Talk:Democratic Underground

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Underground article.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.

Archive One
Archive Two
Archive Three
Archive Four

[edit] Archived Previous Discussion

Most of the discussion (and ill-will) is now mooted by the changes to WP:EL, so I archived it so we can put it behind us. This is a blank page. let's make the most of it! BenBurch 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
I changed this:
  • While supporters of Ralph Nader are a minority at DU, many posts criticize the Democratic Party from the left. Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein, who are more inclined toward compromise and conciliation with the Bush Administration, are regularly attacked at DU, while Democrats such as John Conyers and Barbara Boxer, who favor a more confrontational approach, are more highly regarded.
to this:
  • While supporters of revolutionary-left are a tiny minority at DU, many posts do criticize the centrist and conservative factions within the party, such the DLC. Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and others who endorsed the War on Iraq or embrace conservative ideology and corporatism are regularly criticized at DU, while Democrats such as John Conyers, Barbara Boxer and Dennis Kucinich who embrace more progressive ideology are not.
Thoughts? - F.A.A.F.A. 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope this is not meant to say that Nader is "revlutionary left". He hasn't been revolutionary, or particularly left, in many, many years. - Che Nuevara 23:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No not at all. I wanted to change 'Nader supporters', because that was such a narrow class - especially in the last couple years. This isn't June 2000 with legions of Nader lovers. I'm open to rewrites - my main problem was that it argued that DUers supported certain dems based on how much they support or oppose bush. They support people based on their Ideology, and how they support or oppose bush's neoconservative + corporatist policies. If Tom Delay were Pres ( God help us) they might oppose his policy even more. Some FAR-Far righties oppose bush as much as the left, but DU would not embrace them.- F.A.A.F.A. 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Not true... LOTS of people hate on Dennis Kucinich and his supporters at DU. I know this first hand as I used to be one of those supporters there.--BenBurch 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you give it a rewrite Ben? I just wanted to change the support / oppose bush aspect. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but we shouldnt be saying a majority or minority at DU oppose or support anything unless DU held a poll or something, or an outside WP:RS source stated it. --NuclearZer0 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You are not wrong.--BenBurch 00:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And it doesn't. It says the revolutionary left are a tiny minority. I was going to use 'far-left' but I thought people might object, as many Cons seem to think all of DU is far left. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What I am saying is we shouldn't be making an assumption about what peoples beliefs are on DU or stating there is a majority/minority of opinions there without DU releasing some kinda poll results or a WP:RS stating it. For instance who would you cite that back to? --NuclearZer0 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I struck the paragraph.--BenBurch 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A rewrite

I am not happy with this paragraph - it's just not true:

  • Democratic Underground has been criticized for censorship directed against both the political left and the right. From the left, critics say that administrators and moderators unfairly ban ("tombstone") or censor posters who consider themselves to be to the political left of John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for the US presidency, and claim that DU is not truly liberal or progressive, but rather centrist, and adheres too strongly to the politics of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

1)It WAS true in 04 when Kerry was the Democratic Presidential nominee, and people were openly encouraging others to vote Green, Peace and Freedom or urging a write-in vote as protest, but no longer. The last few DU 08 polls I've seen favored Gore (who's considered left of Kerry) over Kerry. 2) The DLC and other centrists who now want to oust Howard Dean have been roundly criticised on DU. 3) Any criticism from the right is moot and invalid. Just like FR is intended for Repubs and Cons, DU is intended for Dems and Progressives. Does the FR article claim that they are 'criticized by the left' for not permitting them to post? F.A.A.F.A. 04:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Are you saying that DU is not criticized for censorship issues, or that the critics are wrong? I think its a fair statement to say the DU is criticized regularly for censorship. Whether that criticism is valid or fair is another matter. Of course the whole paragraph is going to be difficult to source anyway, but I suppose it is a good idea to at least relate the latest criticism as opposed to issues that are a few years old. Dman727 07:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Find the criticism about censorship from RS V sources, not some blog or NN forums, and it can be included. 95% of the post 04 election claims of 'censorship' that I've read are from conservatives whining on a few NN forums that they can't post on DU. Even Freepers are astute enough to figure out that extremely popular high traffic political foums need to keep the posts from one 'side of the aisle'. NN forums desperate for any and all posts have no such concerns. Where have you read this 'criticism'? - F.A.A.F.A. 09:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. Im not looking to add that to the article. I was trying to understand what you were stating. Im not concerned if you want to delete/rewrite that para..however you made A statement above and I was just trying to understand what you were trying to convey. It seems like you are spooling up to argue but Im just trying to understand your words, not differ with you.Dman727 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "removing original research"

[1]

DMan, some talk-page discussion of this kind of removal would be nice. Much, if not most, of this article is taken from the primary source of DU's forums, but for an article like this, it seems to me that it's appropriate. I'm sure that examples in the board for this sort of thing could be found, which I believe would be sufficient to source these statements. I'm not likely to be able to find them, because I don't have search capabilities on DU, but they're surely there, as I've seen them before.

I'm sure you meant well with this edit, but I think that {{fact}} tagging it would have sufficed. - Che Nuevara 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're proably right. The edits to the section drew my attention and at first I thought that one sentence was unsourceable, then another then another etc. I don't have search capability either, but I would certainly support that section if it were sourced appropriately. Dman727 02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocratic_Underground_766e.html"