Talk:Democratic Underground

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Underground article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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, whether trolling is suspected or not.

Archive One
Archive Two
Archive Three
Archive Four

Contents

[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)
I just removed 12pthelvetica's attempt to include Original Research and links to a DU thread on alleged threats. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted and added links to RS V. There's now a total of five linked sources. Deal with it. Merry Fitzmas. - 12ptHelvetica 03:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
FAAFA, the recognized forum owner speaking in his official capacity can make announcements that normally wouldn't satisfy WP:RS but would in this instance.--RWR8189 03:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks quite well sourced now. Dman727 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It is original research unless RS V secondary sources covered these statements - like the tsunami posts, or the insults after Reagan's passing. Find a RS V secondary source. Also, will the people arguing for inclusion explain how this different from the Chad Castagana documented death threats which the Free Republic supporters demand be excluded even though it had secondary sourcing? Thanks.- F.A.A.F.A. 08:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Not even comparable to Castagana. Since the website owner is making a statement about his website WP:RS is satisfied through self-published sources in articles about themselves.--RWR8189 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? This what you argued when I wanted to include statements from Jim Robinson: "Going around fishing for "objectionable" statements by Jim Robinson is original research. A statement is not objectionable or controversial unless it is termed that way by a reliable source.... We need to look at the other incidents and determine their notability, if they are reported by a reliable source, then they should probably get some mention in the article. This could probably be accomplished in one paragraph so as not to give the incidents undue weight.--RWR8189 20:54, 17 December"' I'll file an RfC. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I never objected to the inclusion of Jim's comments in the article. My only objection was the original research that classified those comments as criticism or extremism. As you can see in this article I rectified the situation by not terming the comments as criticism but merely reporting the incident.--RWR8189 09:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
How is it 'not comparable' to Castagana when JimRob admitted on FR that Casatagana was arrested for sending 13 terrorist threats, and had posted about them under the FR username Marc Costansa? - F.A.A.F.A. 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


(UI) Hi RW - I filed an RfC One of us is misinterpeting OR and RS:Self Published. If it's me, I'll be the first to admit it. RfC Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 09:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be the correct place to file an RfC?--RWR8189 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel it's a policy issue - don't you? - F.A.A.F.A.
I was asking a question, in matters such as these I am mostly naive to the correct process.--RWR8189 09:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Both FAAFA and BenBurch seem to be very, very well-versed in the procedures of appeal to administrative intervention and sanctions (such as 3RR blocks), in light of their short tenures here at Wikipedia. - 12ptHelvetica 22:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Service

Hi all, I deleted the section about the secret service contacting DU. This really isn't notable: the secret service has 3,000 officers, and follows up on thousands (if not tens of thousands) of complaints/suspicious/whatnot a year. It's not reflection of DU, and certainly not encyclopedia-grade material. Pro crast in a tor 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, If it had been documented by a notable RS V secondary source like the 'Tsunami weapon' mention, it would have become notable. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
That'd make it a secondary source for a self-verified piece of info. I don't see why it shouldn't go into the article now. Xiner (talk, email) 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this assessment. The owner of the website found the incident notable enough to announce it to his members and everyone else, and to share pieces of his legal strategy as well. As stated earlier, I believe the event is notable, and the site owner commenting on it satisfies WP:RS.--RWR8189 01:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree as well. While this incident would not be notable on its own with its own article, it certainly is within the context of an article on DU. As RWR noted above, even the cites owner found it noteable enough to announce it to his entire membership and it generated quite a bit of discussion amongst the members. It also further defines the membership and type of people that are attracted to DU with respect for their hatred for Bush. Dman727 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, now we see the real reason for including the incident. Out of thousands of DU participants, there were posts by two visitors -- two people who were so atypical of DU that they were banned even before the government made any inquiry. Nevertheless, it's a chance to smear the "type of people that are attracted to DU" by focusing on this highly unrepresentative sample. Giving undue weight to this minor incident would give our readers a false impression of the DU membership. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The owner of the website gave the incident weight by making an announcement about it. I believe the last version that was in the article spoke of the incident in a very NPOV fashion, noting the infraction of stated DU policy, and how they intended to go from there.--RWR8189 04:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The owners of the website make frequent announcements. This month there've been a couple about the year-end charity drive [2], which has already raised several thousand dollars [3]. With many DU members donating, that's a much better example of a post that "defines the membership and type of people that are attracted to DU". Singling out the announcement about the Secret Service makes sense only if you want to give undue emphasis to a fact that will put DU members in a bad light. JamesMLane t c 05:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I support adding facts about charitable works of DU. I also support adding facts about investigations into incitements of Presidential Assasination. Please if you wish to add in relevant facts about DU charity work, you will find no opposition here. Dman727 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Its just a notable fact. Its up to the reader to interpet how it reflects on the site. This article accurately reflects the membership numbers (close to 100,000) (in fact Ive updated the mem. stats a few times to make sure they are accurate). The previous section accurately reflected that amongt them 2 people were under investigation for death threats. Its all NPOV.Dman727 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we cannot use DU to source facts about DU, then we should proably start excising most of this article as most of it is sourced by DU itself. Dman727 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing comments not covered in reliable sources is original research, however information about the site is covered in WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves.--RWR8189 05:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Thats why I do not understand why some are saying that we cannot source this DU death threat investigation by DU inself. Dman727 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I, however I suspect the pivot in argument from concerns over original research to notability has to do with the realization that WP:RS is satisfied with this incident included.--RWR8189 05:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea. I agree. But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the love of Bush and love of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership. It needs to be kept in context of course. 2 members out of 100,000. But its far more noteable than some of the fluff that is on this article now. Dman727 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (Refactored)
And you, of course, know with certainty that those two posts were from legitimate DU members, as opposed to FReeptards or other troublemakers who were trying to make DU look bad and who knew that they could count on people like you to jump on the episode and blow it up as notable. Face it, Dman, you want this in because you have a fixation on this "hatred of Bush" idea and you'll miss no opportunity to promote that agenda. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of Our Glorious Leader and of his detractors at DU, but a minor incident doesn't become notable simply because it fits your preconceptions about DUers. JamesMLane t c 05:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I support adding the facts. I make no claims as to the identity of the people who made the posts. They may be Bush haters or they may be Bush lovers..We cant source that right now. The fact is the Skinner posted to his membership that certain posts and (ex)members were under investigation for death threats. thats all. But its hardly a minor incident and is certainly noteable within the context of an article on this particular site. It was damn sure notable to the membership, who took varous strong positions and incited a great deal of debate. Post this fact in NPOV and reasonable people will draw reasonable conclusions. However it is NOT NPOV if we only include the cheery and fun facts about DU and leave out major events like death threats againsts the president and resulting secret service investitgations. Dman727 06:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I find it humorous that you read your own bias into this and assumed that I find Bush "Our Glorious Leader". Its really irrelevant, but I am opposed to most of the Bush administration ideas and policys and found DU while making relevant searches. What I found at DU was interesting and theres some well informed folks there. But Sadly, the radicals tend to drown out the reasonable people by a large margin. Dman727 06:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This event isn't notable because of some agenda by Dman, real or imagined, it is notable because the site's owner thought enough of the incident to publicize it. If a threat on the President's life and ensuing action by the Secret Service isn't notable, I don't know what is.--RWR8189 06:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. If folks in the conversation would care to check the logs. I did not add, revert, nor edit the relevant section (though I reserve the right). This is not about me. Its about death threats against the president and even the owner of the site and ensuing membership found them noteable. Dman727 06:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You're both ignoring the point I made. The site's owner publicizes lots and lots of things. Why is this one announcement deemed so important, if not because of the agenda it serves? Or do you believe that every announcement the site's owners have made over the years should be covered at equal length? As for RWR's concluding statement, it's pretty clear what's notable if this isn't. What's notable (in an article about DU) is something that involves significant numbers of DU regulars, not a one-off incident from a couple of unknowns who may well have been agents provocateurs and who were promptly banned. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
See my response above. I support adding in facts about DU's charity works, as well as Secret Service investitgations into allegations of incitement to commit Assasination. They are both noteable. And Yes, incitement to murder IS notable, especially when it is that of the president. If we were to delete everything less noteable, the article would be fairly sparse. Dman727 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I endorse Dman's above comments. How often does the site owner make announcements pertaining to the US Secret Service? You must recognize that the involvement of death threats against high ranking government officials and the Secret Service makes an announcement much more notable than some policy change.--RWR8189 06:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

DEATH THREATS?

Please show me where the actual posts were described by Skinner or the Secret Service as 'death threats', or 'death threats against the president' link If you can't come up with the quotes, I might have to refactor most of this page, as RWR1898 did numerous times on Free Republic talk. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 07:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The words written by David Allen strongly infer that death threats were involved. He quotes the relevant DU policy regarding death threats, he goes on to say that he's not sure the posts provided a "legitimate" threat, and he states There exists no constitutional right to threaten the life of the president of the United States. It seems to me you are arguing over semantics, and regardless, the proposed version of what be included does not say "death threats"--RWR8189 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
'strongly infer' is not the same - you know that - plus it's still OR. How is this issue 'not comparable' to your Chad Castagana objections when JimRob admitted on Free Republic that Casatagana, A Free Republic member, was arrested for sending 13 terrorist threats to politicians and celebrities, and had even posted about them under his FR username Marc Costansa? - F.A.A.F.A. 08:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that what this is about? Spillover from the freerepublic page? Comeon, lets keep disagreements over there, over there. FWIW, criminal elements and serious investigation into criminal elements is relevant and noteworthy on ANY major forum and that includes DU and FR. Dman727 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
faafaa, why would you refactor this page? Please don't start screwing around with the talk page. We are trying to have a civil conversation about a disagreement. Thats what the talk page is for naturally. If you begin censoring what we are discussing, this polite discussion will degrade quickly. Its clear to me that these are death/violence threats (and if you are honest with yourself, I bet you as well) If you feel otherwise, then by all means point it out, but please don't start censoring talk page comments as I suspect it will only harden opinions and create ill will. We don't want that. Dman727 09:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see any WP:BLP issues with what has been said on this talk page, and I don't think you do either, please observe WP:POINT. My views on Casatagana are all over the FR talk page, his membership to the forum is incidental to the alleged crime, which is the only thing that makes him notable. However this incident occurs exclusively on the DU website and is in not notable to the website or otherwise unless the information was disclosed by an involved party. Casatagana stands notable on his own, with any association with FR being as incidental as a membership at the local YMCA.--RWR8189 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I've really no interest in the FR page or Castagana, but I lend this opinion. If Castagana used FR to commit or further his crimes, that is clearly noteworthy and should be on the FR page. If he was merely a member, then the noteworthyness drops significantly (but may still be included depending on details). Please don't try to convince me either way on the Castagana/fr discussion...I don't care :). Im just finding it annoying and disruptive that what is clearly noteable HERE is being removed to make a point on some other page about some other issue. In this case, DU was the method of committing a crime done, comitted by unknown persons. Its being investigaged by the Secret Service and the owner of the site considered it a death threat. Thats noteworthy folks. Dman727 09:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Dman, I strongly advise you to refactor your statements such as this - before I am forced to do so along with filing a 'PAIN' - and advise you to refrain from this sort of slander and vitriolic rhetoric in the future. "But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the hatred of Bush and hatred of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership" - F.A.A.F.A. 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Who exactly is being slandered here? Is the corporation Democratic Underground, LLC, a website that is proudly anti-Bush, being slandered by being labeled as such? Is the corporation being slandered by basically summarizing what was said by the owner of that website on the article's talk page? By all means head over to WP:PAIN, I know I would certainly be interested in what they have to say.--RWR8189 11:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It was not my intention to slander the corporation "Democratic Underground" (although I didnt realize that a corporation is considered "personal" as in PAIN) In fact I figured that DU would find such comments a compliment. However, if Democratic Underground has changed their views on President Bush, perhaps you should consider updating the article to indicate its level of fondness for this administration. Perhaps merge the article with Free Republic even? Dman727 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
FaaFa, per your request, I have refactored my comment. I hope these meet with your approval. The new version is "But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the love of Bush and love of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership." Dman727 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep trolling and see where it gets you. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah FaaFa, I had hoped you would enjoy a little humor. My apologies. Dman727 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Wonder how long it will be until the entire "Criticism" section vanishes. Jinxmchue 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see to have stirred up a hornets nest here - that certainly wasn't my intention. Having read the above, I maintain that there should not be a dedicated section to this incident, but I also agree that the criticism section is rather skimpy.
Here are a few other sites have also been visited by the Secret Service for threats by users, I only spent 5 minutes looking around but I know there are more out there:
Myspace: [4]
Free Republic: [5]
DailyKos: I remember reading that Kos had been visited, but can't find a link right now
I liked how the issue was treated on Free Republic, so I added a 2 sentence paragraph under "criticism" about it. Comments? This replaces the 17-line previous section, which I still maintain is far too much about this incident, especially given how so little is known about this incident and how not even the SS knows who they are investigating at this point. However, we might as well leave this as a placeholder for future updates, though I think it should be kept short regardless of the outcome. Pro crast in a tor 01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote it slightly to include the whole policy statement. I still contend that, unless this was covered by RS V secondary sources that it constitutes OR, and does not fall under RS:selfpublished etc. If this RS;selpublished WP was meant to cover blogs and forums, every article could be filled with quotes and posts from the forum owner meant to skew the article one way or another. That is WHY we rely on secondary sourcing - to prevent editors from cherry picking what THEY think is notable. RS V secondary documentation decides if an event, or claim, or forum post, or blog author's post is notable or not - not editors. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote your rewrite slightly, removing the double use of "banned", but I do think that a trimmed-down quote from Mr. Allen's post flows better - thoughts? It's more than I had before, but less than you had, so maybe we can meet halfway. :)
My understanding of RS:selfpublished would allow for this post to be referred to as it isn't about Mr. Allen specifically, and there's no reason to doubt that he's telling the truth about all of this IMHO. Pro crast in a tor 09:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There are many RS secondary sources. This is not OR. [6] [7] [8] Shibumi2 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
None of those sites are reliable sources, however as noted earlier the actual text from the site owner satisfies WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves.--RWR8189 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please help me understand. You say if a blog reports something another web site posts about itself, that is not RS with a link to the web site? But using the web site itself standing alone is OR? These are very strict rules. It is a wonder anything is entered in the article. Shibumi2 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empty references

What is the deal with the empty references? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee decision

The Arbitration Committee has rendered a decision affecting this article. As noted above, this article has been placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. The complete decision can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting info

In the intro, it says that DU publishes articles six days a week, but in the next section, it looks like they only publish articles three days a week. Perhaps the intro needs updating, or I'm missing something. - Crockspot 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocratic_Underground_766e.html"