Talk:Mormon blogosphere

Links
I'm thinking that the links sections are growing too long. Wiki is an encyclopida, not a web-ring. My idea would be to keep us down to 5 or so links in each categroy, as it would give a reader more than enough resources to find out about the bloggernacle... the main sites have links to all the smaller sites anyway. Thoughts? --Measure 17:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, we could probably get away with making a page titled "List of Bloggernacle Blogs" and send the links there. I'll start the process, but wait to see if anyone has input on this before I move any links. --Measure 18:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds (if not thousands) of LDS blogs. It would be a very long list if one were to be compiled. It would also be necessary to regularly prune the list for defunct and new blogs. For this reason, I do not think a page of lists of members of the Bloggernacle should be maintained on Wikipedia. I am also somewhat opposed to providing links at all to members of the Bloggernacle outside of the very popular ones. Many of the solo ones listed for example are not prominent at all. Several of them I have not heard of. What criteria was sued to determine their prominence? I can also think of several group and solo blogs that have been around longer than any of the blogs listed, yet none of them are listed. I think we should get away from listing the blogs and perhaps link to third-party lists of bloggernacle members, such as http://www.ldsblogs.org/ or http://planet.kzion.com/ --Kmsiever 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So, do you think we should remove the link sections entirely? I'd support that, with an external link to one of the sites you mentioned. --Measure 16:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I support the links section being removed completely and being replaced with an external link. --Kmsiever 18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I too had some reservations at an earlier point about the way lists of bloggernacle sites were being provided but felt that some kind of approach to this was needed. I like what Measure and Kmsiever have worked out here and the resulting edits make a lot more sense than what was there previously.  These changes eliminate that sense of arbitrary listings of some LDS blogs and lack of mention of others.  Nice work. --danithew 13:45, July 27, 2005

Seeing no objections, I'll go ahead and make the changes. Hopefully the number of annonymous contributors to this article doesn't lead to some kind of edit war... --Measure 19:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * That list was getting unwieldy (again), so I added a dmoz link so they can be included there instead. If one or two of the "lists of links" sites have proven notability, they may belong. Otherwise they are just part of the linkfarm. tedder (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not proposing the change here first, but I added my Nothing Wavering blog portal to the external links because it represents a unique alternative to the already listed aggregators and represents the a counter balance to the inclusive "Mormon Blogosphere". It was also mentioned prominently in Emily Jensen's "From Tabernacle to Bloggernacle," which is cited as a reference in the article. I hope nobody objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaxwilson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved some external links here from the article's main space

 * Are there any of these that would be considered part of the Bloggernacle or should otherwise be considered for inclusion in external links?
 * Cultural Mormon or disaffected
 * Recovery from Mormonism
 * New Order Mormon
 * PostMormon Community
 * Dooce
 * Please comment. Thanks.  ↜Just me, here, now … 06:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable websites
I removed all the blogs listed in this section that were pointing to sections of other articles. If they are not notable enough to have their own articles, how can they be notable for this list? --Kmsiever (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Selected list allegedly a mess
Kind of related to the issue above, the Selected list portion of the article is a mess and looks horrible. Do we really even need it? It looks like just a list of a lot of Bloggernacle blogs, each with little more than a one-line description. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it looks like that's all this section is. I recommend we remove it post haste. If not, we should at least clean it up so it doesn't look so horrible. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 12:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Frecklefoot, do have suggestions for the article' improvements that, per wp:PRESERVE, would be a bit more granular in nature? After all, in point of fact, the Pew survey indicates that the percentage of the U.S. population that self-identifies as Mormon is 1.7%, identical to the population of U.S. Jewry and nearly twice that of U.S. Muslims. Just as New Media folks who are notable coming from out of either of those communities, a handful of individuals notable within the LDS Web community merit encyclopedic coverage too (or, for that matter, even the Adventist or Unitarian Universalist or whathaveyou--among religious community with a well-established, Internet presence, IMO). Which is to say, Since the Niblets (4 references), Banner of Heaven (eight references), Ardis Parshall and Neylan McBaine (published authors, both) are notable, with the information given about them supported by reliable sources, rather than this information's wholesale deltion, let's instead go through and summarize or cull out whatever content may be deemed un-notable--or even less notable--per wp:WEB. (By the way, fwiw, cf.: By Common Consent.)  --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Secret Garden, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I don't really care how big the Mormon population is (okay, I kinda do, being Mormon myself), but that's not relevant. Everything in the article below "Selected list" looks just horrible and is nothing more than linkspam. The only section that should even be considered to be kept is "Niblets", but the list of all its past winners should be nixed.


 * I don't want to get into an argument, but all the lists under "Selected list" are just spam and make Wikipedia into an Internet directory, which it is not. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the list form sucks. So let's keep to the spirit of WP's basic wp:EDITing guidelines (in its wp:PRESERVE section) and convert mention of the two authors to prose. I think the Banner of Heaven, as memorialized by Stack, etc., is an important episode within the Mormon bloggersphere's development though and deserves a very breif mention too, however (and think it fits better on this page than on, say, Steve E's blp).--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Next day. Please note that the very first item at NOT says: " there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." That is, as long as the information concerns the topic being covered, wp:N and wp:RS trump all. IAC I'm gonna look into touching this stuff up a little bit, although I'm not all that intrigued by the subject at the moment. It's like a messy room. One can't be blamed for simply wanting to throw everything out--but probably the most responsible approach is to sort through the stuff and save what is of value. One thing you are absolutely correct about is the need to avoid a tone of promotion. An article about Oprah shouldn't too breathlessly obsess about how wonderful and successful she is. That said, the fact that she is successful and popular needs to be noted. It's a matter of balance, right? Anyway, just for the heck I'll go to a guideline and pull out a quote. OK, I'm back. The page at wp:SPAM starts out,"'Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.'"So, yeah, I can see how the article's current mention eg that McBain is"Published in Newsweek, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Segullah, Meridian Magazine, and BustedHalo.com. Author of the collection of personal essays How to Be a Twenty-First Century Pioneer Woman (2008). Founder/editor-in-chief of The Mormon Women Project"--needs to be improved. Better to say why she has been thusly featured rather than simply effuse about the fact that she has. Point taken. I'm not going to put too much effort to this (and have never read a line that McBaine has written, that I know of, in my life). But I'll give the  topic the best shot I'm able to, with the few short moments of time I'm gonna dedicate to this clean-up project. Tell me if I"m successful. (And, if you want more snipped than I end up doing, please explain why. Thanks.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * McBaine : Stack: "[...McBain's] undertaking, 'The Mormon Women Project,' showcased at mormonwomen.com,...details the diverse experiences of LDS women."
 * OK, I feel lazy today. I'm just going to create a stub blp for McBaine supported by the first 2 (measley minimal) sources I Google to, then change the mention of her in this article to a brief sentence that quotes Stack, per the above link. Be back shortly.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I "de-listed" her--that is, converted mention of her to prose, here. However, I'm done for today. (Btw McBaine's new snippet of a bio stub is here.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Parshall : Did same thing as above--> here.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Linescratchers blog (2) web video guy Smith : Both now de-listed/turned to prose.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloggernacle
Bloggernacler Ardis Parshall, in a paper, defines the Bloggernacle as "the network of Mormon blogs whose posts are aggregated at the website ldsblogs.org," making note of "other Mormon-themed sites that orbit the Bloggernacle and are often assumed by the press to be part of the same confederation."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wheat and Tares & The Wheaties
Some Anonymous user undid my edit on the Niblets. _Please explain your reasoning. Mormonheretic Feb 19, 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You mixed-in an unrelated, non-notable award ("The Wheaties" from Wheat and Tares); it is not the same as the Niblets, and didn't belong in that section. Likewise the material you added about Wheat and Tares does nothing to establish that it is wp:Notable, and based on a quick search, I can find no supporting evidence that Wheat and Tares is notable enough to merit a mention in this article. Your low edit count and the edit history on you contribs indicate you may not be all that familiar with WP standards, so you may not have understood how to see the adequate reasoning given in the edit summaries found on by clicking on the View history tab when looking at the article; please consult this in the future when trying to understand other peoples edits. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Anonymous user is a vandal. Why should I listen to you anyway? My low edit count is certainly infinitely longer than the vandal at 208.81.184.4 (talk)

What makes By Common Consent notable, but Wheat and Tares is not notable? I read that section, but it made no sense to me. So Vandal, Please explain it to me. Mormonheretic (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not notable. What more needs explaining? --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, excuse me for being dense, but please answer my question. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to understand. Please humor me. Specifically, "What makes By Common Consent notable, but Wheat and Tares is not notable?" Mormonheretic (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the information because it was not notable. Have you read WP:N? Is there something that's not clear there? If so, what? --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes Ronz, I don't understand. Who the hell are you to delete this? Are you the bloggernacle police? What exactly is notability. Pretend I'm dense and didn't understand the article? Because I guess I'm dense and didn't understand the article. WHY IS ONE BLOG NOTABLE, AND ANOTHER BLOG NOT NOTABLE????? Would you please answer the question instead of taking me to an article that is poorly written and doesn't answer mu question. As far as I'm concerned, you're just some idiot censor without a brain and can't answer a seemingly simple question. Mormonheretic (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One blog may be more notable than another because it received (per WP:GNG) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you feel that Wheat and Tares has received this kind of coverage, please write an article about it and include the references.  Until then, you may want to read No personal attacks about working with your fellow editors. 72Dino (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * wp:Notability (web) also applies in this specific case. Mormonheretic could also attempt to engage with wp:WikiProject Blogging as well as wp:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement if he wants to solicit assistance in writing Wheat and Tares (blog). -- 71.223.127.117 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Copied here from User talk:Mormonheretic by User:Mormonheretic -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

From wp:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ... Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."

I'm not asking for an apology for the hurtful characterizations you made at Talk:Mormon blogosphere (I'll just chalk this up to you being a relative newcomer), but please stop referring to editing disagreements between editors as vandalism. Doing so is harmful to the project and doesn't help anyone involved with a disagreement on WP. Please keep in mind that wp:IPs are people too, and just because someone is editing from one doesn't mean they should be treated any differently on an article talk page. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved here from User talk:208.81.184.4 -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for an apology for your deletions of my honest, good faith, truthful efforts to contribute to Wikipedia at Mormon blogosphere (I'll just chalk this up to you being a little overbearing and unintentionally a bully.) Please stop referring me to another article without answering my honest question.  Refusing to provide a simple explanation is harmful to relationships between two honest people and doesn't help anyone involved with a disagreement on WP. Please keep in mind that I am a person with feelings too, and being gang-tackled for a good faith effort on my part causes hurt feelings on the my end as well.  I hope this provides a more clear explanation why a person may lash out when he feels gang-tackled by Wikipedia editors without a quick, clear, concise explanation (should you do this to someone else in the future.)  Once again, I'll chalk this up to poor communications, rather than any malice on your part.  Mormonheretic (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Really?!? After you said "Why should I listen to you anyway" it was pretty clear you didn't want me to answer you, so others stepped in; now you're blaming me for your behavior and the other people responses, and calling me a bully? All anyone here and at your talk page was trying to do was help you. Please don't expect any other communication from me at this time, and stay off of User talk:208.81.184.4, as I'm going to completely wp:DISENGAGE from you. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess you should stay off my talk page too. Mormonheretic (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)