Talk:Prickly City

Neutrality Dispute
The addition of a smear site to this article is proof enough to me that the individuals primarily responsible for editing this page recently are not interested in facts but rather in presenting the comic in the most negative light possible. If you want to add factual errors that the strip has made, a new, cited section for that should be added rather than adding a link to a smear site to the article and trying to present it as neutral commentary. --Pellucid 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three revert rule, homes. Stop ignoring it. 76.224.39.65 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert again, I just added a POV tag. --Pellucid 21:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realize that there's a "History" section where people can see and verify that you're not telling the truth, right? 76.197.202.107 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Might wanna recheck those edits, buddy. The two that I did in a row were actually a single revert, I didn't notice that the link had also been added in the links page. --Pellucid 08:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're now at five reverts. The rule is three. You have deliberately disregarded the rules of Wikipedia and you have lied about doing so. (You have also erased complaints from your talk page wherein other people have noted your abuse of that rule.) How, then, are any other views you have on Wikipedia procedure relevant? 76.197.206.131 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the 3RR. It's "no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on a single article." I have not broken that rule. --Pellucid 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing a NPOV tag without a discussion is really against everything Wikipedia is about, regardless of how strongly you believe the link should be included. Also, funnelling people here via the Shrubville blog doesn't help the situation either. This isn't a matter of voting or numbers, this is a matter of addressing all perspectives. I really have very little tolerance for the neocon perspective myself, but that doesn't mean we don't have to reason with it.

So, aside from being a well visited blog is there anything that makes this Shrubville site notable for inclusion? We can't just link to every blog. Maybe a more appropriate approach would be to create a Wikipedia article for Shrubville first, and then a link to that will really be uncontestable.Yeago 14:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's notable because it is a site specifically dedicated to discussion, analysis and archive of the subject of the article, and is the only site on the internet to be such. 76.197.206.131 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can say that and it sounds all in well, but some of the things Pellucid has brought up in the below comments are unmasked contempt and invective. While links which do contain 'discussion, analysis, and archive of subject' are certainly good contenders, unbalanced screed is not. Pellucid suggested that some more useful quotables be dredged from the article for use as source. If those pass the NPOV test, I really see no problem with including them. However, someone is going to have to address some of Pellucid's issues if we're going to keep that link here, as some of his quotes are damning.


 * There is a controversy section, it seems like it would be very easy to pull some quotes from that website for inclusion. Whether they will pass NPOV is another matter, but I definitely encourage whoever to pull some quotes and cite that link as a source.Yeago 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia drives me nuts for exactly these reasons. It's thousands of people quoting half-understood policy statements at each other and falling to the level of the most pedantic among them. Quotations and external links do not have to be NPOV. They can be written by people who like or dislike the subject matter. The article itself should not advance or advocate a single viewpoint, but there is no reason Wikipedia has to pretend that nobody in the world has a positive or negative viewpoint on the subject. Pellucid thinks all criticism is equivalent to unbalanced screed. He's still operating in the red/blue dichotomy from a few years ago. Note how he criticizes "the Shrubville guy" for not knowing "his own party's platforms". Now try to find where "the Shrubville guy" has identified which party he belongs to. He hasn't. Pellucid fallaciously assumes that anyone who criticizes A Republican is A Democrat. 1 or 2, Red or Blue, With Us or Against Us. It is Pellucid who is engaged in unbalanced screed and it is his analysis is useless. 76.16.55.100 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for joining the discussion. I don't think Pellucid is being unreasonable by asking that the link be used as a source instead of a direct link. I agree with this mostly because I'm not sure that blog is notable, and based on what Pellucid quotes below I'm not sure that the link simply provides "analysis", it seems to resort to outright condescending attack. Not the same thing.
 * I am also wondering if you could tell me how that blog passes the Notability test. Has it been referenced by the original site or any other more prominent outlet? Is there some way we can know whether it is more than a one-man-show of glib responses to Prickly City?
 * Please forgive me, as I am quite ignorant of this whole topic. Still, I'm intervening here because nobody was taking Pellucid seriously (removing his NPOV flags without so much as a response is really unacceptable)Yeago 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't understand why you are so eager to weigh in on a subject about which you acknowledging being completely ignorant. But if you truly question the neutrality, relevance, or notability of the article, why don't you try asking your questions without vandalizing the page first? --Orat Perman 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find its best to remove the questionable content to give people an incentive to respond to the issues raised. Pellucid attempted to begin a NPOV discussion but was ignored and reverted. Had there been some cooperation I would behave differently. Regardless, you haven't addressed anything I've said above, you've just quipped about the tail end of it. Please review.Yeago 01:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is beyond me why you would repeatedly delete a link which you already acknowledged on your talk page is perfectly appropriate. And yes, it is indeed the nature of syndicated comic strips that they are produced with a lead time of a couple of weeks. But you have not established that this lead time presents a problem for other strips in the way that it has for Prickly City, as evidenced by the examples cited.
 * Re: the notability question, my reading of Wikipedia guidelines is that notability determines whether a subject deserves its own article, but not whether it can be mentioned in another article. --Orat Perman 06:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat that there is no such section on any other article about a political strip. If you would like to add one to each of those strips and see how long such edits stay up, be my guest, but Wikipedia needs to be consistent in order to be taken seriously. --Pellucid 12:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you think of a good example, Pellucid?Yeago 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pellucid: Again, you have not even attempted to provide evidence that the lead time presents a problem for other strips, so the fact that other articles do not include similar sections is an entirely fallacious argument. --Orat Perman 13:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Why would it be a problem for Prickly City and not for Doonesbury? Why wouldn't it be a problem for ALL comic strips equally? If ANY strip wanted to do a timely piece, it would be difficult, not just Prickly City. Just because Prickly City may want to do a timely piece more often than most other strips doesn't make it a "problem," it just means that it won't be AS timely as such a piece on television. --Pellucid 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On top of that, you didn't cite or source your addition, so the idea that you want me to provide evidence that it's NOT a problem when you didn't even provide evidence that it WAS one to begin with is incredibly hypocritical. --Pellucid 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem for ALL comic strips equally because not all comic strips deal with topical issues in the same way. Even within the realm of topical comics, it is possible that one cartoonist would be more selective in choosing topics that would still be in the news a couple of weeks after they are drawn, while another cartoonist would choose a subject that had been largely forgotten by the time of publication. I don't claim to know whether this is or isn't a problem with Doonesbury. You have asserted that it is, but you have not provided any evidence to support your assertion.
 * I agree that the section (which was not my addition, by the way) needs proper citations, but I have to ask: Are you just going to find some other excuse to challenge the section if they are added? --Orat Perman 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this article still need the neutrality tag? -- Orat Perman 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're all in agreement that the link to shrubville should be excluded and that the current incarnation of the article is fine, then it doesn't need it anymore. --Pellucid 01:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even your handpicked defender has acknowledged that there's nothing wrong with the Shrubville link. Quit vandalizing the page. -- Orat Perman 03:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he said he "wasn't sure" about it. Additionally, I hand-picked him because he's a liberal and I specifically wanted someone who could help me gain a more thorough understanding of all possible viewpoints. Shrubville is not a reliable source as per the standards Wikipedia has set. I'm not sure if it even meets Wiki's standards for notability. --Pellucid 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So after Yeago failed to take your side, you tossed him aside, eh? Interesting. Citations need to be reliable sources. External links don't. Subjects need to meet Wikipedia's notability standards to get their own articles, not merely to be mentioned in another article. So whether or not Shrubville is a reliable source or notable is irrelevant. --Orat Perman 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So I can add any external link, no matter how irrelevant, to any article I want? Somehow I doubt it. --Pellucid 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you can't add irrelevant links. A daily critique of Prickly City is highly relevant. I realize that you're running out of your ever-shifting rationales for deleting the link, but calling it irrelevant is completely absurd. Do you have a "reliable source" that calls Shrubville a "smear site," or is that simply another of your unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions? --Orat Perman 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Relevance for details on the word's use as it related to Wikipedia. One of the important determining factors if something is relevant is whether or not it has some kind of impact on the subject of the article. Has Prickly City been dropped from any papers because of Shrubville's criticism? If so, can you prove it? Does Scott read Shrubville and take its advice? If so, can you prove it? Does the existence of Shrubville actually impact Prickly City in any way? Not really. Therefore, it's not relevant in the sense that Wikipedia requires to be included in the article. --Pellucid 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, WP:Relevance is a proposed guideline, not an accepted guideline like Notability. Second, your questions are strawmen and are not supported by the content of that page. Third, how seriously do you expect any of your arguments to be taken when you keep taking completely contradictory positions to support the same predetermined conclusion? --Orat Perman 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * None of my positions are contradictory, they are multiple layers of argumentation, all of which are applicable and relevant and all of which you choose to ignore. You also clearly don't understand what a strawman fallacy is. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that you are, in fact, one of the writers of Shrubville, and that if anyone here has come to a predetermined conclusion as to whether or not a link to it should be included, it's you. You may have noticed that the vast, overwhelming majority of people who have commented on this are completely against you in every way. I think it's a joke that you demand a "reliable source" to prove that your unreliable source is an unreliable source. I could start a blog, too, and claim that Shrubville is an unreliable source and it would be just as relevant and notable as Shrubville is. That is to say, it would be neither. --Pellucid 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast, overwhelming majority of people who have commented on this are completely against me in every way? Really?
 * Anonymous 76.xxx IP: posted the Shrubville link
 * Anonymous 131.xxx IP: supports the Shrubville link
 * Anonymous 68.xxx IP: supports the Shrubville link
 * Yeago: "I am leaning for inclusion of the link."
 * Dystopos: "I don't have any problem with Shrubville being listed among external links."
 * Gamaliel: hasn't offered an opinion on the Shrubville link
 * As far as I can tell, you are the only person who has commented who is still against the Shrubville link.
 * I have no connection with Shrubville. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:ATTACK. --Orat Perman 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IPs don't count; I could log out and post anonymously under multiple different IPs quite easily. They could have all been you as far as anyone knows. Additionally, you ignored the anonymous edits and edits of users who removed the link. --Pellucid 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I listed everyone who has contributed to the talk page. --Orat Perman 16:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel did say that the edit was valid (check the "talk" page on your profile).Cbrubaker 10:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel also edited the page five times himself without removing the Shrubville link. But now that you've contributed to the talk page I'll add you to list of two who object to it. But can you come up with a better reason than its low Google ranking? Even Pellucid wouldn't embrace that one. --Orat Perman 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that I did not remove the link does not mean I endorse its inclusion. I don't have time to examine this matter right now, but I will note that we should look to |Wikipedia:External links for guidance on this matter and make the decision based on numbers or voting. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations of bias by Pellucid
Quotes from Shrubville that indicate that it's not legitimate analysis. Here's some "monumental bias" for you: "As has been noted for the past 2 and 3/4 years, however, clever doesn't live in Prickly City. No forwarding address." "not to mention believing that someone's humor is wearing thin" "In case you're reading this, Mr. Stantis, that's me laughing AT you, not with." "The only difference now is that the majority of Americans have figured out that the Republican leadership is a failure and a joke." "Mr. Stantis, my diagnosis is that you're an unfunny hack." "I've just about had it with Scott Stantis and Prickly City. It's as if he's trying to produce the absolute worst comic strip in the land. Someone needs to tell him to stop trying - the title is all his." He also presents unproven things as facts: "We know where the Republicans stand. They support illegal wiretapping" (still in appeals process) "knowing you somehow still have a comic strip BECAUSE you're a Bush Republican" (despite the fact that a UCLA study showed that newspapers lean heavily leftward: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 ) Here's some evidence of him not even knowing the terminology he's mocking. This is in relation to Winslow, the liberal character, selling carbon credits: "'Winslow's bright idea is to steal Lucy's psychiatry stand and charge people for...carbon indulgence? So they're going to pay Winslow, the smelly stupid stinky hippy green liberal, to actually use up more carbons? And he'll happily do it, because he's a greedy ne'er do well who could care less about saving the environment?'" I advise him to read this wiki article: indulgences. "Carbon credits" (or as Stantis refers to them "indulgences," which seems like a clever enough parallel and observation to me) are actually a liberal invention; rich Hollywood liberals and Al Gore purchase them from people with small carbon footprints to offset their massive carbon footprint. The logic is that they're "buying" the right to pollute from someone who isn't using up their allotment of pollution. I mean, it's really kind of pathetic how little the guy at Shrubville really understands about his own party's platforms. Read on: "'Let's put aside the idiocy of having the liberal in the strip want to destroy the environment. Why would anyone pay Winslow - who doesn't own a car, or a house, or anything as far as I can tell - to burn fossil fuels? Why not just do it themselves? Or does Stantis have a secret desire to burn even more oil than he already does? It's yet ANOTHER case of Stantis coming up with what he thinks is a clever idea, scratching it out on a napkin at lunch, then slapping it together by the Friday deadline without actually reasoning out what the heck it's supposed to mean.'"

And this stuff is all from the first three or four entires. This is not legitimate commentary. This is not thoughtful analysis. This is a smear-job, pure and simple. --Pellucid 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Note that criticism of the strip must be sourced. This does not mean providing a link to the strip, but providing a link to criticism from a reliable source. We can't use primary sources to back up our own personal criticism of the strip; this is original research. Please see No original research. Of particular interest is this passage: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no position C advanced, just citations for A and B. It is not original research. --Orat Perman 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the word "problems" could be interpreted as advancing position C. I have changed the word. --Orat Perman 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To meet the standard of inclusion, these problems or issues or whatever must have been commented upon by a reliable source. We can't simply list problems or issues that we see with the strip.  This is prohibited original research.  Unless a reliable source has commented upon the strip's timeliness, this section must be removed. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, there clearly is a position C advanced, and that position is that Prickly City has issues of timeliness. But even if you disagree that the material in question is prohibited OR synthesis, it is still original research unless a commentator has written about this issue. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)
 * There's actually a great deal of original research and/or uncited observations which would benefit from referencing. I don't like slapping the   template around, but I do hope someone will try to find citations for the numerous claims made. --Dystopos 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In re timeliness.

 * The section on timeliness seems to be comprised entirely of original observations with no reference for why the issue is problematic for this strip in particular (as opposed every other syndicated comic that is drawn weeks in advance of publication). If the claim is true and relevant, someone will have written about the issue elsewhere and we won't need to rely on original research. I doubt that's the case. --Dystopos 21:31, 19 June
 * The timeliness issue is a valid critique of the strip. Citing examples shows that objectively.131.193.60.136 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless a source is provided that critiques the timeliness of the strip, it is original research and thus prohibited from being in the article, regardless of how relevant or valid we think the criticism is. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your evaluation, User:131.192.60.136. --Dystopos 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So this means we can cite Shrubville?68.165.188.129 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I've read WP:Reliable Sources more thoroughly, I'm fairly certain that Shrubville doesn't qualify as a reliable source, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 . --Pellucid 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Elaborate?Yeago 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Shrubville is a blog. This means it's not credible for proof of commonly accepted criticism; you could only use it in a very loose sense for factual information or even for legitimate critique. I mean, I could go start a blog right now that claims whatever I want. For example, let's say I started a blog that said that, in my opinion, Futurama is the worst show ever. Does that mean I should get to add a section to the Futurama article that said "some people have accused Futurama of being the worst show ever?" It's very dangerous to allow blogs to be used as legitimate sources of anything. --Pellucid 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I poked around that blog and realized that it had a) regular visitor comments b) a sizeable, two year history. What in your researches at Verifiability#Self-published_sources made you lean against inclusion?
 * I don't like it being presented as mere 'analysis'. It is unmasked criticism.Yeago 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that length of time doing something makes you a more legitimate expert. I could practice medicine for 20 years without a license and lose every patient. Should I be a qualified expert of medicine? --Pellucid 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think there's a useful parallel to be drawn between practicing medicine and critiquing a comic strip, then you certainly shouldn't be a qualified expert of analogies, that's for sure. 76.16.55.100 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? They're both hack-jobs. --Pellucid 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reminder: No personal attacks. Let's talk about the use of references, not the character of our contributors. --Dystopos 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a personal attack, it was me responding to his substance-free statement with another substance-free statement (I was comparing critique to medicine saying both were hack-jobs, not saying that he was a hack). --Pellucid 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understood what you said. I just wanted, thinking that the anonymous editors may not be familiar with WP:CIVIL, to speak up before this degenerated. --Dystopos 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Restart

 * Let's try to break out of this morass. I don't have any problem with Shrubville being listed among external links in this article, as it appears to be the most notable on-line collection of criticism against the strip (for whatever little that's worth). It seems to me that the real issue is whether the site is a reliable reference to back up arguments made in the article. Perhaps we should work toward some consensus on which critical claims should be described on Wikipedia article and which criticisms are best published elsewhere. --Dystopos 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it neutral to provide an external link to a smear site? Does this mean I can start putting http://blamebush.typepad.com/ as an external link on articles about liberal blogs? --Pellucid 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy on external links is External links. Many people would read that policy more strictly than I do. In my opinion it's relevant . To me the bigger issue is NPOV and original research in the text of the article. --Dystopos 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the "Links to be avoided" section, items 2 and 11 apply to Shrubville. --Pellucid 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet item 4 in "links to be considered" gives us greater leeway with reliability. In my opinion, this decision will have to be made by consensus and appeals to reason rather than by persistence and appeals to authority. Do you think we could compromise on the external link and focus our efforts on cleaning up the POV in the article itself? --Dystopos 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Prickly City writers are in no way knowledgeable. They attacked Stantis for not continuing a storyline on Sunday (something almost no comic strips do). They attacked Stantis for his comparison of the concept of "carbon credits" to the concept of "indulgences" without understanding what either of the two concepts meant. These errors are only the ones they've made in the past two weeks. --Pellucid 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. The Shrubville writers did not "attack Stantis for not continuing a storyline on Sunday." After YOU posted a comment on Shrubville that the Saturday storyline would continue on Sunday, a Shrubville writer expressed disappointment that you got their hopes up. You have not provided any evidence that the Shrubville writers don't understand what "carbon credits" are, only that they missed that Stantis' reference to "carbon indulgences" was apparently intended as code for "carbon credits." --Orat Perman 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comment was posted after midnight, so it was Sunday at the time. Additionally, Carmen specifically said "shouldn't that say 'carbon offsets'," another acceptable term for carbon credits. It wasn't "intended as code;" it was a very clever parallel that you'd simply need to have a basic grasp of theology or history to understand. If one is not intelligent enough to understand the humor, then of course one is going to think that the comic is bad. --Pellucid 16:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reminder, WP:CIVIL. --Dystopos 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Having taken a moment to look through the Shrubville archives, I'd be hard pressed, at this point, to accept it as a valid external link under the WP:EL guidelines. If there is evidence that the site has a significant following or has been consulted as a reference by reputable media outlets, then perhaps it merits a mention in the context of criticisms of Prickly City, but that would be about it. --Dystopos 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tribune reference
The tribune reference is not notable enough for the inclusion of the link or even to start a separate Shrubville article. I know this because my entry for BlameBush! uses a similar reference (a blog report published by the Wall Street Journal) for notability and it was deemed insufficient so the article is going to be deleted. --Pellucid 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that a subject was deemed unworthy of its own article does not demonstrate that it shouldn't be mentioned on another page. Nobody has even attempted to start a separate page for Shrubville. Unless you can provide a reliable source calling Shrubville a smear site, you really ought to knock off the defamation. --Orat Perman 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's stupid. You should have to prove that it's a VALID link, I don't have to prove that it's an invalid one. You have consistently failed to even attempt to. --Pellucid 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already pointed to a reliable source (Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune ) that calls Shrubville "a blog devoted to analyzing Prickly City." You have not provided any source whatsoever for your repeated assertion that Shrubville is a smear site. --Orat Perman 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something is devoted to analyzing something else doesn't mean it's devoted to doing it fairly, accurately, and intelligently. I've shown repeatedly that Shrubville is neither fair, accurate, nor intelligent. You have shown nothing. --Pellucid 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't "shown" that. You have only asserted it repeatedly, much like your claim that Shrubville a smear site. You continue to refuse to back that one up with a reliable source. --Orat Perman 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS would only apply if he tried to insert a statement in the article saying "Shrubville is a smear site." Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had time to have a look at the link issue, I'm going to have add my vote in favor inclusion, though I certainly don't condone the tacky methods link this that have been used to push the link. The name drop in the Chicago Tribune definately isn't sufficient to sustain an article on "Shrubville", but I think that, coupled with the fact that it has a two year archive so it's a continuing enterprise, is enough for it to be included in "external links" IMHO. This doesn't mean I think it should be used as a source or that I think it should be given it's own section with the silly heading of "analysis".  A link is as far as it should go. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shrubville in no way qualifies to be an external link, as has been discussed time and time again. Read the above discussion. --Pellucid 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side-note, I assume you're in favor of adding a link to BlameBush! at the bottom of every wiki entry about a liberal blog? --Pellucid 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just ridiculous. Patently absurd analogies won't get us anywhere. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain how the situation is different in any way. --Pellucid 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a blog devoted to a single targeted subject. Your analogy would have us imagine that we are proposing sticking it in any article about a comic strip.  If you want to discuss the merits of the link, let's do that, but let's not waste our time on this silliness. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BlameBush is a blog specifically devoted to the parody of liberal blog catch phrases and talking points. It is just as relevant a criticism of almost all liberal blogs as Shrubville is to Prickly City. --Pellucid 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, explain. --Pellucid 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

 * As a longstanding site devoted to Prickly City with at least one verifiable mention (in a... blog), Shrubville probably merits mention here even though it seems to be entirely devoted to snarkiness and devoid of informational content. I have made an attempt to create that mention in an encyclopedic way. I did not provide a link, but it would not be entirely out of place in the External links section. -- I also reworded some of the items under the "controversies" heading because they were not neutral in tone. And I tinkered with the formatting and fixed a bad paragraph break. --Dystopos 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Shrubville consistently makes huge errors in its analysis and fails to consider standard comic book conventions. It is not notable; it has almost no following and generates almost no commentary that has any impact on Prickly City or the world. Just because it was mentioned in passing in a long list of "things on the internet" does not make it notable enough for inclusion. --Pellucid 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, nobody has even addressed the huge section of allegations of bias and factual inaccuracy that I posted above. --Pellucid 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have to proofread Shrubville to acknowledge that there is a consensus to include a mention of it in this article. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Because their application requires judgment, appeals to policy are means of reaching consensus, not excuses to override it. Please respect your fellow editors. --Dystopos 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying fuck wiki policy, we want to add a smear site so we're adding it? I'm sorry, I will not respect my fellow editors' decisions when those decisions are to blatantly ignore wiki policy and include material in an alleged "encyclopedia" that would NEVER and I mean NEVER be found in a professional or even semi-professional quality encyclopedia. --Pellucid 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of policy is not the only interpretation. We are not including material from Shrubville by mentioning that it exists. Under what policy do you think it is improper for the existence of Shrubville to be noted in the article? I'm looking at Wikipedia's key policies and it appears to me that you're willing to "fuck" numbers 1 and 3 in order to pursue your personal idea of what satisfies number 5. --Dystopos 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Among the variety of tags Pellucid dumped on the page are "its factual accuracy is disputed" and "its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words." Which facts are disputed? Which words does he believe are weasel words? --Orat Perman 16:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Presenting Shrubville as an unbiased analysis is factually inaccurate. Maybe if the entry said "a website devoted to making fun of Prickly City" or something. Shrubville wasn't "cited" it was "mentioned;" the weasel-word implies that it's somehow more authoritative than it really is (that is to say, not in any way authoritative). --Pellucid 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like a bit of an overreaction to slap on the weasel word tag without first voicing your objection on the talk page. But I don't have any objection to changing "cited" to "mentioned" and removing the tag. Since the article doesn't present Shrubville as "unbiased analysis" — it calls it "a weblog critical of Prickly City" — it seems appropriate to remove that tag as well. But I'll wait to hear other opinions before performing either edit. --Orat Perman 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the giant tag is a bit insane. Our immediate priority should be solving the problems enough so we can justify removing it. So, point by point:


 * "Its neutrality is disputed." What, exactly, is disputed.  Let's identify it and either tag a specific section and/or remove the offending material.
 * "It needs sources or references". I assume this refers to the four citation needed tags.  We can move the Brokeback mountain stuff to the talk page, but we do need a source for the intro material. Or do we?  Is anyone really disputing this strip is conservative?
 * "Its factual accuracy is disputed.". See neutrality.  What is disputed exactly?
 * "Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words". See neutrality. Where are they? Tag them.

If we can't identify specific problems I'll be removing the tags. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Winston
I have removed the sentence "Although the character has been referred to as Winslow during the strip's run, Scott Stantis called him Winston in his July 17, 2007 podcast." because I believe it to be rather trivial. The contributor also seems to believe that the slip of the tongue on Stantis' part amounts to an alternate name for the character. I think that's ridiculous. Given the history of edits originating from contributors to a website devoted to ridiculing this strip, I would consider it incumbent upon the anonymous contributor to cite a noteworthy reference for the claim that this verbal error has any import at all. --Dystopos 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's like this: the artist is the one who is responsible for the characters. And he should know his characters and his names as well as he knows his own children. If he starts calling a character by a new name, that means that either he doesn't know his characters all that well, or maybe he is trying a new direction: think Prince as 0+->. If J.K. Rowling referred to her characters as Henry and Rod, it would be newsworthy. I'm not sure why Stantis calling the coyote "Winston" is not.
 * If you think it's news, tell it to the press. I think it was nothing more than a mistake. Until a reputable media outlet makes something of this, your original research is more suited to a blog post than to Wikipedia. --Dystopos 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not independent research, it's in Stantis's own podcast. Surely the artist's own comments are valid. He called the coyote "Winston". It's his coyote, and he gets to name it.
 * While his slip is verifiable, its alleged importance is not. --Dystopos 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that Stantis called his coyote "Winston", and that is documented in the podcast. I have not seen any verifiable source saying that this was a mere misstatement. In the absence of that, the note stands. I do not know why Stantis referred to the coyote as "Winston", nor do you. It could very well be significant. Give us proof that it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.188.246 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works here. If you want it in the article, you are the one who must show proof that it is significant. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I point you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria

Significance is not a criteria. The fact that Stantis referred to his coyote character as "Winston" is neutral, not original research, and verifiable by anyone who listens to the podcast. Therefore, the information should stay in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.253.221 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus you must demonstrate why it is relevant and significant. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin a "minor recurring character" in Prickly City?
Maybe Kevin has been "minor" in the past, and maybe he will be in the future, but in the last months of 2010 the story line was about his election to the (United States) Senate and he was in the strip almost every day.

As for the political "slant" of the strip, in 2010 Stantis seemed to be pretty much "equal opportunity" in his take on things. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Minor Characters
The item lists "Honey Bunny" as a minor character, but in the Comic the character is listed as "Hunny Bunny", as for example, here. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:C100:3307:ACF1:1ABD:36E6:2C91 (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"a young mulatto girl"
Don't think the use of 'mulatto' in the intro paragraph is appropriate. As noted on Wikipedia at mulatto, this word in U.S. usage is now archaic and often insulting. Moreover, the strip's author has refused to define the character's race so specifically. He said in a Washington Post interview "I have never said what Carmen's racial makeup is....And I never will reveal it." In the same interview he does describe her as a "girl of color," so I will edit the article to say that, and add the reference to the WP interview. Regionrat1234 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)