Talk:Democratic Underground/Archive 2

Text of first paragraph

 * I'm tired of seeing an edit war develop about the text to use in the first paragraph of this article. I propose that we have a vote about whether to use the text "Liberal/Progressive" or "Democratic-Party Oriented." Acegikmo1 17:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The anonymous vandal might have been banned from DU for misconduct, and therefore has an axe to grind. S/he is clearly ignoring the consensus of the group, which is to (accuratly) described the forum as "liberal/progressive." By the way, the offical rules of the Democratic Underground forum state:
 * "We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.
 * This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.
 * "We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
 * It's clear that this vandal is exactly that: a vandal. Neutrality 19:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note this neutrality fellow is a big time poster there so his opinion is not without bias. I was in the claimed website for a while, wasn't banned, just disgusted that criticism of JK is not allowed so went inactive, the fact that they claim to allow all progressives is farce, yes, as long as you dont say anything bad about the democrats. It is not a liberal or progressive community since ideologically democratic party itself shies away from that label. In the interest of fairness to all those being misled by the website that's clearly propagandizing for Democrat's party, I ask you guys to label it 'democrat party' oriented. Plus the website is a LLC, that makes it even more appropriate to identify the website for what it is.
 * Nearly all people you ask will tell you it's a liberal discussion site. Liberals shy away from the term "liberal" due to its recent use as an insult, therefore the "progressive" label which DU self-applies. Furthermore, the term liberal can mean many things, including "Democrat" in the US. And in at least that sense, DU is definitely a liberal site.


 * Anyway you're inserting POV. You could add that critics believe it's not liberal in the true sense of the word, making sure to cite these critics. But you shouldn't change the article's first sentence in order to make a point. Rhobite 02:05, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

General form of the article
Is there a reason why the article is so long or includes such long quotes from the site? Ollieplatt 01:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we can presume that the article is the way it is because that is what the majority of editors think it should be. Meanwhile, I've noticed that you seem to be getting into a lot of trouble editing political articles; perhaps that's not your true calling on Wikipedia and your efforts should be directed elsewhere in the encyclopedia?.


 * Atlant 18:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikivandals
While I agree that the recent Wikivandalism by a few DU members isn't something worthy of mention in the article, I do think it's probably worth noting here the thread where they discuss their exploits:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2994204#2994296

Atlant 00:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to note that, then this page should also note that other people on DU chastised the handful who were at fault. DU also locked the thread, presumably to discourage further such antics. JamesMLane 04:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with James. This entire passage is just a big self-reference. It's too minor of an incident to include in the article - just a single (locked) thread. It's also quite POV - "they decided to begin an assault" makes it sound as if the entire membership of DU suddenly planned and executed a giant vandalism spree. Neutralitytalk 05:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the subsequent thread where additional folks disavow the Wikivandalism:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2996375

Atlant 23:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The I/P revert war
With regard to the revert war that's ongoing right now, the sad thing is that I'd accept the inclusion of the "anti-Israeli" language if it were put into the "criticism from the right" section of the article. But it surely isn't the lefties who forced the administrators to banish essentially *ALL* I/P discussion, even "Late Breaking News", to the I/P dungeon.


 * From what you say, it sounds like this doesn't belong as specifically criticism from the right or the left. The Middle East is often a special case.  Perhaps we should create a separate subheading for it and say something like, "Disputes on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute became so rancorous that the site administrators have largely confined those discussions to the specific Israel-Palestine forum, prompting charges of censorship from both sides."  Would that be accurate? JamesMLane 19:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, yes, your suggested statement would be accurate. Let's see what, if anything, everyone else has to say.


 * Atlant 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The present text is a reflection of an earlier edit war, in which a number of anonymous IPs were adding lengthy criticism, and some vandalism, attacking DU from the left; I believe I wrote the current text concerning anti-Palestinian bias. No one has suggested an anti-Israeli bias, so far as I'm aware, and I see no reason not to believe this is not a case of simple vandalism. But I'm also not a DU user, so my knowledge here is limited. RadicalSubversiv E 20:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm only a very occasional and casual visitor there myself. I have no personal knowledge of how this dispute has played itself out on the site. JamesMLane 21:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LA LA La la la!!!!!!!!

Actually, there are a number of *VERY VOCAL* folks on DU who claim that an anti-Israeli bias exists at the site, but at least in my opinion, that's the same strategy as the Republicans constantly calling the media "liberal"; you can drive a medium towards your point of view by constantly attacking it for holding the other point of view, whether true or not. The medium reacts by constantly shifting towards your point of view in an attempt to placate you.

Atlant 13:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edits by 24.254.40.17 as they are obviously designed to introduce a specific POV without any discussion, which does not seem helpful. The last version I reverted to doesn't seem very NPOV either.  IMO, calling DU "Progressives" is a bit of a stretch.  Perhaps it would be better to state the term "Progressive" is self-applied by DU.  Isotope23 13:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the number of true progressives that DU has banned, I'd agree with your suggested language.


 * Atlant 13:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose none of you considered the fact the Democratic Underground is a privately owned website with the owner being free to run the site however he chooses. There is a similar statement on FR saying the same thing. -- 68.33.30.195

Characterization of posts
In regards to my edits, there is nothing factually incorrect in my statement, and unless you consistently revert a similar statement made on the Free Republic page, I will put this statement back every time. (I moved this anon comment to its proper chron place and gave it a heading. JamesMLane 15:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))


 * Characterizing the posts as insults is POV and inaccurate. The comment that posts are short is vague -- we've said it's a message board so no one would be expecting lengthy essays.  I don't see that we need to assure the reader that there are posts of varying length; that's what anyone would expect.  If there's something POV or inaccurate about the FR article, go fix it there. JamesMLane 15:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "I will put this statement back every time."


 * Well, you've had your three reverts for one 24-hour period, so I'd strongly suggest you not put the statement back again today, or you're likely to find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia for a while on a violation of the Three-revert rule.


 * Atlant 15:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More emphasis needs to be made that the democratic underground completely bans dissenting opinion
You need to put more emphasis in the fact that the democraticunderground is one of the most censored message boards on the internet, free speech is not allowed there at all

It would be very difficult to do that while remaining NPOV. Difficult, but not impossible. Lord Patrick 29 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)


 * I agree, but there also needs to be put up that it is a cruel and hatefilled site. We shouldn't clean up any other extremist website's entry and we shouldn't with DU either.  The fact is that DU is filled to the brim with people who hate others and take that hate to extremes.  See: mopaul's Reagan rant, the thread pertaining to Laura Ingraham's breast cancer, etc, etc, etc.  These are no accidents.  Skinner has chosen the people he will lay with.  It's time this site was revealed for the extremist hotbed it is. 216.40.208.50


 * No, it's not a "cruel and hatefilled site", it simply has some posters that you perceive as cruel and hate-filled. But even if your perceptionis correct, that doesn't justify tarring the whole site with that brush. And the jury is still way out on what Reagan's lasting legacy will be; it could turn out that he'll eventually be best remembered for the vast ballooning of the debt. ;-)


 * Atlant 15:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it is a cruel and hate filled site. Anyone who has been there knows it. mopaul's rant had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1726149&mesg_id=1726149&page=

Further, I think it's time to put an end to the myth the DU is anything but a hateful POS site:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1197069 John Ashcroft's pancreatitis http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3545777 Laura Ingraham's breast cancer

I could go on and on. But don't forget all the times they've called Bush "Hitler" or something worse. And lastly, never forget them begging the media to call the terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters".

But I guess I'll just leave this article alone from now on as it seems they've always got someone watching to make sure the truth doesn't come out about them, but they can rest assured that I will be showing their true face whereever they can't cover it up.


 * they can rest assured that I will be showing their true face whereever they can't cover it up.


 * I have complete confidence you're already completely aware of Free Republic.


 * Atlant 00:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I do. I am a member there, but I have no idea what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Are you going to refer me to Will "The Third American Empire Started When The US Beat The USSR In The 1980 Olympic Games" Pitt's article, which- surprise of surprises- he got someone to link to at the end of the FR article?


 * Atlant, you are a hypocrite, the DU is no different from the freerepublic both sites hate freedom of speech and swiftly ban any form of dissent, how can you defend one site for banning dissent and criticise another for doing the same thing! 210.54.192.25


 * (You're familiar with the fact that Wiki bans personal attacks, right? Calling me a "hypocrit" might just fall into that category. Nevertheless...)


 * You can say that DU bans a certain level of dissent. In fact, the article says that right now! If nothing else, the "Jeff Seeman, banned Democratic Congressional candidate" anecdote should make that clear. (By the way, did you know that I'm one of the bannees?) What you can't do is put any damned thing that you wish into the article, just to push your personal Point of View. DU obviously doesn't ban all dissent or anything approaching that, so you can't say things like that.


 * Atlant 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do ban all dissent, if your not a democrat, if you dont lean to the left you get banned, i got banned for simply saying communism didnt work, the DU moderators ban anybody who doesnt agree with what they say and besides your a member of the ACLU so your hardly going to be objective and not biased now are you


 * Oh my! You've discovered what I proudly stated on my Wiki user page! But wait, it's worse than that: I'm a member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU of New Hampshire! What that means, of course, is that I'm one of the people who takes your right to free speech seriously, unlike, say, your pretzeldent. But if want to feel like your comments "zinged" me, go right ahead and feel that way. Maybe it will help you get past the disaster your guy has made of our country while making a mockery of our constitution.


 * Atlant 23:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Pardon me while I add my two bits .... I believe there are lots of true "progressives" who congregate at DU who are unaware of the level of censorship implemented at that site. Even with the censorship employed at that site it does perform a public service in bringing together "progressives" and highlighting issues of importance to that community. I am sure other political sites engage in somewhat similar behavior, but should we not acknowledge the truth when we see it? The fact others engage in this type of conduct should not be a free pass for DU to engage in that conduct. I think we need to make sure people understand they are not reading a broad cross-section of "progressive" opinions when they review the posts there.  It is a fact. Just as I am sure it is a fact that posts at "Free Republic' do not represent a broad cross-section of all moderate - conservative republican opinions. Both should be called out for their very undemocratic use of censorship. And the standards of truth and facts here should be higher than to even political scores between the two sites.JFKer 18:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please Remove the Words Liberal and Progressive From This Page
The democraticunderground is neither liberal nor progressive because it bans and censors all differing opinions which is not liberal or progressive, this page is very one sided and biased towards the democraticunderground and not neutral at all


 * The way I see it, they can ban anyone they want. It's a private site. It's not Wikipedia's job to claim that a site can't possibly be liberal if it bans people who hold certain opinions. I also think that phrases such as "censorship" and "free speech" are pointless when speaking about a private web site. You don't have a God-given right to post to DU.


 * The opinions held by most DU posters are best described as liberal/progressive, so our description should stay. Feel free to increase the emphasis on DU's banning policy, just be sure to read up on WP:NPOV. Rhobite 06:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * 100% agreed to the first paragraph of Rhobite's post. Furthermore, this article is not the place to argue the definition of "liberal".  this one is. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LA LA LA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mention should be made of DU's strict policy of not allowing dissent. Conservatives or moderate democrats who go against the majority hive-mentality will quickly find themselves banned, or "tombstoned" as DU likes to phrase it. Skinner rules DU with an iron fist and any departure from far-left extremism is dealt with quickly and harshly. Their extremist censorship tactics fly in the face of their supposed idealogy of free speech in America.


 * In my experience, that's just not accurate. For the record, I am best described as a moderate with strong libertarian tendencies and strong right-winger antipathy.  I used to post there quite a bit (~500 edits), a year ago, and was generally quite well received.  Yes, a few folks (e.g. Eloriel) turned their flamethrowers on me, but overall people were respectful, because I was respectful.  Certainly, right-wing posters quickly get tombstoned.  I'm sure there are some cases of moderates tombstoned.  However, I think it is a considerable exaggeration to say that only "far-left extremism" is allowed. Derex 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, bull. The record for banning on DU that I'm aware of is zero posts, banned because of his username.  Know what the name was?  "ModerateMadMan."  They're not interested in allowing moderates to post.  I myself was banned for stating that there was absolutely no evidence that the administration orchestrated the attacks of September 11, 2001.  They considered it defense of/support for the President.  Think about that.  Refusing to subscribe to conspiracy theories involving the President of the United States intentionally murdering thousands of his own citizens is grounds for banning there.  It is not exaggeration in the least.  Rogue 9 02:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

22:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC) The problem with the site in a nutshell is that it is too big and people get banned basically for nothing. The reason for this is because of the site having too many moderators. I do not believe in the site's claim each post "alerted" is reviewed by a panel of moderators before action is taken.

The site should also get rid of the "alert" function, and any real problems with disruptors, etc., should be emailed to the site administrators.

Despite some good information there, the easy banning makes it a laughingstock in cyberspace. 22:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

John Conyers
I added him to the list of well-known participants. He made this post to DU. It's confirmed as genuine by this post to his blog. JamesMLane 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vague
This article is somewhat vague in its description of the actual content of the site. While I recognize the need for NPOV, I think this article could go much farther in its description of the site. A mission statement, for example -- the article says DU was started the day GW took office, but it doesn't say why (which is a matter of record publicly visible on the site). So long as editors quote, paraphrase, or summarize what -actually appears on the site-, its factual basis cannot be challenged because the text itself is clearly accessible. So, for example, saying that the site was founded "to protest George Bush's election to the presidency, which is characterized therein as 'illegitimate'" is perfectly in keeping with the NPOV requirements because such text occurs unequivocably on the site here. With that in mind, I think some more information (not to be confused with commentary) ought to be included in this article. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible non-compliance with GFDL
While not directly about this article, it seems like DU's Demopedia site might be in violation of GFDL by not stating that most of their Wikipedia forked articles that they host are licensed under the GFDL. —Tokek 09:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a GDFL note on their disclaimer page. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism From the middle added because
In three separate edits, 24.163.56.115 writes:

Not all the criticism is from the left and the right political wings. Where unfavored topics and replies are deleted without explanation, and the member poster is "banned" with no explanation or right of appeal, then that fits the exact definition of "totalitarian." Where one may act with absolute impunity, and answers to no one, and grants no one an avenue to appeal the administrative decision taken against them unilaterally, then they may be said to have acted in a totalitarian manner. The separate section "from the middle" was added because the criticism is not necessarily from the left or the right, but often from the members who would otherwise appear to be part of the target audience this site claims it is trying to reach.

I have had to revert this addition twice in the last 24 hours to add this accurate content to the page. If others find this information both accurate and helpful as an addition to this subject entry, please make the appropriate modification if it disappears again. Otherwise, I will not violate the 3 revert rule, and expect that it will be enforced if it is violated by others.

In re: Edit Summary which reverted my addition for the 3rd time in 24 hours--(rv pov - it is utterly absurd to describe any message board as "totalitarian" and all of these is just generic criticism which can apply to any message board on earth). I respectfully disagree. The addition does not describe the message board as "totalitarian", but rather the exercise and implementation of administrative actions by the owners of the message board. The criticism here is not generic, but rather specific, and certainly would not apply to "any message board on earth" as alleged. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept, but I submit that the truth of this addition is important to inform the reader about the type of censorship employed at this site, the manner in which that censorship is implemented, and the impact these have on what posts are allowed to be published at this site.


 * Even though you are using an "anonymous" IP address, please sign your talk posts with four tildes ( ~ ). When you press "Save changes", these will be replaced by your username/IP address in a handy, WIkilinked format. This will also contain an automatic timestamp for your edit. Doing this makes it much easier for other people to follow the history of the discussion.


 * Atlant 12:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it unusual for users making additions to this particular entry("democratic underground") to have their edits reverted by others almost immediately and there to be no discussion of the reasons for the reverts here? It would appear that this particular entry is being watched over by "gatekeepers" which might be fairly characterized as "defacto censorship".24.163.56.115 15:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Political articles on Wikipedia are yet-another battleground in the American culture wars so, yes, there are definitely folks watching all of the politically-sensitive articles. Most of the articles eventually get settled into some sort of status-quo form accepted by a consensus of editors and this article is no exception, so even though there is some merit to what you're attempting to add, you'll need to do a lot of convincing of many folks before your edits are likely to be allowed to remain. (By the way, DU probably has the same or less censorship than its "evil twin" Free Republic, so that factors into how much bashing is allowed to remain in this article as well. As an exercise, try adding something truthful-yet-overtly-negative to the George W. Bush or Oliver North articles.)


 * Atlant 16:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Atlant. I wonder how you can convince those who revert your edits and do not communicate here. I may be a bit idealistic here, but I added "from the middle" specifically because I believe this particular criticism does not fall exlcusively within the "left" or the "right" since I have learned that member posters at DU of all political stripes have been subjected to the administrative conduct I added. Now I believe that readers of this entry have the right to know that the posts at DU do not represent only one side or the other in the "left/right debate", rather the type of censorship being employed here goes beyond that broad brush categorization. Is there not a place for disclosing practices which may result in carefully censored posts which are portrayed as being representative of "progressives" when in fact many "progressives" and their ideas are suppressed? It is almost beyond political and in fact idiosyncratic in nature, which leads to my use of the word "totalitarian" in describing the practices. I am not sure an entry on "democratic underground" is accurate without this information being added. Please note I have joined as a member here and appreciate your helping me learn the ropes here!JFKer 17:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please bear with me as I learn the "wiki" ways here. Is the solution to the problem here to appeal for protection of the page after I revert adding my edits. I would not ask that it stay up longer than a day, but otherwise how will members here have an opportunity to read my edit and decide if it has merit? If the members here truly believe my edits are of no value and insight, so be it --even though I disagree with that opinion. Is this the only way, or is there a better way?JFKer 17:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyone has the opportunity to read any past edit. In the "Page history" (linked to at the top, on the left, and on the bottom), clicking on "last" to the left of any edit shows the difference between that edit and the last version before it, with changes highlighed in red.  For example, this link shows the material you wanted to add.


 * Based on my experience at DU, I don't think that what you wrote is true. You would need to cite a verifiable source for such a statement, and for the claim that DU portrays its forum posts as being "representative" of anything.  Furthermore, whether or not the description is factually accurate, it's POV to describe the policy as "totalitarian", as I pointed out in my edit summary.  (We sometimes give capsule explanations in an edit summary instead of the talk page, but that doesn't mean there's been "no discussion of the reasons for the reverts".)  Finally, it's not "censorship" when other editors don't think something belongs in the article.  Take note of the warning at the bottom of the edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."  This is a wiki, not a blog or a discussion forum. JamesMLane 18:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

In response to the comments of JamesMLane, please consider the following: (1) The word "totalitarian" according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is:

Main Entry: 1to·tal·i·tar·i·an Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&n Function: adjective Etymology: Italian totalitario, from totalità totality 1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL; especially : DESPOTIC b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)

You may certainly assign negative connotations to the use of this word, but you would have to admit that if my description was factually accurate, then the use of this word to describe those practices is appropriate.

(2)In regard to your allegation that DU makes no representation regarding forum posts, I direct your attention to the Rules of That forum, especially

"#1 : Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

A fair reading of this rule alone would lead one to believe the site owners practice what they preach - progressive and democratic ideals, which by the way include free speech, due process, and an appeals process(all of which are in your copy of the US Constitution). So if posts are allowed to appear one might get the impression that these democratic principles had been applied and promoted, when in fact that is not the case at all. I agree with you that this is a private site and can be run any way the owner sees fit. However, when individuals and companies present themselves as one thing to the public, and act contradictory, they are not immune from criticism just because they are private.

(3)In regard to your request for a verifiable source for such a statement, I can provide a copy of a recent email which remains unanswered, (the source name is removed, but can be provided privately if needed for verification)as follows:

'''To: mail@democraticunderground.com Cc: skinner@democraticunderground.com Subject: Questions re: ************** Date: September 14, 2005

Question: Is it standard practice at DemocraticUnderground.com to unilaterally revoke posting privileges when members click the link in a warning letter acknowledging the rules and do not violate any of the rules? (FYI I never posted at all after clicking the link before my posting privileges were suspended).

Question: Is it standard practice at DemocraticUndeground.com for David Allen(skinner)and/or other Administrators to fail to respond to three(3) or more emails inquiring why the member's posting privileges were suspended? (FYI It is now Wednesday and my posting privileges were suspended last Saturday afternoon around 4pm EDT).

If I do not hear from you within 24 hrs from the date of this email, I will assume you have no intention of responding to future inquiries, and no intention of answering my past emails and the above questions, and do not desire to comment or be quoted in the reporting of this matter by other news media.

Have a nice day.''' I hope this meets with the standard of verification you desire since proof of the Administrative action complained about remains in the control of the Administrators at DU. Further proof is trying to log in and receiving a message that the posting privileges have been suspended, but no explanation given.

(4) I understand this is not a blog or discussion forum. I take issue with your assertion that a past edited version is sufficient for members to become aware of the proposed edit I added. If you are so sure that my edit does not belong in this entry, why not leave it on the main page more than a few minutes rather than immediately reverting the page. You might benefit from a review of the "marketplace of ideas" approach in this regard. If you are correct then your position will eventually be supported and my edits would disappear. However, hiding unfavorable comments is not a good way to judge community support.

Thank you for your dialogue here. I now understand the reasons you gave for your actions, even if I do not agree with them.JFKer 19:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My impression is that your principal interest in Wikipedia is using it as a place where DU can be "called out" (your term) for practices you dislike. This naturally tends to cause difficulties for you, because the people who stick around here for any length of time are those who have a different agenda, namely writing an encyclopedia.  Our goal isn't to criticize DU or to give it a "free pass".  Our goal is to present facts in a neutral way.  I suggest that you read or reread WP:NPOV.  As to your specific points:
 * I most certainly would not have to admit that a definition like "strict control of all aspects of the life" applies to the moderation of a website. Wikipedia has an official policy of no personal attacks on talk pages, and people have been banned for calling other editors "douchebag" or the like.  Is that totalitarian?  I don't think so.  More important is that we don't try to do our readers' thinking for them.  We tell them the important facts about the subject of the article.  We don't tell them what conclusions they should draw.
 * Nothing in the passage you quote constitutes a portrayal that DU considers its posts "representative" of anything. The admins have no way of ensuring that there's the proper quota of participation by any particular demographic or ideological group.  Anyway, the first two sentences of the passage are already quoted in the article.  Here again, we don't need to tell readers what conclusion to draw.  Some conclusions are clear, like "DU isn't open to posts from all points of view", and they don't need to be stated because they're obvious.  Other conclusions, like "DU's policies are totalitarian", are not clear, are in fact disputed, and for that very reason shouldn't be stated as fact.  Our article also quotes, verbatim, the rule warning that people supportive of Bush will likely be banned.  Regardless of what other offenses may or may not get someone banned, that rule alone would be inconsistent with the First Amendment, so no one reading our article should assume that DU applies all the principles of the U.S. Constitution.  Or should we call them out because they didn't offer to pay for you to hire a lawyer to contest your banning, a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment?
 * The email you quote doesn't meet the standards of our policy; see Verifiability. Even if it did, one unanswered email wouldn't come close to establishing the accuracy of the sweeping criticisms you make.
 * Reverting an edit is not an instance of "hiding unfavorable comments". It's an instance of editing mercilessly.  If I see a change that worsens the article, and I nevertheless leave it in, I'm hiding my opposition to it.  People are used to looking at the page history to see what's going on, but if you're not confident of that, you can always put the text here on the talk page.  It happens occasionally that someone starts a talk page thread by quoting disputed text and explaining why it is or is not appropriate.  No one will remove your comment from the talk page except in certain rare instances, such as copyright violation or personal attack. JamesMLane 06:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedia editor JamesMLane, I seem to have "gored one of your sacred cows," to have caused you to bring to this discussion such arrogant assumptions about me contained in your last post. Since you chose to "cherry pick" certain sentences from my post, and assign improper motives to those particular items, I will respond to the issues in your post in the same order as they appear there. First paragraph- You assume my principal interest for being here is to "use" Wikipedia to criticize DU, and that I have an "agenda" that is different from that of "the people who stick around here for any length of time..." Well, thank you for the warm welcome! I admit I am new to Wikipedia, and therefore have not had an opportunity to contribute to other entries here, but I did take the time to register as a member(and yes, I already found and read WP:NPOV). However, I found this entry and believed I could add information which would be helpful to the readers of an encyclopedia entry. You supposedly criticized me with my own terms("...using it(Wikipedia) as a place where DU can be 'called out' (your term) for practices you dislike), but failed to provide the whole quote or context of my use of that phrase. The full quote, was "I think we need to make sure people understand they are not reading a broad cross-section of "progressive" opinions when they review the posts there. It is a fact. Just as I am sure it is a fact that posts at "Free Republic' do not represent a broad cross-section of all moderate - conservative republican opinions. Both should be called out for their very undemocratic use of censorship. And the standards of truth and facts here should be higher than to even political scores between the two sites."emphasis added. So it would appear, my friend, that your attempt to assign the improper motive of bias to my use of the phrase "called out" has now been exposed to your discredit, not mine. As far as what I bring to this endeavor, I believe these qualify me to have an opinion and to express it within the framework of Wikipedia: I am a practicing attorney, former editor and reporter of newspapers and publications, was and continue to be a member of DU with approximately 300 posts (prior to having my posting privileges suspended recently), and have been active in promoting progressive and democratic ideals as a member of the Democratic Party. I do not fit the mold of a dissident anti-democratic vandal, but rather bring to this discussion an informed opinion of what I speak. Your #1 - I notice you chose the second definition of "totalitarian" rather than the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary first, primary definition which I provided verbatim( "1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy."). This definition describes accurately the owner's implementation of administrative policy at DU. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. You identify yourself with the Wikipedia community in your statement "We(Wikipedia, including yourself) don't tell them(presumably readers) what conclusions they should draw." When we as editors suppress or fail to provide factual information that is contrary to the veracity and weight of a site's representations, then we have not provided a neutral presentation of the facts. If a media source failed to mention that rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to associate, due process and appeal rights, were being suppressed by the leaders of government, would that make it easier for people to draw their own conclusions? And would it mean that the media source was neutral in its point of view?(By the way, this was exactly the criticism of some of the German newspapers during the rise of Hitler). Your #2- Once again you confuse my comments, saying I am somehow attacking DU when in fact I am addressing only the adoption and implementation of administrative policy by the owner. We will just have to disagree as to what DU represents itself to be. I have been a member of the Democratic Party for over 30 years and the tenets of same have always included supporting the principles set out in the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights. When DU professes to support such candidates, and impliedly their principles, and then acts in contravention of those principles by implementing autocratic policies and not allowing dissenting opinion to appear, then that statement would appear to be misleading and hypocritical. And by the way, save your money, I don't need DU, you, or anyone else, to hire me a lawyer to contest my "banning" since I am one already! Furthermore, my worth in life is not defined by whether I gain the approval of David Allen at DU and am "allowed" to post on his website. Your #3- You criticize my "one unanswered email" which I provided. As the email relates internally there were two prior emails to the one I provided that went unanswered, and one private message that did not draw a response. BTW I have yet to receive any kind of response or explanation from any of these inquiries. Since my posting privileges at DU were suspended, I have found many others who were "banned" from that site and treated similarly -- some even appear in this discussion above. Your #4- I disagree with your premise that " People are used to looking at the page history" since most "people" are not editors who pull up this entry and are likely not to research the history of this entry's modification. I suspect you are well aware of this fact, and that is your motivation for making reverts almost immediately to prevent others from reading the factual information you would rather not be disclosed. Conclusion - I want to thank you for your response. Initially, I was concerned about who you might be when you left the one line grammatically incorrect capsule message in the edit summary -and did not provide any further explanation on this page for your actions. I was wondering, "Could this be George Bush?". But then I reasoned, he would have to have access to a computer, know how to revert a page, and actually read my edits... so no way! He has too much brush to clear to be concerned about little 'ol me. I have taken your comments to be constructive in nature for the good of providing an accurate "democratic underground" entry(you did mean them that way, did you not?) and have modified my edits to be added to this entry. Let me know what you think, and if there is any portion of my edits which merit inclusion. Let the merciless editing begin!

BTW now that I am a registered member here, I intend to be a participating member of Wikipedia and will add to entries where I believe I have useful information to add. This entry caught my attention first! Have a nice day!JFKer 15:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Point of clarification. According to the history log, the one line grammatically incorrect capsule message in the edit summary should be attributed to Gamaliel, even though it was referenced by JamesMLane. Since my last post was addressed to JamesMLane, I felt I needed to make this clarification.JFKer 16:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The entire addition is based on your personal experience at DU and your correspondence to the admins. That doesn't pass muster under Verifiability.  In particular, note this section.  Your basis for your edit is analogous to the lunch with the physicist.  What's verifiable, and already in the article, is that DU's stated policies include censorship.  People who are trying to find a completely uncensored forum will know from our article that DU isn't such a site.  JamesMLane 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You obviously live in a cave if you believe my post is based only on my "personal experience." I guess you would change your position about my edits if over 100 other DU posters appear and "verify" that they received similar administrative treatment. Right? You asked for proof and I offered it on a first hand basis.  If you want a propaganda piece rather than an accurate and factual based encyclopedic description, then by all means leave out any criticism from the DU community which is not necessarily partisan right or left in nature --but rather had the misfortune to ticked off some Administrator at DU and subsequently were banned. FYI this is not personal, but you can may characterize it as personal if you want. I just wonder what your angle is where you only want partisan criticism to be represented in the entry.  If you take the time to read David Allen's (skinner's) post today on changes he intends to implement, I think you will recognize some of my concerns appear in his list of items he says he will look into addressing.  Time will tell if he makes a serious stab at implementing any of the changes he surveys in his post.  However, until he does make those changes, he has verified many of the very practices I alleged here --so would that count as "verification" for you? If I characterize your basis for your edit as analogous to "lunch with a fool" would that really advance the purpose of discussion here?  I modified my edits to address your concerns, but rather than work to reach a compromise on acceptable language I notice you just reverted the page. Oh well, I guess if your conduct in this regard is typical of the Wikipedia community, with which you identified yourself as opposed to a newcomer, then persistence must be the most valued characteristic trait rather than accuracy in writing an entry.


 * You say that the "proof" you offered was "on a first hand basis". That's precisely the problem.  You attack a straw man by saying that I "only want partisan criticism".  I never said anything like that.  The issue isn't that you characterized your criticism as being from the middle.  If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that the issue is verifiability, which is missing when you rely on first-hand evidence.  So, no, 100 people showing up and asserting that they'd observed something wouldn't change my position, because it would still violate the policy.  (See also No original research.)


 * If you believe that something in a recent post by Skinner is notable about the nature of the site, that of course is different; quoting Skinner, with a link to his post, would meet the verifiability criterion. If you mean this post by Skinner, I'm not inclined to reference it.  He says, "Overall, we're feeling really good about the website and about the community as a whole."  Then he talks about some specific improvements that are possible, probable or almost certain.  It's nothing earth-shattering.  Still, if you want to write an addition to the Wikipedia article that quotes or accurately paraphrases Skinner, go ahead, and we can all take a look at it. JamesMLane 07:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh I see what you mean by verifiability -- it is better to find a hack media source or blog which quotes named and unnamed individuals as proof of the proposition before including it in your idea of an entry here. I guess there are rules, and then there are rules.  For example, I can see where it would be beneficial to have a rule that discourages a fellow editor from calling you an idiot, but there is and should be no prohibition against me thinking you are an idiot or that you are acting like one.  Further, under your approach I could include the fact of your idiocy here if I could find one or more media sources who agree with me -- because it would meet your definition of verifiability. The truth is that you do not want a perfectly accurate statement of fact to appear in this entry because you deem it to be critical of DU and what it stands for, and because criticism that is not partisan in nature is much more difficult to refute.  I am intrigued by the concept of a collaborative effort in writing encyclopedic entries, but until the directors of this site exercise some control over "gatekeepers" this project will never rise to its full potential.  Having worked with the media I can attest that just because something appears in print or is published online does not confer upon it some kind of special reliability, integrity or verifiability. (ie. See the Fox News Channel).  But if that is the standard here, so much to the discredit of this process.  And by the way, even though it is not acceptable under your interpretation of the rules at this site, first hand "eyewitness" testimony is still acceptable in a court of law under the Rules of Civil Procedure in place in every state and territory of the United States of America today.  And media editors who still adhere to journalistic standards still fact check stories before they are printed or published, and they look more kindly upon first hand "eyewitness" statements than referenced accounts from other published news media sources. What I included in my edits does not fit the definition of "original research" since I did not seek to create the research but rather had a front row seat as an eyewitness to exactly how things are done at DU. One thing I have learned in this experience with Wikipedia is that some editors, like yourself, obviously believe that perserverance makes right.  As long as you have an internet connection and the time of day, I guess you will remove my edits and perserve your own.  It does not make you or the current version of this entry right.JFKer 01:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC) JFKer


 * The way we try to achieve fairness on controversial topices is to have policies of general applicability, to which all articles should conform regardless of the subject's ideology. I referred you to the official Wikipedia policy on verifiability.  If you disagree with that policy, you should post a proposed change at Village pump (policy), with a link at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.  That's how you could start the process of asking the community to consider a change.  Until it's changed, criticisms that are unacceptable under that policy should be removed from this article, from Free Republic, and from any other article where they're found.


 * There are good reasons for the policy. You're right that something isn't guaranteed to be true just because it's on Fox, but it's verifiable in the sense that anyone else can verify that the cited page on the Fox website does indeed contain the assertion in question.  Verifiability isn't our only criterion, though.  For example, the National Enquirer recently reported that Bush had started drinking again.  Alcohol abuse is sufficiently important in Bush's life that, if he has gone off the wagon, that fact should be in his article.  Nevertheless, as long as the only source for the statement is one held in such low regard, most of us editing the Bush article believe that it's not worth inclusion.


 * Some of your arguments serve to illustrate why we have the policy. First-hand testimony is accepted in court, provided that the witness is present in court and can be cross-examined.  Media editors approve of eyewitness statements, but, even though the statements are conveyed by trusted reporters who've been screened, they still do fact-checking.  Wikipedia has no apparatus for cross-examination, we can't distinguish trusted reporters from incompetents or deliberate liars, and we can't do fact-checking unless the statement meets the verifiability criterion.  The nature of the project requires that we rely only on publicly available sources (at least for controversial matters).


 * I offer my thoughts in defense of the current policy just to illustrate that it's not completely arbitrary. As I said above, this page isn't the place for a debate about it.  All that's relevant here is to make sure that the DU article conforms to the policy as it's currently written. JamesMLane 07:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, this is all very simple. We have some fundamental policies here like No original research, Verifiability, and Cite your sources. You cannot argue your way into an exception to these policies. If these practices are as widespread as you describe it should be simple enough to find sources to document your claims. Everything else is just a distraction from this core issue. Gamaliel 20:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Manipulating Polls
I would like to know why a manipulating polls section is on the free republic but not on this page, and why someone keeps taking it off, if your going to take the manipulating polls section then you should take it off the free republic page


 * It wasn't removed, it was moved. If you look at the edit by which I removed it, you'll see that, as per Wikipedia custom, I explained the reasoning in the edit summary. JamesMLane 20:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Manipulating polls is common enough that it deserves a separate headline. It is a separate headline in the Free Republic section. Tbeatty 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The FR article is organized differently. DU has multiple significant components besides the forums, so that's how this article is organized.  It woudn't make sense to set up one forum aspect as being parallel with the columns, Demopedia, etc.  Also, only a small minority of posts are calls to "DU this poll".  I don't see any need to break it out, but, to try to accommodate you, I'll make it a subhead within the "Forums" section. JamesMLane t c 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia articles are organized differently. But I think both sites offer about the same amount of diverse compenents that appeal to their respective audiences.  It's a sub-head in the FR article now so I think it's a fair comparison.  They both seem to have about the same amount of "Freep/DU this poll" with about the same effect. Tbeatty 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The information on criticism of the practice should remain. I will not put it back in for now pending any points people wish to make on the subject. Here's the paragraph I wrote that has been taken out: "Some conservative critics of DU suspect that one or more DU members vote more than once. There is evidence of this as some polls gain hundreds or thousands of votes for the liberal viewpoint in a short amount of time - many more votes than DU members who have reported they have voted and sometimes more votes than there are active DU members." --Jinxmchue 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should it remain? I removed the same criticism that was leveled on Free Republic.  There is no evidence that it happens.  There is nothing wrong with it if it did happen and most polls protect against it if they can.  It is simply enough to say they are non-scientific polls and DU attempts to manipulate them.  Is it somehow okay to vote "en masse" with the same intent as multiple voting?  The ultimate goal is to unduly influence the poll and that aspect was covered.  Tbeatty 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Current Cycle of Vandalism
When you revert vandalism please remember to put the warning templates in the user's or IP's talk page. This way we can document the number of vandalism attempts and get that user or IP address blocked. BenBurch 16:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess we can take Bush's cue: Fight the terrorists (er, vandals) here, so we don't have to fight them in other articles.  :) &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 17:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And the fascism of the DU expands onto Wikipedia. "Oh noes, somebody disagrees with us!  Let's get them banned!"  I suggest you learn to live with criticism, because you're highly worthy of it.  I have no intention of editing this article; I'm simply telling you that I find your domineering behavior reprehensible.  Rogue 9 02:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Any examples of domineering behavior? Anyway, it's Free Republic that's fascist and doesn't allow dissent--everybody knows they tombstone people left and right for stepping out of line with the Busheviks. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * the DU is the definition of fascism, no dissenting opinion is allowed at the DU at all, I got banned for simply saying communism doesnt work, anyone slightly to the middle or to the right of the moderators opinions at the DU are swiftly banned, so much for a "liberal" and "progressive" site


 * Thanks for trolling. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 19:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Tu quoque argument, Stevie. I'm not here to defend the Freepers. Saying "Well they do it too!" doesn't excuse the DU. As for examples, let's try my own banning. All the posts, of course, were deleted, because that's simply what you do to bannees, but I was gone by my fifth post for pointing out that Charlie Rangel's last draft bill was soundly defeated, it's own sponsor didn't vote for it, and the prospects for one actually passing anytime soon are slim to none. I suppose my mistake was pointing out that it was Rangel that did it; can't have it pointed out that a Democrat wanted the draft back, after all. Oh no, can't smear anyone who doesn't have a nice little (R) next to their name. Rogue 9 06:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually Free Republic isn't as heavy-handed as DU, and that's because FR doesn't have numerous moderators having the ability to tombstone anybody who doesn't toe the line.

I got banned simply for having a different opinion than most on the site regarding Plamegate, which I don't think is the be-all end-all of the administration. My liberal credentials stack up to anybody's there. But that was too much for the moderators and their flaks to handle.

As I said above, if there were only a handful of moderators running the site, and the alert button eliminated, it would be a more normal discussion board rather than the laughingstock that it is.

Introduction, Liberal, Progressive
As others have noted, the intro describes the DU as a "liberal/progressive" online community, but also correctly states participation is limited on the basis of ideology (within certain limits) - calling into question the accuracy of those labels, which are typically supportive of broad intellectual freedom and individual rights. Can we consider this formulation for the introduction, which sticks to the objective facts and avoids a POV debate about this issue?:

Democratic Underground, or "DU", describes itself as "an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office." It was established on January 20, 2001, the day President George W. Bush was inaugurated.

i.e., on the basis of its rules, the DU is more of a "community of liberal/progressives" than a "liberal/progressive community," if you see what I'm saying. But even if you disagree with my point of view, isn't it more neutral POV to delete the disputed adjectives and state what DU objectively is, (1) an online community that (2) defines itself in the following way? Kaisershatner 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of DU
It's not encyclopedic to sift through the many posts on DU, find one you don't like, and quote it, while adding an unsourced assertion that DU has often been criticized for such posts. The anon wrote, "It does not need to be written somewhere on the internet to be valid criticism. Example comments were provided to prove it is valid crticism." I didn't say that it needed to be on the Internet. Here's what Wikipedia policy says:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

On that basis, I again delete your addition while repeating my previous comment: "if you claim it's a common criticism, pls provide citations to examples from *notable* sources (not FR or right-wing blogs)". JamesMLane 09:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think anti-American critism should be included, but because you don't agree, I will just leave it here for the time being.


 * Democratic Underground is accused of being anti-American due in part to comments from members that explicitly say they are. Comments such as I hate America and They're right, I DO hate America are not infrequent at Democratic Underground.


 * Both of these comments are more accurately summarized as "I hate what America has become", not "I hate America". I think most people on DU would agree that they dislike the conservative government but still have faith in America as an ideal. It's a misrepresentation of most opinions on DU to say that DU members explicitly say they hate America. Rhobite 04:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the foregoing unsigned comment by Rhobite. Also, given that DU has literally millions of posts, posts of this type can't be called "not infrequent" regardless of how they're interpreted. JamesMLane 09:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'I hate America' posts are only one aspect of the anti-Americanism at DU. More could easily be added such as praise for everyone anti-American (e.g. Hugo Chavez) and hope that most everything American fails.  If more is added to this section would everyone agree that it should be added to the criticism section, or are people just opposed because it reflects poorly on DU.  I have a feeling most people that edit this page are from DU and don't want anything that actually critisies DU added.  That is the impression one gets when they read the DU page.


 * The article contains criticism of DU that's properly sourced. It's not that people don't want anything critical of DU; it's that you want to assume your ideas are right and should be propagated in the Wikipedia article.  To take your Chavez example, most DU members would probably believe that Bush, in supporting the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government, was being far more anti-American than anything Chavez himself has said.  That's just one illustration of how DU members would dispute your characterization of their position as "anti-American". JamesMLane t c 11:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Their counter argument to Hugo Chavez is anti-American is to call Bush more anti-American? What an aweful argument.  Blaming Bush for everything or calling him worse than someone else is not a good argument, but it would make an interesting topic on their wikipedia page.


 * No, you have misunderstood their argument about Bush, and my argument about the article content. As to the latter, you should read WP:NPOV.  Arguing back-and-forth about whether DU members are right to revile Bush would not be an appropriate topic for this article. JamesMLane t c 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never posted to DU. Rhobite 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole criticism section reads like the poster child for "Weasel Words." IT needs to be rewritten or sourced. --Tbeatty 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Especially the last paragraph is unecessarily bloated. How about this shortened version: "Other critics, including supporters of right-wing politics, charge that there is irony in DU's claim to stand for progressive and liberal ideals while enforcing limitations on ideological diversity and freedom of speech."

Everything else is useless blather, either not verifiable or self-evident.

84.178.175.61 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the link deletion...
Next time, I'll remember to read the discussion page. Don't worry; won't happen again. 130.184.237.233 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's always difficult to wade into controversial articles that have a long history of edit warfare, err, "heated discussion".


 * Atlant 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (I'm also 130.184.237.233; I'm just logged in now!) :)

Criticism of the article
My criticism of the article is that it reads like a vanity page. The topic of DU is worth a wiki article because it is a controversal and that controversy is worth documenting. However, I don't think anyone is done a service by the current article. DU is a subculture, and follows a broader trend of subcultures moving from a local identification (Philly "Punks" in the 1980s, or California 'Sk8r' culture) to an online ideological subculture, in our wired world. But this article isn't objective at all, as it reads like someone from DU wrote it, as evidenced by everything from the language used to the topic catagories. What's interesting about DU isn't that they invented "tombstoning" or they are some modern big-tent liberal community, it's how they developed as a backlash to a percieved Republican menance and this symbiotic relationship between their moods and what's going on in the news. That is, DU seems to be a subculture where the members are hyper-sensitive to what goes on in the world... sort of anti-nihilists. I'd really like a rewrite from an objective, unbiased source. M00 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article is pretty well-balanced as it stands, and I note that in the past, you've called for the deletion of the The White Rose Society page as well.


 * Atlant 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have. What's your point? Not to be blunt, but I see no place for vanity articles on wikipedia. If you disagree, that's fine... why there are votes on such things. M00 00:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To be more clear, Atlant... here are a list of quotes from the article that I feel indicate a bias and evidence of vanityism:

The DU Forums are a highly active scene for political discussions by "Democrats and other progressives".

Like other communities, DU has its in-jokes. New members are often confused by DU vocabulary, usually referencing pop culture ("this thread needs more cowbell") and deficient spelling skills of conservative trolls (such as "cazy," "moran," and "noble jesters").

DUers are active in U.S. politics in many ways. Many of them attend political protests and rallies, volunteer for campaigns, and write letters to editors of newspapers and members of Congress.

One of the newest ways in which DUers are involved is called the DU Activist Corps. Founded on July 1, 2005, the Activist Corps is a group of over 1,000 DUers who are committed to taking action on a certain issue whenever an official Activist Corps activity is posted.

Some DUers have run for, and have even been elected to, political offices as high as Congress. Examples of these include:

Several notable figures have posted in the forums at some point. Among those who have been verified as not being hoaxes are: ... William Rivers Pitt, liberal activist, author, and former managing editor of Truthout.org.

To me, these all smack of vanity. The article is littered with them.


 * I see nothing wrong with any of the examples you give. As for the assertion that DU members are "anti-nihilists", that's obviously opinion, not fact.  We could report the opinion if it were attributed to a prominent spokesperson and if the criticism merited inclusion in an encyclopedia article about the site.  (I mention "encyclopedia article" because of course we can't include every favorable or unfavorable opinion about DU that we could find out there.) JamesMLane t c 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To pick one at random, you see nothing wrong with and deficient spelling skills of conservative trolls (such as "cazy," "moran," and "noble jesters"). How is that in any way an NPOV? Or howabout DUers are active in U.S. politics in many ways. Many of them attend political protests and rallies, volunteer for campaigns, and write letters to editors of newspapers and members of Congress.? Explain to me how this is not self-aggrandizement? If the article endeavours to be encyclopedic, it fails horribly. It is however a great advertisement. M00 08:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, the rules of the game here actually do allow positive statements, even about liberal organizations. Really, there's nothing wrong with the statements you've cited.


 * Atlant 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, why do "positive statements" belong in an encylopedia? So you think wiki articles should NOT have an NPOV then? And besides which, the quotes aren't merely positive, it's self-serving tripe. M00 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the rules. The rules allow for facts stated in a NPOV.  I have to agree with M00.  The article does read like an advertisement.  --Tbeatty 05:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

democratic underground can best be summed up by saying it is neither democratic nor particularly underground. a full staff of right-centrists who identify themselves by turn as progressives and leftwing, are there to enforce the pro dicta whims and fears of site developer, david allen. fortunately, for those who must hold both their noses and their tongues while crafting their somewhat more reserved views than they would opine at say, an 'open' message forum, and be near daily witnesses to the censorship of those unwitting fools who thought that du was one of those rare 'open' sites and who could imagine a site that actually has the audacity to call itself democratic AND underground, all in one catchy title, and then censor, while concurrently demeaning the offending posters, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 times a day? that's a lot of banning, censoring and demeaning in one day's time, and guess what compadres and commadres, it happens more to progressive and truly left wing posters than it does to the average republican infiltrator and definately more than it does to any of the regular republican infiltrators there. david allen has three hard and fast rules for his mods to enforce with an iron fist: 1)criticism of 'the troops' is, without exception, strictly prohibited. of course, this allows the omission of all kinds of edfying debate about troop-led massacres in iraq and afhanistan, and how that jibes with notions of personal responsibility during undeclared war time. perhaps allen is just a sucker for a man in uniform, but it makes more sense to say that he's appeasing a rather vocal minority of current enlisted personnel and veterans, you know, the 'hate the war, love the order follower' crowd that allen faithfully takes money from in exchange for maintainting their posting privelages. and that, sadly enough for true believers, sums up du, too. 2) say anything you want about israel, just don't say it unless it's couched in euphamisms and baby talk. there's another influential block of members who cluster around and flame posts they construe as anti-israel. am i detecting a similarity between the two most influential member blocks at du? that somehow both share the same motivation for paying an internet site operator big bucks for the dybious honor of posting to said website? is the world crazy? i say guilty as charged- at least for the two groups in question, the troops and vets, and jewish zionists. and the shared motivation? why, that would be guilt and shame- for the soldiers and ex-soldiers, the atrocities our armies have committed in it's history and our name, and for the jewish kids coming to du who try to apply a progressive spin to the crimes israel commits against arab inhabitants in arab territory. (more later) 03:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand DU. Being a progressive forum is only part of it.  The other part is electing Democrats.  They are not an open forum to represent views that will not get Democrats elected.  Currently the belief is that criticizing the troops or opposing Israel will be a death knell for any Democrat candidate.  Anyone who criticized Kerry during the election (after the primary) would be shut down.  A post that was perfectly fine before the primary was not acceptable after.  It is not a veteran/zionist conspiracy.  Nor is it run by right-wing/centrists.  It is run by leftists that realize that 90% of the population is to the right of the average DU poster and they don't want to lose elections or piss off voters because of it.   No candidate will win an election running on the "Troops are baby killers" platform and DU doesn't jeopardize their chances by giving the opponents the opportunity to quote them.--Tbeatty 05:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

the previous poster outlines two reasons why he thinks censorship and banning are acceptable if done for the political expediency of a specific political constituency, ie., those who support and never question the conduct of 'the troops', individually or collectively, and the very visible member block refered to often as zionists or as i prefer calling them, israelists. except the previous poster errs when he attributes the censorship and the other undemocratic admin practices to allen's and his followers' desire not to stain potential democratic office seekers with anti-troop and anti-israeli comments made by members of democratic undergrouhnd. well, nothing could be further from the truth. does anyone really believe a website with a rather limited readership and postership is going to spell dire trouble for a democratic politician just because the two happen to share the word democratic in their respective titles? no, of course not. again, a more likely explanation for the decidely undemocratic nature of the decidely undemocratic mainstream underground is the desire to protect the tender sensinbilites of du's largest dollar donars, the previously mentioned member blocks, the israelists and their au currant ideological soulmates, the vets and active duty military personel, both groups, not incidentally, that advocate the use of physical force to move foreign and mostly undefended peoples in a way convivial to their own common- and shielded from public view- interests. so, david allen gets his money and his two main financial contributors get their say, unimpeded for the most part by those du members foolish enough to think their more paltry bribes earn them the same rights. money scams are far and wide on the internet, and politically oriented sites comprise a good many of them. democratic underground is one such site and to ascribe motives such as leftwing or rightwing to it misses the point. it is a 'donar' site and as such cares not about this political view or that social concern, but rather to it's rather bottomless bottom line. it follows then that it's not what a du member says or doesn't say, it's whether he says it with a wad of bills in his oustretched hand- as the militarists and israeli-firsters do- or a laughably smaller sum. guess who david allen's vaunted posting policies will favor, then? that's right. it's a donar site, after all. and a rather common and dreary one, at that. -st just 14:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't characterize what I said into more than what was stated. I did not condone or condemn any particular tactic by DU, nor is that the place of an encyclopedia.  I merely stated what it is.  I have criticized this article for being too much like an advertisement but I fail to see how your claims are supported either.  --Tbeatty 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this talk page isn't to help people decide whether to join DU, or to determine whether David Allen will go to heaven when he dies, or anything of that sort. The purpose is to improve Wikipedia's article about DU. Our article would not adopt one opinion or another about whether DU's rules are a good way to elect Democrats or to keep the donations flowing. Therefore, debating questions like that on this page is really a waste of time. JamesMLane t c 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

to exclude references to practices that are arguably unethical on the part of du's owner and associates is to do so at the peril of your encyclopedia's credibility. is there a game afoot? -st just &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk &bull; Special:Contributions/contribs) 09:35, 6 March 2006  (UTC)


 * No, not a game, just an attempt to build an encyclopedia according to certain standards of general applicability. See WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V for further information. JamesMLane t c 10:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

encyclopedias should have plural viewpoints rather than the monolithicly- and largely mythical- neutral favored by nu-historians -st just


 * Unfortunately (for you, at least), that is explicitly NOT the approach that we are directed to take in composing Wiki articles. Articles are not to fork so that we have, for example, an article or subarticle acceptable to Isrealis and an article or sub-article acceptable to Palestinians. Instead, we must strive to have a single article that comes as close to factual accuracy as humanly possible.


 * Please be sure to read the citations provided above by JamesMLane.


 * Atlant 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

well, i wasn't proposing anything of the sort of what you outlined in your rules reference above. i was merely recommending the inclusion of the deposable allegations of membership abuse at du by it's owner and managers. any neutral observer will tell you the claims have merit. -st just 13:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I was merely responding to the words you used (encyclopedias should have plural viewpoints). Perhaps you meant something different. (I notice you have a lot of trouble with spelling and grammar; is English your first language?)


 * Atlant 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

you're not making sense. i know what my words were and what they meant, also got the spelling, grammar, and punctuation right. why repeat them to me and then lie? and to descend to personal insult so early in an acquaintance? are you sure you're ethically competent to edit an encyclopedia? or a tub of mud, for that matter? you don't seem to have the proper disposition for either. or is this to be the encyclopedia built by people who bray reckless words with the intent to distract from a du-oriented agenda? if so, i leave you to your joke. and hey, you sound like a du cultist. just sayin'... -st just 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't descend to personal insult; I simply asked you if your first langauge was English, because I assure you that, your declamations to the contrary, you don't speak our language well. Rather, you speak it just like someone who would be happier at the Free Republic web site, and I wanted to assure myself that you weren't one of those folks. But your response remains exactly in the mode of their posters, so maybe my intuition wasn't so far off, ehh? (Hint: The possessive form of "it" is "its". "It's" (with that pesky apostrophe) is a contraction of "it is".)


 * By the way, I'm pretty far from a "du cultist"; I'm one of the many folks banned by Skinner for being a thorn in his side.


 * Atlant 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

well bully for us, then. so you shouldn't have any problem with what i have to say. and, i, shouldn't have any problem from your end if you decide to refrain with the lame sophmorisms. but first, why the flaming distractions in the first place? those are the responses of somebody who is afraid of something. is it losing your place in the pecking order of this website/project? that's usually the case on an internet message board when aims and agendas aren't fully revealed. and, that's what my intuition and experience tell me about you. so, we're left with the same questions i posed earlier with the same more or less confirmed claims of unethical treatment by the owner and associates of democratic underground towards their membership still hanging. now, if you can focus on just that for a moment, you may give your opinion as to whether these widespread claims' have enough merit to allow the charges to be considered for inclusion in the encyclopedia. and then, when you're done, others may give their opinions, as well. by your leige. p.s. and don't play wordgames with me. you'll never win, and it wastes my time. -st just 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you blathering on about? The article already discusses the fact that DU Bans folks on both the left and the right. Exactly what unethical treatment are you alleging (and that we don't already cover in this article)? (By the way, 1) unless you're E. E. Cummings, you'll find the shift key at either side of your keyboard and 2) it's "sophOmorism".)


 * Atlant 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

can't do it can you? just can't offer discourse at a level higher than you've demonstrated with me and probably others. can't or won't read for comprehension either. my ideas for inclusion in the encyclopedia are offered above and dare say will be offered again, but not for your benefit. now either address my points, which you've mischaracterized in the previous post or, redirect your juvenial paranoia and attempts at wit at someone who really wants to play junior high with you. i don't always know where boobs come from, but i'm certainly beginning to think the internet is their prime destination. -st just 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, everybody let's just dial it back a notch. Please stop arguing about personalities and let's get back to discussing specific proposals for changes to the article. Gamaliel 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

thank-you. my proposal is to change the article to reflect the many complaints du receives and certainly hears about regarding their unethical treatment of member posters who stray too far from or who offer earnest and incisive challenges to the pro-troop/military, pro-israelist orthodoxy of du's highest dollar donars. did i say unethical? it smacks of a shakedown and allen and associates know the game. observe their efforts here to thwart a search for the truth. -st just 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article should reflect documented criticisms from notable sources. If you provide some of these we can evaluate them for inclusion in the article. Gamaliel 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Name the "unethical" treatment
Okay put your ducats where your mouth is.

Name, in a nice simple list that we can all evaluate, the "unethical" treatment you want documented in the article.

Atlant 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * already listed, distraction-meister. last missive from me to you until you display some manners and reading comprehension. you're not really up to the task, are you? it shows and that's what really has your 'testines in a twist. -st just 21:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's enough. This stops right now or I start issuing time outs in the form of blocks. Gamaliel 21:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

David L. Wolper
I hope I'm commenting in the proper spot, but you guys should add filmmaker David L. Wolper to the list of notable DUers. His screen name is dwolper (if he hasn't been banned yet for being too clearheaded, the moonbats users don't even realize who he is, and attack him whenever he posts, because he is a moderate Dem. They think he is a "freeper troll".) Anyway, he is probably the MOST notable DUer in existence, if you go by accomplishments. And on that note, I have to object to Will Pitt being listed as a notable. He's a nobody. Crockspot 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Moonbats"? Pretty immature here. I deleted this talk section the other day because it functioned solely as a troll attack, IMO (and we know that this user has long had an axe to grind with the DU website and it's users, since he can't post there. Can we have some constructive criticism here without the childlike name-calling? If you want to get into flamewars with DU users (which is obviously what you seem to live for), please take it somewhere else besides Wikipedia. This isn't a beer hall brawl. The internet is a very big place, with lots of websites and message boards for this type of thing. Or better yet, I suggest you take a walk outside and breath some fresh air. It might relax you a little. I'm all for keeping the discussion civil. --Fightingirish 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have taken your comment to heart, and adjusted my comment. I posted that some time back, before I was registered here, and recently signed it with my registered username. The edit summary should reflect that. I would suggest you take a look at my edit history before you pass judgement on my value as a Wiki editor. Yes, I am a conservative, but I have made more than a couple of positive contributions to Wikipedia beyond arguing with users such as User:BenBurch. In fact, I would stack my edit history against his any day of the week. And FYI, I can post on DU, just not under this username, and not expressing a conservative POV. I will copy this reply to your talk page. Crockspot 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

William Pitt

 * We have an article about William Rivers Pitt, and an attempt to delete it on grounds of alleged non-notabiity failed (see AfD discussion here). On that basis, he should be listed in this article. As for Wolper, he's certainly notable (though his current Wikipedia article is a truly miserable stub). The DU user profile for "DWolper" is consistent with its being the same person. Can you provide a reference confirming that it's the same? Wikipedia has a User:Hilary Duff that most of us think is not the real Hilary Duff (as an example). JamesMLane t c 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no verifiable sources, but I have spoken with several people online who communicated with the dwolper user via private message, and they were sure it was him. He has never announced that he is David L. Wolper on Democratic Underground, so it is unlikely that he is a poser. But I see that he is now listed, so perhaps someone else was able to verify. Crockspot 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but Pitt IS a nobody in the grand scheme of things. He has NEVER published anything of note in a mainstream publication; ALL of his work has been in online outfits that are on the fringe. His name should have been deleted from Wikipedia.

The rule of Wikipedia should be this: If a person is notable enough to merit inclusion in a conventional encyclopedia, then he or she should be included. Just because Pitt has a cult following among members of Democratic Underground doesn't mean he deserves any mention here. David Wolper, however, DOES deserve mention. He IS famous, something Pitt is not.--SN


 * See my comment above. The precise question of Pitt's notability has been considered by this community. Some agreed with you, but more than twice as many people deemed him notable.  Therefore, the wikilink should stay.  Incidentally, even aside from Pitt's case, your proposed "rule of Wikipedia" would encounter opposition from many Wikipedians, including me.  As our axiom has it, Wikipedia is not paper.  We have almost ten times as many articles as Britannica because our format enables us to provide information on many, many more subjects than a conventional encylopedia. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Three books listed on Amazon is pretty good for "notability", don'tcha think?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=William%20Rivers%20Pitt&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank

Atlant 18:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Snivi Yllom
A recent anonymous editor added Snivi Yllom/Molly Ivins as a notable member. Does anyone have any proof that Snivi Yllom is Molly Ivins (such as a claim by member Snivi)?

Atlant 18:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An editor has removing this claim, stating that Snivi Yllom is based in New York City while Molly Ivins is (obviously) based in Texas. I guess that settles this one for now.

Atlant 16:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request source for criticism
This paragraph in the article recounts criticism from unnamed sources with no citation:
 * The administrators have directed the moderators to remove any attempts by members to discuss the site on the site and this is routinely done, occasionally resulting in the banning of members. Controversy has also arisen over allegations that the owners of Democratic Underground often favor their largest cash contributors during debates in the message forums. Critics point to the dominance of several member block constituencies that appear to wield undue influence on the direction DU's moderators take in resolving member disputes.

The first sentence, if true, ought to be supportable by a reference to something on the site. The rest of the paragraph is weasel wording. It should be removed unless we can see a citation that would enable us to judge which of these criticisms, if any, are advanced by prominent spokespersons. JamesMLane t c 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * James:


 * With regard to that first sentence (which I recently added about "no meta-discussions about DU permitted"), this is very well known among moderators (and former moderators, of which I am one). One very recent example appears here:


 * http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=739715&mesg_id=741196


 * This particular post simply got locked rather than vaporized, but posts that attempt to discuss DU are deleted very frequently, especially if they are critical of the moderators or administrators. The reason I was finally banned from DU was one too many posts criticizing the admin's kid-gloved handling of Pitt.


 * Meanwhile, here's what the DU extended rules say about meta-discussions:


 * http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html :


 * Questions about Democratic Underground policies should be emailed to the administrators. Discussion topics pertaining to specific enforcement actions by the moderators are categorically forbidden. Discussion topics relating to Democratic Underground policies, procedures, enforcement, etc., are sometimes permitted if they are respectful and not disruptive to the administration of the website. We reserve the right to lock or delete any such topics for any reason.


 * And you'll remember that the "Ask the Administrators" forum went through several generations of increasing lock-down (such as disallowing replies by the general public) before the Admins finally removed it entirely, substituting the worthless suggestion to E-mail them with one's concerns.


 * With regard to the second and third sentences (discussing non-enforcement against the big donors and the "cool kids"), I didn't write these. I have my suspicions that the "big time contributors" claim is true and certainly believe,based on my own experiences that the "cool kids" claim is true, but have no specific evidence to offer one way or the other so I'll let others defend those two points (or not).


 * Atlant 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

in this instance, i'll concur with the judgement of former du moderator, atlant, in both his inclusion of a fresh expository charge, directly preceeding the two i authored (as referenced in his post, above), and in his assessment that the two assertions following his are supportable by virtue of his recognition that they convey the 'ring of truth' in essence, a validation derived from his unique perspective as a former moderator at democratic underground.

my inside source at du has informed me that it would be impossible to reveal her name for another 7 days. it seems the admins are taking a hard look at the staff until they can figure out who's leaking, which is violative of the agreement all mods sign before assuming their duties. she conveys her regret, but says that when she can, she'll contribute what she knows to the wikipedia discussion.

i strongly propose no edits to atlant's or my text, allowing the weight of prior multiple allegations, supported by the testimony of wikipedia contributors, along with the inside knowledge, provided above, of a former du moderator, to sustain their credence until final codification arrives in the form of my source's promised revealing of her identity, and her direct testimony attesting to the the validity of the charges outlined through-out this discussion.St just 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
I requested that this page be semi-protected because of our repeated anon vandal.--RWR8189 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Progressive Independent"
This forum is not notable and does not merit a full paragraph description in this article.

That is why I have deleted it several times from this article over the past several weeks.

A short mention in the "external links" section could possibly be appropriate, but nothing else.

Despite personal attachments, every internet forum just is not relevent or notable, and that needs to be recognized.--RWR8189 11:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether Progressive Independent is notable enough for its own article doesn't resolve the question whether it's worth a mention here. (Of course, the form in which it's being added and re-added is clearly inappropriate.)  If it could be documented that there was a large-scale departure from DU, that would be a notable event to be mentioned in the DU article, even if PI were deemed non-notable. JamesMLane t c 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not explored whether or not this forum is notable enough for its own article in this setting.
 * Even if this forum is in fact a spinoff, it would be better placed in the "external links" section, it is a small to medium sized forum of which dozens could possibly be found.--RWR8189 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I referred to notability because you're looking at criteria that, IMO, are more relevant to the separate article than to the mention here. For this purpose, what's paramount is the relationship to DU.  Instead of an ext link, I was thinking about something along these lines: "In the fall of 2005, some DU members who considered DU too conservative started a competing site called Progressive Independent."  It would go in the first paragraph of the "Criticism" section, after the reference to the Dean supporters.


 * The trouble is that this split is worth mentioning in the article about DU only if it was significant in size. On that score we have at this point no information other than the comments from Zoraida, who, with his or her ranting and frivolous AfD, doesn't exactly inspire confidence. JamesMLane t c 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's rather hard to glean hard statistics (since so many people are anonymous on political fora and more than a few operate sock puppets), but it's pretty clear that DU has lost several large waves of people to other bulletin boards (in the great Green purge, the Dean purge, whatever prompted the formation of PI, and doubtless several other events). This, of course, is a fact of life in electronic communities: they frequently flourish at the beginning and then burn out (for a wide variety of reasons, some of which are described or alluded-to in the DU article). Based on a quick look-see at PI the other night, it certainly does seem to me as if a lot of (ex-)DUers are there, so I think the general topic of "people leaving DU" deserves mention, even if the (numerous) landing sites for the participants doesn't.


 * (It's a shame so many people on the Internet are afraid to reveal who they truly are. Maybe they're all really dogs? )


 * Atlant 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Underground
Delete since Democratic Underground is amusing itself by requesting that the entry for Progressive Indpendent be deleted. Already DU prevents mention of competing forums on their site. Are we going to tolerate their facism at Wiki also? Zoraida 12:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Outlandish" comments
edited to adhere to NPOV principles, namely that Wiki content should be "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".

As someone who actually has read the comments and discussions in question, I can attest to the fact that they were indeed highly speculative, but political and with factual content. Characterising them as "outlandish" would appear to be biased. It is not the task of Wiki authors to present themselves as people with a view, who feel the need to distance themselves from what they describe.

Regarding the DU administration's reaction and censorship at the time: it followed and not preceded the NYT article. It was was not necessarily caused by an impulse - however legitimate it may have been - to stop such discussions in principle. Such highly speculative articles and opinions are regularly tolerated up to this day, even though conferred to a special forum by the name of "September 11". A number of threads appear there regularly, with no connection to "September 11" at all, but sometimes with outlandish comments indeed (the latter being my personal evaluation which I would never put into a lexicon article).

So please, whoever you are, refrain from vandalizing these editions. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.178.166.2 (talk • contribs).


 * Perhaps you're talking to me; your post doesn't make it clear. In any case, I reverted your change for two reasons:


 * The text originally began with same word ("outlandish") as the header immediately above it. I rather liked "highly speculative" better, but in that case, you should also edit the header.
 * Claiming that Skinner (et al.) "censored" the outlandish and/or highly speculative posts is PoV. You could probably make the claim that he and his moderators "removed" them (assuming that they actually did), but "censored" is a loaded word, just dripping with PoV and should probably be avoided here.


 * By the way, you can easily sign your "talk" page postings by including four tildes { ~ ) after your post. When you press "Save page", these will be replaced by your username (or IP address) in a handy, Wikilinked form. A time stamp will also be included.


 * Atlant 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. I agree, it would make sense to change the header.

ad 2. I disagree. "Censor" is a loaded word only in the context of freedom of speech, which is not relevant for this - or any other - moderated discussion board. Quote from Merriam-Webster: "cen·sor·ing: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". Of course, the word has also more specific, historical connotations, as e. g. in (Merriam-Webster) "censor: one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful". But even (all of) these connotations seem to fit with the forum rules detailed here http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html. DU has even jokularly referred to themselves as a "no free speech" zone on occasion, see e. g. under the heading "Land of the Banned":

" ... If you are going to suspend someone for disagreeing with other users on certain issues then go ahead and post a big "NO FREE SPEECH HERE" logo on the web site.

DU RESPONDS:

>>> NO FREE SPEECH HERE <<<"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/mail/hatemail_26.html

DU moderators do not have to justify their decisions, they simply delete what they believe is against the rules. I assume they do this honestly, with no personal agenda or ill intent, but this could probably also be said of many public "censors" under authoritarian rule. Avoiding this word would appear to mollify and distract from what is going on rather than accurately describe the activity.

But if you insist to replace "censored" with "deleted" or "removed", I will not attempt to start an editing war.

84.178.166.2 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Thanks for your help with the tildes)


 * Both "outlandish" and "highly speculative" are POVs about the content of the posts. I've changed the passage to report objective, observable fact: that some posts reflect views held by only a few people.  (They might still be right, like the initial "outlandish" and "highly speculative" views about continental drift.)  In the header, I used "extreme", which has a negative connotation to some people, but I think it's a reasonable and neutral way of describing views held by a comparatively small group. JamesMLane t c 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's not an improvement. While I'm sure that DU adminstrators will appreciate it and maybe use it for a press release should the occasion arise, the reality of what happened and what is notable here gets completely lost in this latest edit. The discussion about the possibility of man-made reasons for earthquakes was inspired - among other things - by earlier discussions about the HAARP project - as described at Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp#The_HAARP.27s_critics. Such speculation is neither extreme nor is it particularly partisan. "Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories (...) are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." (former Secretary of Defense Cohen, DoD News Briefing April 28, 1997).

The single DU contribution picked up and out of context by the NYT is explained here: http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/866792.shtml. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "speculative views" about continental drift.

Your edit contains the value judgement "extreme". "Speculative" OTOH merely characterises the argument or question that was put forward. I fail to see how "speculative" in this context could be construed as being the expression of a POV.

You also re-edited the time sequence of the event. Why? Censoring all mentions of possible man-made reasons for earthquakes in various threads was clearly a reaction to the unfair media response, see e.g. this message of the frightened administrator: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2907807&mesg_id=2907807

I propose to rewrite the entire paragraph so as to reflect

1. that DU encourages open and lively discussion which sometimes leads to surprising contributions, rife with speculation and sometimes not well thought out theories,

2. that mainstream media tend to focus on the colorful and unusual, and are not particularly concerned with fairly representing message boards,

3. that message board owners have an interest, financially and otherwise, to not be painted as kooks and irresponsible fools in the public.

84.178.167.45 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (same as 84.178.166.2)


 * Some comments and clarifications:
 * I didn't mean to imply that continental drift had anything to do with the origins of the tsunami. I was pointing to the initial theory of continental drift as an example of a POV that could have been called "outlandish" when it was new.  I should've chosen a nongeological example that couldn't be confused with tsunami theories.
 * As I explained, I didn't intend "extreme" as a value judgment. There was a time in the U.S. when Abolitionism was an extreme view.  I think "speculative" is problematic because it implies that the view so characterized is less well grounded than the opposing view.  If you don't like "extreme", I'm open to any other wording that will convey the objective, verifiable fact: that a particular view is espoused by only a small minority.  "Non-mainstream", perhaps?
 * I have no knowledge about the chronology of the tsunami discussion. I didn't re-write to edit the time sequence; I simply went back to the last version that didn't use the word "censorship" and used that version as the basis for my edit.


 * As for the numbered points in your summary of your proposed rewrite:
 * Saying that "DU encourages" these discussions isn't exactly accurate. In the context of tsunami-conspiracy-theory posts or other posts pointed to as evidence of kookery, the key point is the one I added in my edit, that there's no preclearance requirement.  Therefore, unlike an edited website, the contents available on DU don't always reflect the views of its proprietors.
 * I agree with this conclusion but it is a conclusion. Our policy is to present the facts and, within limits, attributed opinions from notable spokespersons.  In this instance, we shouldn't endorse the opinion that the MSM ignore their duty to represent DU and other such sites fairly.  We can, however, report the facts of MSM coverage of this particular minor and unrepresentative thread.  We can also quote DU's criticism of the coverage.
 * Your third point doesn't seem like encyclopedic content. If you want to draft something along these lines, please bear in mind WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE.  I'm guessing that it would be pretty much impossible to add your third point without running afoul of one or more of those standards.


 * If you do decide to rewrite the entire paragraph, things will probably go much more smoothly if you post your proposed rewrite here on the talk page for comments, instead of immediately adding it to the article. JamesMLane t c 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As to your attempt to include "more detail about lack of impediments to 'kooky' posts":

"DU does not screen new members, and their posts appear immediately, with no preclearance requirement."

That is, of course, true, but a trivial comment. I don't know of ANY public message board on the Web that "screens" members or has a "preclearance requirement" for their messages.

"This sometimes leads to surprising contributions ..."

No it doesn't. It may be a reason that some contributions go undetected for a while, if and when moderators are out to get them. Which they were not in this case.

"... and comments that represent distinctly minority viewpoints, which provide targets for critics."

Again, it is not the lack of preclearance that leads to such comments. And how are "distinctly minority viewpoints" even relevant in the context of this paragraph?

Finally, even "minority viewpoints" or rather messages that resonate with a reporter on the lookout for a little sensationalism, or that simply sound a little weird ("bones of the earth") do not automatically "provide targets for critics". Even if it is a phenomenon often observed by sociologists - there needs to be a motive for bashing minority "views" and it should be mentioned.

Your argument that 1. no screening of new members and no preclearance requirement lead to 2. "kooky" messages that 3. automatically provide targets for criticism is one-sided, it is identical with the view of the DU forum administration.

A neutral description would not emphasise something that needs not be emphasised, and would not implicitly agree with and justify so-called "criticism" (which actually is a denunciation of an out-of-context quote) directed against theories or ideas or assumptions simply because they may be unusual or not regularly written about in the daily paper.

You said: "I think "speculative" is problematic because it implies that the view so characterized is less well grounded than the opposing view. ..." But the views in question WERE in fact not well-grounded. They were openly declared as speculative by their originators. And what the hell would be wrong with that?

Further, you say: "I'm open to any other wording that will convey the objective, verifiable fact: that a particular view is espoused by only a small minority."

That is not an objective, verifiable fact. What particular minority "view" are you talking about? The so-called "kooky Tsunami conspiracy theories" discussion was not about some "view". If you think it was, please provide verifiable proof.

84.178.138.208 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (same as 84.178.166.2 and 84.178.167.45)


 * I don't understand your point. The discussion was indeed about a view, the view that the tsunami was a LIHOP or MIHOP event rather than a completely natural one.  How is that not a "view"?  It's one opinion, even though most people would consider it crackpot.  I don't mean to imply that Wikipedia should assert that the view was false; that wouldn't be NPOV and would also be off-topic for this article. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this from? No, there was not a "view" discussed that the Tsunami was "LIHOP" or "MIHOP", the discussion was about whether earthquakes could possibly be triggered by man-made events. There was some speculation as to what such triggers may be, who might have an interest in doing something like that and so on. Some blockheads didn't get it and argued AGAINST any such possibilities, asserting with great conviction that earthquakes are caused by continental drift alone and nothing else, ever. Which is fair enough, but doesn't make speculation about other possibilities a "crackpot view". I cited above the DoD News Briefing of April 28, 1997, with former Secretary of Defense Cohen, who mentioned something Alvin Toeffler had written: a possible "eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." You may think that Toeffler and Cohen or others are crackpots for engaging in such highly speculative thinking, for assuming that such things may be feasible some day. But to assert that only "distinct" minorities would engage in such speculation is your very own, personal view, and entirely irrelevant here.

84.178.155.169 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that DU had a Seismology forum. But I am aware that it is a political site that spends over 99% of it's effort bashing the Bush administration.  Arguing that the discussion on a man-made Tsunami was done in the name of science is laughable.  It had one purpose and that was to specualte how the Bush Administration caused the Tsunami.  It was crackpot and was roundly dismissed by persons of all political stripes.  DU has a penchant for creating LIHOP/MIHOP theories for everything that happens.  Good or bad.   If it was good, Bush did it to create false goodwill or for some secret plan to stick it to the poor, if it was bad, Bush did it out of Evil or Stupidity.  It's fairly predictable.  Oh and when science rules out a direct role, it was the result of Global Warming. --Tbeatty 01:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If all our actions were motivated by a single, dominant purpose I'd have to agree. Such one-dimensional persons do exist, they are mostly the deluded so-called "conservatives" who never hesitate when their resident in the WH calls for additional killings and they applaud when he justifies torture and rape.


 * The discussions in question may not have taken place at DU if Gore had been president at the time, simply because DU's raison d'etre, the "big tent" anti-Bush coalition would not need to exist and DU would not have provided a forum for discussions at all. 84.178.179.239 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed this somewhat stilted reassurance: "Being that there are tens of thousands of users on the forum, discussions at DU can occasionally ..."

If someone thinks it's necessary to replace "sometimes" with "occasionally" - go ahead, I don't think it makes any difference.

But the insistance to somehow minimize and belittle the occurance of "unusual comments", if not outright dismiss them as "kookish", is the mark of the nitpicking square, rather than an accurate description. First: "that there are tens of thousands of users" in no way predicates or establishes the occurence of "unusal comments". Because a) These tens of thousands of "users" may just be reading posts instead of contributing them. And b) because the number of "registered" users may be misleading as to the number of contributors, anyway. Second: It would be rather boring if discussions would never be in any way surprising or unusual. I had deliberately chosen this neutral and unbiased way of putting it in order to avoid a value judgement about the posts in question. There is no need to "neutralise" it any further. The characterisation of the former edit as "removal of POV" must therefore be regarded as frivolous.

84.178.186.21 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with those edits. The policy/guideline you are describing is a form of weasel words.  Couching it in such a way is trying to lend authority to the belief that "kooky" statements are to be expected in a large group.  There is no external authority who has established that so this a false authority.  It's also passive voice which is a warning sign.   I would recommend that it be changed to active voice.  The sentence has been so neutralized as to miss the whole point.  "Whacky conspiracy theories are sometimes discussed on DU." would be my preferred warning.--Tbeatty 01:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The underlying POV problem is the amount of attention our article devotes to an extremely minor and unimportant part of DU. Tbeatty shows his POV with his statement, "DU has a penchant for creating LIHOP/MIHOP theories for everything that happens."  That's not accurate, simply because "DU" can't create anything except by action of the admins, who don't create such theories.  What DU does is to provide an open forum, which some people use to post LIHOP/MIHOP theories.  If we're going to discuss such theories in our article, we have to put them in perspective.  Otherwise, more than one reader will buy into Tbeatty's spin that such theories are being created by DU.  The fact is that DU posts are unrelentingly hostile toward Bush and his allies, but the vast majority of the posts don't relate to LIHOP/MIHOP theories. JamesMLane t c 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree again. The fact that some people will miss no opportunity to spread false information about political opponents is no reason to accomodate them. What you, oddly, label "LIHOP" "theories" etc. is not expression of a unified political or religious movement or faction, nor is it an easily identifiable, typical phenomenon which would occur spontaneously every so often, even if a political opponent may believe this is the case. The POV of Tbeatty is not expressed in the article. It is not relevant. There's no reason anyone would buy into his spin. It is self-evident that in all discussions you will find opinions, arguments and questions that do not necessarily represent a majority voice. Why on earth do you think this needs to be pointed out? How stupid do you think Wikipedia readers are? 84.178.179.239 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"External Links"
This link http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5 that was included in the External Links section leads to a "Invalid Forum specified" message at conservativeunderground.com. I edited it out because it's a non-working link.--greyleonard 07:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

DUmmieFUnnies I agree that it isn't satire, but is it really direct criticism of DU? I can't find any articles at the DUmmieFUnnies that are critical of the DU admin's editorials or columns, nor can I find any criticism of real DU policies. What I do find are references to a few DU member thread titles and some of their replies per week that are made fun of by the DUmmieFUnnies writer. Is the alexa ranking what deems it a notable external link?--greyleonard 07:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there even ONE Reliable Source on the "Dummie Funnies" inclusion? BenBurch 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, Ben... WP:RS applies to sources used for information in the main bodies of entries, not for external links. Please stop misusing the guidelines in order to squelch things that you personally don't like on Wiki. Jinxmchue 04:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, Jinxie... WP:EL *does* apply, and it says;


 * Links to normally avoid - Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)

Well, DUmmie Funnies does contain unverified original research. and this says that [WP:RS] in fact applies. And I can find no Reliable Source for any notability of that site. If you think it is a notable site, please feel free to create its own page here on Wiki. But I think the link has to go. BenBurch 05:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're still misusing the guidelines, Ben. Notice that the notability issue in that section has to do with being a proponent site - as opposed to opponent. DUFU is not a proponent site, so that part of WP:EL does not apply.  Furthermore, to say that DUFU contains "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" is an extreme stretch, to say the least.  The material on DUFU is factually accurate (unless you care to argue that people didn't really post those things on DU and other far-left sites) and it's not research per se. So, going through the WP:EL list of what to avoid, we have (1) not applicable, (2) n/a, (3) n/a, (4) n/a, (5) n/a, (6) n/a, (7) n/a, (8) n/a, (9) n/a, (10) n/a, and (11) n/a.  Now, (12) does refer to blogs, but it provides the following exception: "when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard."  Care to argue that DUFU is not at all about DU? Jinxmchue 08:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point Jinxie - Not a proponent article. But that means there is NO exception.  No exception, even for reliable sources is made for an opponent article.  This is an unacceptable external link.  You only want it in here for partisan political reasons BenBurch 13:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, knock it off, Ben. That point (#1) of "Links to normally avoid" is not applicable to the link in question. As I already showed, point #12 is applicable, but the site falls within the exception, so it can remain in the external links. You're twisting the guidelines and jumping through ridiculous, illogical hoops in order to justify the removal of this link. And Ben, I agreed to stick to WP:CIVIL on the last nomination page for WRS and I politely asked you to do the same. Perhaps you missed that. How long were you waiting for a chance to throw that "you only want it for partisan political reasons" line - a line directed at you many times recently (and quite accurately, I might add, judging from your DU posts about Wiki) - in my face anyway? Jinxmchue 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of this rule is totally incorrect, and your message board postings, recently called to my attention, about my Wikipedia edits are more than enough evidence of your intentions in this matter. BenBurch 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ben, I've tried to explain to you your misuse of the guidelines in question. WP:RS obviously refers to the sources cited for the information in the bodies of articles, not for external links related to the articles. I've tried to show that the DUFU blog meets WP:EL. Twice you've changed your arguments in the face of these facts. I suspect you simply cannot admit you are wrong, just as you couldn't admit you were wrong to nominate Protest Warrior's article for deletion. (Nice temper tantrum when you gave that up, btw.) And whatever "intentions" you are reading into my posts on Conservative Underground (funny how Skinner has you so whipped that you can't even mention the website here) are all in your head. I have simply shown my friends there what you are up to and expressed feelings that I have agreed not to express here. I've got nothing to hide from you or anyone else on Wiki. Here's the link to the most recent posts: .  Of course, your posts on DU about your activity here are far, far more damaging to you: ,. Vote trolling to keep the WSR page around and "having LOTS of fun with Wikipedia." Doesn't sound much like you're taking things seriously around here, Ben. Sounds like you might be in it just to annoy people whose political views differ from your own. Jinxmchue 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * DUmmie FUnnies quotes from a primary source, threads from Democratic Underground, and those threads are cited. I don't know how much more verification there can be.  It seems that you are just intent on censoring unfavorable material about DU.--RWR8189 05:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently, this pathetic blog rambles endlessly about Daily Kos, and a little about Truthout, but there is next to nothing from DU they cite (except the occasional external link, I counted one but may have overlooked a second or third). The Wiki article on Daily Kos has no external link to this site. Why is a link to an individual blogger needed when he doesn't even seem to talk about DU? At best he blathers on and on about certain topics that are also talked about at other sites. Seems totally irrelevant to me. 193.97.170.4 15:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Blog postings are not an acceptable primary source. I am not trying to censor anything here.  Provide some sources for this that comply with the reliable source exception to the external links guidelines, and the link goes back in.  Are there some non-trival press notices perhaps?  BenBurch 06:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ben, Ben, Ben. Again, "primary/reliable source" involves to the information in the body of the article, not the external links. A link to DUFU belongs in the external links section whether you like it or not.  Please end this silly crusade against material you personally don't want on Wiki. Jinxmchue 08:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Ben, make sure you mind the Three-revert rule.


 * Ben, you are clearly misusing your editing privelidges at Wikipedia for political purposes, and they should be revoked. (see AfD: ProtestWarrior). Crockspot 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So says somebody with a political agenda against me? I plan to ignore you.  BenBurch 13:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Ben, he's right. Your arguments for the removal of the DUmmie FUnnies link are specious at best. You are misusing and twisting the Wiki guidelines to justify your position and when you are called on it, you misuse and twist them even more. Whether you are doing this knowingly or not, I don't know. And at least twice now, you've changed your argument - first from citing WP:RS exclusively to citing WP:EL, and from claiming point #1 of ""Links to normally avoid" applies to agreeing that it does not apply. Jinxmchue 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you care to provide some evidence of this assertion? Or are you just going to leave this statement as a personal attack? Crockspot 17:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The collected body of your postings on the message boards you haunt more than back it up, an exercise left for readers with a tolerance for great boredom. But it wasn't meant as a personal attack, just an observation, and please forgive any offense.  BenBurch 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly as I thought. No evidence, only innuendo, as well as an outright lie (You DID mean it as a personal attack). You've really taken a beating lately, and it shows. Crockspot 18:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, be mean-spirited and don't accept the apology, then. I don't much care.  And "beaten up"?  My dear, I've had a lot of serious fun lately.  This is quick becoming my new hobby and my model railroad and the live steam locomotive building up in my workshop are gathering dust.  I have to monitor the computers here in the studio at all hours from 11 AM through midnight, and so this fills in the time when things are working properly quite nicely.  BenBurch 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he is still allowed to run amok merely lends credence to the already credible arguments that Wikipedia is run and administered primarily by leftists, who definitely do not have a NPOV agenda.

72.68.176.238 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a few folks here might want to familiarize themselves with WP:NPA; they seem to be "running amok" in violation of that policy.


 * Atlant 12:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack.

It's an ineluctable fact.

Burch is a frothing, partisan attack dog, who-like many "liberals"-attempts to suppress speech that he finds inconvenient.

Witness his attempts-some of them successful, unfortunately-to delete Wikipedia articles involving conservative websites.

This is a matter of public record, one that he has bragged about on his favorite, speech-suppression, leftbot hive, i.e. Democratic Underground.

This is just the latest illustration of why he can't be trusted to edit Wikipedia articles of a political nature.

I have no problem with allowing him to edit Pokemon entries, if he so desires.

72.68.173.75 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Burch is a frothing, partisan attack dog, who-like many "liberals"-attempts to suppress speech that he finds inconvenient.


 * Do we really need to find an administrator to explain to you what constitutes a "personal attack"?


 * Atlant 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would appear so Atlant. Also, what is your opinion on the external link so we can reach some consensus here? BenBurch 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth-and it's probably shared by a number of people who don't belong to the moonbat horde-is that you are in severe need of psychological help. 72.68.171.211

72.68.171.211 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson
I added Larry C. Johnson to the list of notable participants. The confirmation is in this DU post and on a different website; I think it's solid enough to go with. JamesMLane t c 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rove indictment story on truthout.org
i propose the following be added to william pitt's profile in the 'notoble members' section on the Article page. i implore all wikipedia contributors to read it and decide whether it is a contemporaneous account of actual current and recently past events surrounding the publication and subsequent debunking of an article that appeared in truthout, an internet blog. and whether it meets factual standards and is supported by all the currently known evidence. i am open to any changes if they meet the same standards. here's the proposed addition:

pitt, in his capacity as articles editor for the on-line blog, truthout, along with truthout writer-contributor, jason leopold and truthout publisher, marc ash, conspired to defraud truthout's readers with the publication of an article written by leopold to appear factual, but containing charges known by all three to be false. the article's main thesis contained the assertion that republican political operative and former whitehouse assistant chief of staff, karl rove, had been indicted by a federal grand jury for perjury (sic) and lying to investigators. within the span of one business day, the story was proven to be false. according to truthout, rove was indicted on may 12th, 2006 by a federal grand jury convened by Federal Prosecutor, patrick fitzgerald.

in the week that followed publication of the false report, leopold, pitt, and ash mounted an online defensive attack against critics who didn't believe truthout's rove indictment 'scoop'. following that, a number of increasingly implausible explanations were offered by the three to offset evidence put forth by the web’s blogger community; evidence that factually contridicted the article’s reporting.

at democratic underground, where pitt had enjoyed a minor following among it's conservatives members, respondents were intially divided over the veracity of leopold's truthout article and his and his truthout collaborators' online defenses of it.

one week following publication, and after it became clear the article's basic premise and related assertions were false, Truthout's publisher, marc ash, issued an apology to his readers on his website but minus either a plausible explanation or the necessary allocution. Here’s the link to Ash’s ‘apology’: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/19/162339/178 St just 00:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the material from the article because St just was proceeding from a false premise. William Pitt doesn't have a "profile" in this article.  He's profiled in the William Rivers Pitt article.  In this article, he has only a wikilink and a brief description, same as the other notable contributors.  (We could obviously find lots more to say about John Conyers if we were actually profiling him here.)  There's no reason for the article about DU to become cluttered with discussions about what Pitt allegedly did at truthout or what Conyers has done in Congress or any other such collateral material.  My edit summary for the removal noted that the controversy concerned a different website than the one this article is about; St just hasn't responded to that point.


 * Incidentally, the Rove indictment incident is already covered in the Pitt article. St just may not like that passage, because it doesn't accuse Pitt of conspiring to defraud anyone.  Such an accusation would obviously violate NPOV. JamesMLane t c 00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree with your point regarding placement of that information in that particlar section of the article. and only admit that my account of the pitt/truthout breach-of-trust violations may require a brief amount of time before the biases of doubters and du/truthout friends become apparent, yet again. by then i'll be looking for another spot in the article to put the info. St just 02:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The subject relates only very tangentially to DU. It was discussed on DU.  Well, so are lots of other things.  DU has seen much more discussion about election fraud than about this particular story.  Should the DU article include a lengthy presentation of the reasons to believe that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections?  I don't think so.  By the same token, I don't think there's any spot in this article where it would be appropriate to devote this much attention to the truthout story. JamesMLane t c 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

and i repeat: "...biases of doubters and du/truthout friends...". St just 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested that article be protected from further edits until dispute over DUmmie FUnnies link resolved
This as devolved into an edit war and we even now have sock puppets editting the link out (they are probably DU members here at the request of another DU member in order to circumvent the three-reverts rule). Request submitted on Requests for page protection. Jinxmchue 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Request was denied. I'll keep an eye on it and revert if I see it happen again BenBurch 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it wasn't exactly denied, but it wasn't fulfilled, either. Jinxmchue 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any other way to read what the admin put there. BenBurch 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not try just reading what it says instead of trying to infer a greater meaning to it? Jinxmchue 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Du Funnies
The blog in question gets no more than 5 or 6 replies daily. Most personal blogs get more replies than that. The only justification I've seen for its inclusion is that it is referenced on the Free REpublic forum and the threads it is referenced in get a lot of replies. That's the most disingenuous and fallacious argument I've ever seen on wiki. Every site or blog that deserves inclusion much reach the standards ITSELF. You do not reference the Free Republic threads discussing it in order to reference it. It would simply make more sense to link to the FR in some way that provides criticism.

This blog is incredibly small. It's not worthy of inclusion by any sensible standards. It's cut. You can't justify it by simply whining about supposed "censorship". Find another blog that criticizes DU and has a popular readership. Try Malkin. It doesn't have to focus exclusively on DU. This blog, regardless, does not make the cut. 5 replies on average? Give me a break.--69.249.195.232 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus Vote - Okay, then, lets try to find consensus here. Lets vote either include or exclude on this link.  24 hours from now I will count the votes from registered (non-IP) Wiki Editors with at least 100 contributions, and on the basis of that I shall assert consensus. BenBurch 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who died and made you king? This is a meaingless exercise on your part, Ben, and it's not how Wiki works. That's a good thing, since you yourself should know how easy it is to drum up sock puppet votes. Besides, in disputes like this, it's the moderators who get to decide these things. Jinxmchue 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Polling is a perfectly acceptable Wiki means of achieving consensus. If you have a huge issue with it, go post on the administrator's notice board and get an admin in here.  Also, YOU seem to be the only one posting on message boards to acquire meatpuppets at this point in time, Jinxie.  And I set the rules to keep IP posters and those who register just for this vote out of the count just so meats and socks won't be involved.  However, if consensus is that there is no means of achieving consensus, I'll just stop reverting the link when it inevitably gets removed, and leave that for you to do on a painfully regular basis.  BenBurch 15:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But polling is not an acceptable means as to determining what does and does not belong on Wiki. This should be painfully obvious to you due to your failed attempts to troll for votes on DU. If there is a conflict, a discussion is begun with both sides giving their arguments as to whether or not the material meets Wiki guidelines. As you've obviously failed to defend your position that DUFU does not belong in the external links, you've moved on to this silly exercise. I mean, seriously. How hard is it to get people to sign up, make 100 edits - however minor - and then come here and vote? As to your absurd accusation that I am acquiring sock puppets, prove it. Go to CU and search for my posts about Wiki. Show me where I have said anything there about people coming here to help me. You can't because it's not true. Even the evidence of the editting of the DU entry proves this, as the problem there is anonymous sock puppets editting out the DUFU link. I will refrain from saying what's on my mind now, since I still honor the agreement I made about following WP:CIVIL. Jinxmchue 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then please go ask an admin to check in here. If you LIKE I can make this a FORMAL poll as that mechanism exists.  But Wiki editorial issues are decided by informal straw polls all the time, Jinxie. We both are here and we need to learn to live together.  BenBurch 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * exclude - Reasons, tiny readership, not even marginally notable, contains original research. BenBurch 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * include for reasons previously discussed, however I do not recognize that you personally have any authority to declare consensus.--RWR8189 05:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * include It's an external link for crying out loud. It's not like we're talking about an entire article. I also do not recognize Burch's authoritas to declare consensus.Crockspot 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * additional comment - Your arbitrary cutoff of 100 contributions is also BS.Crockspot 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * include I love DU Funnies! Why would it not be included?  It's just as valid as anything else here.  It is laughable that someone would go to so much trouble to try to exclude DU Funnies.  It reeks of censorship.  User:Democratunderground


 * include Stop using this website as your own political platform.

72.68.162.27 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is a fruitless exercise on your part Burch, which will make it all the more amusing when you-once again-come out on the short end of the stick.

Please devote your time to a more productive exercise, such as shedding excess weight, or finding someone willing to visit your vanity website.

72.68.162.27 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Burch, it would appear you are the ONLY person who has a bug up his ass about this.

Why don't you quit while you're behind, and avoid a repeat of the self-inflicted humiliation that you experienced on the PW and WRS afd discussions?

You're the only person who's voted to excluded this noteworthy link.

72.68.162.27 21:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Several people now have questioned this being included. I merely called a poll to assess consensus.  Why do you have a problem with that?  BenBurch 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! "Several people" = mostly nameless sock puppets from DU. Jinxmchue 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * RESULT - I count one vote for and one vote against from editors who meet the stated seniority. Result is No Consensus. BenBurch 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote does not count, Einstein.

You are the one who suggested this absurd, frivolous exercise in the first place, in case it slipped that occluded mind of yours.

The fact that you are even allowed to edit any political entry-or links section thereof-after your recent escapades merely serves to reinforce my initial suspicions about who administers this site on a daily basis.

71.125.244.221 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the recent influx of sock puppets/trolls from DU whose only purpose is to edit out the link they personally don't like (but can't make coherent, factual, logical, rational, intelligent arguments against) only adds to the legitimacy of the DUFU link. Jinxmchue 07:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)