is publicly available.
As for me, in case I'm one of the editors of whom you're suspicious: I am a member of DU but, as far as I know, I have no connections to the owners of the website.
By the way, speaking of Free Republic, I dropped it from my watchlist and I'm no longer au courant on what's happening there, but some criticism seesm to have been removed from that article. JamesMLane t c 22:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What does Free Republic have to do with the DU? Why is it referenced--OxAO (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean why is it referenced above, I mentioned it because similar issues had been address in connection with our Free Republic article. Both articles are about online political message boards (and both articles under ArbCom probation). If you mean why is it referenced in the article, a DU admin mentioned FR in responding to charges against DU. His point was that an online message board will often attract contributors with minority (even crackpot) views, and that the tsunami-related criticism of DU was therefore unjustified. A reader who thinks that FR is utterly irrelevant here and that the DU admin's comment shows the total bankruptcy of progressive thought has thus been provided with the information that this is what the admin said. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions held by prominent adherents, which this is. JamesMLane t c 05:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of pro-Democratic Underground bias[edit]

Here is an example of bias on Democratic Underground, in that Alcee Hasting's quote was removed from this General Discussion at Democratic Underground on May 6, 2009. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5601693#5602666.

"This bill addresses our resolve, to end violence based on prejudice, and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, or all of these philias (pedophilia being one of those he mentioned), fetishes, and isms, that were put forward, need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, so that we continue to move this country toward fully achieving its' promise, of justice, and liberty for all Americans."

A video of the above can be found here -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBYhkQpcQxY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewikio%2Ecom%2Fvideo%2F1077599&feature=player_embedded

For those that would question the validity of this information, try posting Alcee's quote in a General Discussion forum, and then watch how fast it is removed. Whether the quote is relevant to what is being discussed, or whether it is its' own thread, Alcee's quote will be removed promptly.

If this isn't bias, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaggo Waggo (talkcontribs) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Our article states, in the first paragraph, that DU is for people who are "generally supportive of progressive ideals and support Democratic candidates for political office." Thus our article makes clear that DU is not, and does not purport to be, an unbiased forum. The citation to DU's own rules is better support for that point than the treatment of one specific quotation. I doubt that a day goes by without the DU moderators removing a post that violates DU rules, and there's no point in our trying to catalog each such incident. JamesMLane t c 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"progressive ideals"? What does that even mean? It's quite obvious that the posters there have a strong liberal lean. That needs to be stated in the lead more definitively. Enigmamsg 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that "progressive" means roughly the same as "liberal" in the American sense, but Europeans often use "liberal" to mean "supporting unfettered free markets", so "progressive" is a better choice. JamesMLane t c 02:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability?[edit]

There's very little here to suggest this is a notable website. All I see is a link to a doctoral thesis and some vague references to statistics (which have never been a factor in notability). Please close this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.7.199 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Among others, the DU has been mentioned in/on the New York Times[1], Fox News[2], USA Today[3], and NBC News[4]. While not in and of themselves a sure litmus test for Wikipedia inclusion, such coverage suggests that the website is notable, literally. --Crusher1 (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Activist Corps[edit]

I removed this subsection. This was a short lived program (several months at best) that has seen no activity since 2005. Hardly notable enough to even mention, let alone have its own section. 67.158.177.29 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No Criticism from the left[edit]

There is a considerable amount of criticism of DU from the left-- has been for a long time-- and yet, the only criticism listed is from the right. I'm not going to look up the entire edit history, but I can only assume this is due to censorship by DU supporters. They are quite good and aggressive at censorship at DU, so I presume these same skills/attitudes have been brought to Wikipedia --SmashTheGlass (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Before making such assumptions, you might read WP:AGF. As for the specifics of reporting criticism, we can include it (whether it's from the left or the right) if it's from a prominent spokesperson (generally, not just some blogger) and if a proper citation can be provided. If you're familiar with material that meets those criteria, post it here and we can discuss whether it merits inclusion in the article. JamesMLane t c 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Registered users and post count numbers[edit]

I corrected the information regarding user registrations and post count from a 2007 reference to present day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AHIAPRP (talkcontribs) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement section now incorrect[edit]

I think part of the "Copyright infringement lawsuit" section should be reworded. Section includes "The suit was brought by Righthaven, an entity that finds Review-Journal quotations online, buys the copyright for that story from the newspaper, ...." However a recent press release by EFF says "The judge ruled that Righthaven did not have the legal authorization to bring a copyright lawsuit against the political forum Democratic Underground, because it had never owned the copyright in the first place. ..." --EarthFurst (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent piece at The Raw Story has headline "Judge: ... Righthaven may have lied in hundreds of lawsuits". I've looked through a pdf of the Judge's "full order" and I believe the sections The Raw Story is referring to is on page 10 "Finally, Righthaven contends that multiple courts within this district have already determined that Righthaven has standing to bring claims for past infringement under the Silver standard based on the plain language of the copyright assignment. At best, this argument is disingenuous. As the undersigned issued one of the orders Righthaven cites for this argument, the undersigned is well aware that Righthaven led the district judges of this district to believe that it was the true owner of the copyright in the relevant news articles. Righthaven did not disclose the true nature of the transaction by disclosing the SAA or Stephens Media’s pecuniary interests. ..." and "the Court believes that Righthaven failed to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in any of its approximately 200 cases filed in this District." --08:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Censorship"[edit]

Two Several editors have removed Roberthode's additions of unsourced "Censorship" text, explaining that the material fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, and notability tests. Nothing has a "right" to be added to WP, and there is no WP:Consensus for it be added. Please discuss. Rostz (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The two editors appear to have no interest in fixing the supposed offending text and removed the entire section on Censorship. No offer to correct the deficiencies were given. I removed any statement that could appear to be opinionated but yet they still remove the whole section. Even a basic list would not satisfy them. Why are they censoring my contributions and not offering to correct the supposed deficiencies? My contributions are factual and without any opinionated statements. I would appreciate it if they stop reverting my changes unless they can offer a detailed explanation of the offending text.--Roberthode (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a possible source for the material (the actual ToS), but no source for its notability or relevance.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It doesn't appear that you have read any of the referenced policies. To spell them out once again: all edits require verifiability (WP:V) using reliable sources (WP:RS) at a minimum, which you have not provided. Following that, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so additions require notability - what is the long-term significance of the material? Secondary (WP:SECONDARY) sources help demonstrate this. Finally, edits are subject to consensus (WP:Consensus). Your addition has failed all these tests, and the next step is dispute resolution (WP:DR), not edit warring. Rostz (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: Roberthode (talk · contribs) has been blocked (but not by me) for edit warring on this article. He may comment again again in about 23 hours.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record here is the offending text:

The following topics are banned from Democratic Underground. Members that violate the rules are usually given a warning and the post is removed or locked. Site policies remind users that freedom of speech does not apply since it is privately owned and operated.

*Resource-based economy *Zeitgeist Movement *Zeitgeist Videos I, II, III *Posts critical of Democratic candidates and urging nonsupport. *Negative remarks about the founder ("Skinner") *Some issues regarding Israel/Palestine *Questioning the rules or how mods enforce them.

I have more important things to do than fight those that want to keep DU censorship rules from public view. Goodbye. --Roberthode (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

online work legit satisfaction confirmation[edit]

First salary 4.26 processed by fast2earn.com issued to worker Sr. Santiago. project truly nice. Notice screenshot. It say not fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shollyson (talkcontribs) 11:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Schwartz, John (2005-01-03). "Myths Run Wild in Blog Tsunami Debate". NY Times. pp. A10. Retrieved 2007-05-02. 
  2. ^ Hume, Brit (2005-01-04). "Disaster's Cause?". Fox News. Retrieved 2007-05-02. 
  3. ^ Raash, Chuck (2006-05-10). "Terrorists were brewing a fresh date of infamy". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-05-02. 
  4. ^ "Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests". NBC News. 2006-08-14. Retrieved 2007-05-02.