This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Democratic Underground article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
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)
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)
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)
What does Free Republic have to do with the DU? Why is it referenced-- OxAO ( talk) 08:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
I corrected the information regarding user registrations and post count from a 2007 reference to present day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AHIAPRP ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Democratic Underground article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
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)
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)
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)
What does Free Republic have to do with the DU? Why is it referenced-- OxAO ( talk) 08:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
I corrected the information regarding user registrations and post count from a 2007 reference to present day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AHIAPRP ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)