Talk:Mothering (magazine)/Archive

New comments are placed on the bottom of the page
 * Please remember to sign your name: ~ 

I think it is sad that trying to share the truth makes you an ass..

I hope these harsh comments are about the FEW snide things that have been added here and there.. and not about the factual controversies that have hurt so many. -

If a description of MDC looks like the Enquirer- perhaps the satff of MDC should rethink how they run things.. ---

Come on people.........we may not agree, but lets stop making asses of ourselves and stop making this a page from the Enquirer. If you feel this page needs updating, please do so in an unbiased, MATURE way. Thanks.

I agree about not being sensational, but we really have to present a full picture, even if it's not entirely rosy. Whitewashing the issue will just anger more people and I'm sure admin doesn't want a ton of negative blog posts to come up when someone googles "MDC".

Just because Mothering has attempted to "Erase" long time respected members, the rest of the internet will not silence the voices of well-reasoned dissent.

To truly be from a neutral point of view, this page needs to both include both provable, factual controversies as well as the achievements of the magazine - otherwise, it appears as an advertisement for Mothering. Deepalmolive 03:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with proving the 'controversies' is that they delete everything at all negative from their servers and it is never on long enough to be indexed by a search engine. How do you prove that which is no longer available?

All information on a wiki page must be verifiable by a reputable source, otherwise it goes against the sites policy. WP:V Deepalmolive 05:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The place is banning many old members leaving behind a lot of fringe right wingers.

The funny thing is, if mothering feels so confident about their choices, they should accept what is being written in the controversy section. Not a single thing written is a lie. If they feel their choices were in the site/magazine's best interest, then they need to own that. Otherwise, they're proving to everyone that they are, in fact, in the wrong and do have something to be ashamed of.

Amen to that. It just seems to verify the censorship and discrimination issues when we are censored and discriminated against elsewhere on the web.

"The funny thing is, if mothering feels so confident about their choices, they should accept what is being written in the controversy section. Not a single thing written is a lie."

It doesn't matter if Mothering accepts what is written about them or not. This is an online encyclopedia, and has specific rules which are followed when articles are created. As I mentioned above, all information on a wikipedia page must be verifiable by a reputable source, otherwise it goes against the sites policy. A blog is not a reputable source.

If you need a refreshment on how wikipedia works, and how to properly use this site, you can read these links on wiki policy:


 * WP:RULES
 * WP:NOT

Perhaps this article would be better suited for [http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php? Wiki Info] which lends a "sympathetic point of view" towards the articles posted there. --Deepalmolive 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Deepalmolive, you sound like an MDC employee? If reputable sources have been censored or deleted, it is appropriate to paraphrase.

MrsLunar, I'm in no way affiliated with Mothering Magazine or their message board, and am in fact FAR from it. I'm just trying to keep this page within the standards for Wikipedia. For the future, you may want to familiarize yourself with how to sign your name on a wiki talk page ( ~ ) WP:SIG. --Deepalmolive 00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How come the word of a banned member is taken over that of a moderator? Yes, I am a moderator at Mothering and I promise you, we do NOT ban members just because we don't like them, or because they occassionally break a rule. Members are alerted and warned numerous times when their actions are not acceptable or inline with the UA. Some members get upset when they're told they have to play by the rules, and they refuse to. Those members eventually get banned because of repeated infractions (usually at least 9, though some severe problems may be dealt with quicker). If you abide by the UA you don't get banned. Paininthefrecklehead 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)