Talk:Progressive Bloggers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Trivia Clean-Up

The trivia points regarding Jason Cherniak, Centrion Politics, Crystal Leblanc and Craig Cantin are irrelevant. Recommending deletion since these points have nothing to do with the site Progressive Bloggers Mr Babylon 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section probably ought to be deleted in its entirety. I removed the Centrion trivia bit since Google results tend to change often (indeed, the trivia was not accurate as of this afternoon) Watchsmart 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions Regarding Organizational Structure

It's unclear what the specific nature of the organisation is. Is it a registered business? A non-profit? A corporation? Who aer the administrators or editors and what are the policies. What is the mission or guiding principles? Donors are listed at the site but not the amounts that have been donated? Mr Babylon 00:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noting Philosophical Ambiguities

The statement "The central political belief of the Progressive Bloggers is that Canadian society should move in a progressive direction" is inaccurate.

The political philosohpy outlined in what is referred to as the "mission statement" is too vague to be judged consistent with progressive values. In addition, apart from the New Democratic Party, the political parties mentioned do not generally adhere to or promote classically progressive policies or values (see: Progressivism). There is also no central political belief common to the membership, this should be mentioned. There are clearly members with centre-right views as it is possible to find supporters of foreign military intervention and the privatization of domestic health services for example amongst the membership and administration. There are no women administrators and few women affiliates.

The site favours an approach to politics that is predominantly partisan with a large proportion of aggregated posts making reference to issues related to present day party politics.

Barring any objections I will amend the entry to clarify these points. Mr Babylon 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 'socialist'/'progressive'

I changed "The central political belief of the Progressive Bloggers is that Canadian society should move in a socialist direction" to "progressive direction". That is, although some ProgBloggers may self-identify as 'socialists', most do not. 'Progressive' is the term that they've chosen to describe themselves and in the interest of neutrality it should be left there. Bucketsofg 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

It is been suggested this entry be cleaned up. The style, format and content look okay to me. Can you suggest what could be improved on?--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

  • Cleanup Removed I removed the cleanup notice, as it seems the page has been edited to a higher standard in the last week. --Simon.Pole 03:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is This Entry Needed?

This looks like a page about a particular website, plus an original essay on Canadian blogs. Does this really need an encyclopedia article? I don't see what makes it notable. Friday 7 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

The Progressive Bloggers are pretty important on the Canadian Blogging scene in Canada. Blogs have become an intergral part of the national political debate, and are followed by politicians and journalists. Both journalists and politicians now blog, frequently linking to and commenting on blogs. Discussions taking place on blogs now show-up in national newspapers. The website is significant far outside those who might contribute to it.
There are essentially two main groups of bloggers in Canada -- the Blogging Tories and Progressive Bloggers. Each has 100+ affiliated blogs. This mirrors the national division between left and right. Canada has a strong tradition of grassroots democracy, and this is widely acknowledged to have manifested intself in the blogosphere. I'm not sure what country you're in, but this is the situation in ours.
If the New York Times has an article, then I think the Progressive Bloggers should have a page.--Simon.Pole 7 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
I'm in the USA. Blogs are popular here too, but an individual isn't noteworthy just because they have a blog. Not sure how 100 bloggers together are noteworthy in any way than an individual isn't. The impact of blogs on politics may well be an interesting topic for an essay, but that's original research. Maybe you were making a joke, but I'm not sure saying Progressive Bloggers compares to the NY Times helps the case. Even if a particular blog did something verifiably newsworthy, would that notability extend to the entire group? Friday 7 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
The question is not that blogs are "popular" -- the question is what is their significance in the larger political culture. Why is the NY Times noteworthy? Is it because its popular, that is, alot of people read it? Its noteworthy because it has political significance, and also a significant role in American culture. Political blogs currently have that significance in Canada.
As was pointed out in the article, it is a significant political development that the blogs affiliated with the various political parties have come together in two large groups. The point is not that there are 5 or 500 blogs coming together, but the fact that these groups have formed. (It should also be noted that individual Canadian political bloggers do have also Wikipedia entries (see Mike Brock -- the importance of Canadian political blogs is not peculiar to this one).
For other cultural reasons peculiar to Canada, the forming of these groups is also important. Canada has a long tradition of political activity through co-operative movements -- both economic and overtly political. The forming of these blogging groups is therefore important in the context of our larger political tradition.
I know these are things you are not aware of, but it is condescending to be lectured by someone from another country about what is to be considered important in Canadian politics and culture.--Simon.Pole 7 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)
Simon, forgive me if I sounded condescending, it was not my intention. I'm still pretty new here, but I've spent a lot of my time VFD'ing vanity articles. I'm not saying that THIS article is neccessarily vanity, but it got my suspicions up. Vanity articles often describe websites that are important to their own users, but otherwise non notable. The Alexa rating of your site is 3 million plus (high numbers are bad), indicating a non notable level of traffic. Also, the only links I've seen in your article are links to your own site. A website cannot establish its own notability. If you can cite an interview where an important politican has talked about your site, or a writeup in a major magazine or something, that would help.
I appreciate your thoughts on why this is important, being a fan of grassroots political movements myself. But to me that part of the article looks like original research. Also, note that establishing the importance of Canadian blogs in general is not the same as estblishing the importance of your particular site. Anyway, I'm not saying I'm sure this article is non notable, but I have to admit I don't see anything in it yet that establishes why it deserves an article. Friday 7 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)
Friday, I don't accept that the words of a politician or even an article in a newspaper should be used to establish what is important in the blogosophere. It is widely agreed that the blogosphere is a grassroots medium that parallels formal politics and the mainstream media. I'm not sure why it should have to look outside itself for validation. For example, to establish if something is important in Country X., why should it be necessary to quote some authority in Country Y?
If you want to see how important the divisions between the Progressive Bloggers and the Blogging Tories groups are in the Candian blogosphere, check out this post in honour of our national holiday. This post on a prominent Canadian left-wing blog and the subsequent discussion captures the involvement and critical debate of the two groups and their political positions in the blogosphere. (The same Progressive Blogger vs. Blogging Tories division and debate can also be seen at another important Canadian political website, this time the multi-partisan BlogsCanada E-Group here.
Also, in no way is what I am writing original research. By raising this point you are again showing your ignorance of subjects outside your experience. What I have written is common knowledge in the Canadian Blogosphere, and has been developed through discussion in the past few years. I'm not sure why you persist in calling it original research.
As for vanity, I did include details on how the Progressive Bloggers website operates, but this is following precedent. The Slashdot wikipedia entry includes details on how commenting and moderation operates -- I did the same thing here. This is important not just to show how Progressive Bloggers operate, but as a record of how multi-person political websites work in general.
Friday, I just don't think your criticisms hold up because they are based on ignorance. If you spent a week reading your way through the Canadian blogosphere, then I might be inclined to give them more credence.--Simon.Pole 7 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that my criticisms are based on ignorance. Actually, I was basing most of them on Wikipedia:Websites and Wikipedia:Importance. I realize these only proposed, not official. However you seem to have very different criteria than most folks for what makes a website notable. Perhaps you should argue some of these points there. Friday 7 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entries on the blogosphere and weblogs draw attention to websites that are important within these environments. The precedent exists in Wikipedia that prominent websites within the blogosphere are considered notable. I say your criticisms are based on ignorance, because they show you do not understand why -- for particular political and cultural reasons -- Progressive Bloggers is considered prominent within the Canadian Blogopshere. If you wish to argue that the Progressive Bloggers is not prominent within the Canadian blogosphere, then you should produce some evidence to back up this claim.--Simon.Pole 7 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
You assert "The precedent exists in Wikipedia that prominent websites within the blogosphere are considered notable." I haven't seen that this is true. I've read the articles on blogosphere, and more importantly, Wikipedia:Verifiability. I realize that importance is a controversial topic, but I think this article breaks down on verifiability. It's verifiable only by links to the very website which the article is about. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. Verifiability is an official policy. Nothing personal, but in my opinion this warrants a VFD. If nothing else, this will bring other people into the discussion and shed additional light. Friday 7 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

[edit] Should not be removed - agree that this seems unintentional bias against smaller, growing Canadian poli-blog movement

I second that this should be not removed. And I'm a moderate Republican originally from Michigan - not a progressive Canadian (smile).

Reasons:

  • The request for deletion guide page clearly states that "lack of fame" is not a good enough reason to delete a page.
  • Additionally, using Alexa as a barometer hardly seems fair. In comparing this group to another, such as ... oh, I don't know, Daily Kos or something... keep in mind that Canada is nowhere near as large a population as in the US, almost one tenth the population. The most popular Canadian websites (like canoe.ca) could be creamed by niche US websites targeting a much smaller percentage of viewers in the US. Also - for obvious reasons (the US is a superpower, the US dominates many industries, the US is viewed as a mercurial bully/power-drunk cowboy/Great Satan etc. and watched carefully) American websites and media are followed worldwide; very few Canadian or even British websites can claim the same. So their traffic should not be held to the same standards as a comparable American political blog.
  • The trivia (which could perhaps be moved into the body of the text and get more prominence) clearly shows the importance of the group, with two of its members as up and coming politicians in Canada, and another a Toronto Star reporter.
  • Lastly, Friday... there is no nice way to say this. I think your request is coming from a certain amount of ignorance about Canada, which is why your RFD has showed up on WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I feel comfortable saying this because I grew up near the border, and naively thought I "knew" Canada. I learned much more after living and working there.

Number one thing I learned is not to insult Canadians by pointing out that they, or one of their institutions or groups, are not "noteworthy," ESPECIALLY by comparing it to something from the US (which is wealthier, bigger, louder, and has a lot more people). Or as you said, "I'm in the USA. Blogs are popular here too, but an individual isn't noteworthy just because they have a blog. Not sure how 100 bloggers together are noteworthy in any way than an individual isn't." You might have benefited from reading this article - http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_hughes/20050516.html - which reiterates that Canadian political blogging is in the embryonic stage, which makes a 100-member blog all the more important.

Sure, most Americans could care less who Rene Levesque was - ("Hey, man, why should I care about some dead French guy?") - but if you told a Canadian he wasn't "noteworthy," you'd have a fight on your hands. Yeah, Levesque is not noteworthy by American standards - unless Quebec someday secedes and wants to become part of New England. By the same token, this same group may seem meaningless to you, but be important in the future. I agree with the author that, considering the current climate, it (and the blog of its political opponents) is already important to Canadian politics.

Canada is a smaller country, and as such, niches are much more respected in Canadian culture. An American in Hollywood might consider the small number of Canadian animators or documentarists to be a drop in the bucket, a European art student might feel the Group of Seven too small to even be written about ... but Canadians are proud of what they have, no matter how modest it may seem to Americans, who tend to value big, new, and better above all. I would bet you that even these bloggers' political opponents would be miffed at the rush to RFD this page.

Lastly, I'd also guess that this blogging group, its members, and the Canadian blogging phenomenon will be covered by The National, CTV, or As It Happens someday. They might never make the news in the US, or the "New York Times," or be deemed noteworthy in San Antonio, but this is exactly the kind of homegrown underdog story Canadians love (and which apparently went out of style in America, along with Grit magazine and Norman Rockwell covers for the Saturday Evening Post.)

67.10.131.229 10:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I still think this article would have been better waiting UNTIL it was covered by one of the shows you suggested, but we all have our own opinions. I'm a newb here, and I certainly didn't mean to stir up any controversy over bias. I just saw an article that was IMO not verifiable. If Canadian blogging is truely in the embryonic stage, I see this as an argument against this article, not for it. It is NOT for Wikipedia editors to do original research on things of emerging importance. We're supposed to use sources, not be the source. However, enough people have voted to keep that I'd be surprised if this went away. Hopefully as time goes by, the existance of this article will become more justified, not less. Friday 13:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, thanks for the input. . . :) However, I think you'd be more than surprised to discover that a: a great many 'American' entertainers are, in fact, Canadian, and b: "Hollywood" is now Vancouver. :) "but Canadians are proud of what they have, no matter how modest it may seem to Americans, who tend to value big, new, and better above all" Umm. . . we're not so unlike as you might think; after all, we do get all your media and entertainment here. It's just that, well, a lot of it is actually Canadian, and 'better' is certainly a value judgement, as 'better' doesn't have to be a: 'bigger', b: 'new', and c: 'American'. Sigma-6 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Progressive Bloggers. -- BD2412 talk 03:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

A second AFD debate also resulted in a no consensus keep. The debate is here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Considered significant"

There's a bit here that I'd like a citation for: In the context of Canadian politics, an organization with over 160 members is considered significant.. Considered significant by who? Friday (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • by Canadians.--Simon.Pole 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've taken this bit out, since no source for it was produced. We can't just use our own opinions about what "Canadians" think. Friday (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion (April 3, 2006)

This article has been nominated for speedy deletion. Given that it has survived two AfD votes (here and here), it is clear that the speedy proposal should be dismissed out of hand, especially since the proposer has not bothered to justify their proposal. If someone wants to take it to AfD, so be it. For now, it is a speedy keep. Bucketsofg 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of the other issues surrounding this articles, this is not a candidate for speedy delete.--Ipeltan 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProgressive_Bloggers_8ada.html"