Talk:Information Clearing House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 August 2006. The result of the discussion was no concensus.

Contents 1 Rename 2 Cleanup 3 Ref 4 Articles for Deletion debate 5 Keep! 6 Why was it kept? 7 cleanup-date|November 2006 8 Reads like OR

[edit] Rename

Shouldn't this article be renamed "Information Clearninng House" and not its web address? --mtz206 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Done Lenin & McCarthy 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Added cleanup tag. This article doesn't meet many of the standards for an encyclopedic article about a website. I've removed the physical descriptions of what the front page looks like, the site statistics, reformatted the headers, etc. More needs to be done. --mtz206 15:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of the discussion [1] on the fate of this page i have made some changes. I'm not sure, did I go overboard with the newspaper links? Moved reference to Jihadunpsun to a footnote on that page. Although I do wonder when even administrators derogatorily use the term "crufty" in announcing their views. "Delete Just more conspiracy theory cruftiness.--MONGO 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)" [2] It's also interesting that crufty has an entry in wikipedia - not a dictionary eh? 203.164.7.222

Reinserted link to Amazon listing books that have used or cited this site. I believe this is important in establishing the sites "notablility".
Inserted the following hidden comment to Morton_devonshire, who is constantly redacting and altering this entry.
"Morton you can't just delete this because you don't like it. Even IF these references are not about the site itself. From memory the GUIDELINES say "..is the source of(for?) multiple independantly published..". Don't confound source with topic. Granted, this point is debatable. It indicates that the site is notable as a source. IF it were to conform to CNN it would mainly be a list of celebs".
I'm not sure about the contributors section though...

Also, the list of newspapers has been removed but the text reffereing to it not altered. Granted the list may have been verbose, but was it really as inane is the list of PAST and PRESENT celbs and hosts found at the CNN entry?!
This is one of the features of this site (IMO) in that it lists the sources on its front page. SO you can check. You could argue that maybe this was an attempt to inflate the importance of the site. So be it - argue. But the alternative argument might be that other news sites either rely on a limited number of news wire services (eg Reuters, AP)or else poach and plagarise from other papers (also using the same newswires) or release a story in one of its own overseas papers (eg Sydney) and then pick it up in say New York as if the story is truly independant!

The recent debacle re the Bennet case is illustrative of this kind of mass news mania. Just my opinion.

The references section looks untidy. How do you change the text appearing as http to something descriptive?

Striver, your mass re-addition (and extension?) is untidy. And IMO detracts from both the site and the article. I'm thinking that "model" articles for this might be something along the line of The_Christian_Science_Monitor or RealClimate. This article can not be longer than Science_(journal).

The section "View regarding objectivity" can be rolled into the Overview section with appropriate references. The secion on "Impact" was fine at my (anon but web address similar to this one)last edit (I thought) concise without overstating the case, but including the Amazon link... which I thought had merit.

Personally I would like to cut the featured writers section back at least to the 6 images and with only 1 or two links to stories, not a whole swathe of stories, and particularily not the ones that you have chosen. The names below the pictures should just be names - with no external link to the ICH site. Be fair.

The last version of this section at least looked tidy and gave a reader an idea of the site. If these people have an entry on wiki then the picture could be viewed there though leaving them in looks ok as it adds some colour... which the realclimate article lacks.

In any case these stories will date. If you intend to constantly update the wiki entry to reflect the current front page of ICH what is the point of that?

I think that the links to multimedia can be cut other than to state that it is there, and point to topic in wiki... or if must, a couple of examples... particularily of media shown in say Britain, Australia and Canada that might not have been shown in the US. Eg The Power of Nightmares, which appears (at least according to wiki) not to have been shown in the US... regardless of what you (generic you) think of that film. It is not helpful to say "used to host" just link to the wiki page for TPoN.

I see your point and agree some of it. Ill make a new edit, cuting down on some. I was on defensive mode when i reverted MD, whom i no longer assume to have good faith. --Striver 09:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Man, the more i look at it, the harder it gets to deleted content. I feel that altough the articles presented are not a complete list of what the site offers, it presents a sample of it. The article will lose information by removing the links that i choose at random. The headline alone gives a good view of what views the contributers have regarding the various topics. Maybe the articles should be moved to section of their own, under the heading "sample articles"? --Striver 10:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver, Morton.. can you two live with this? I know its too short for Striver and too long for Morton. I don't think its ideal either. At least its tidy(er) and less of an advert or repetition of the content. I hope this is a reasonable compromise that succinctly captures the purpose, content and impact of the site. By comparison the FOX_News and CNN entries look obese. I have now registered here, and apologise for any gaffes, bad form and slips in ettiqette. User:Ribosome Just adding some information Google News for example of possible template remembering that Google news is an automatic service. Also as example of existing news News Aggregator article. Ribosome 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. I accept the consensus of the community on the "no consensus" Afd. Despite Striver's admonition to the contrary, I'm not trying to delete the article. Just aiming for some balance given the nature of other articles about publications (Newsweek, NYTimes, take your pick). Just don't want it to be a puff piece -- just neutral baby. Morton devonshire 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks for all of your help Ribosome. Well done. Morton devonshire 06:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref

This article has been linked to by the subject.

it included the following on its front page:

“

Neocons move against Information Clearing House.: Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House. Please provide your views.

”

--Striver 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep!

Well done guys!!1! PizzaMargherita 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 :) Its a keep, at least till the next afd... --Striver 11:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was it kept?

I counted only like 6 real "keep" votes. Rest are presumably single-purpose accounts. Wonder if it is a bureaucratic mistake that the page was kept. -- Heptor _talk 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Because an ArbCom member voted Keep? Because no valid arguments for deleting remained? Because it is not a vote? Because it was more close to 9 non-disputed keepers? Because the deleters were politicaly motivated? --Striver 09:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude. Relax. You're getting too caught up in this. It's just not that important. Morton devonshire 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not that important after you waste our time in your politically motivated, unsuccessful AfDs. PizzaMargherita 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be your pointed opinion. Morton devonshire 05:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and comment on content. --Tbeatty 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time and Wikipedia resources. PizzaMargherita 10:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not required to participate. If you believe that this is a waste of your time, you can always stop. But please assume good faith that we are all here to improve the quality of Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You can hide behind assumption of good faith only after so many times it has been proven (documented) that you are not in good faith. PizzaMargherita 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. There is certainly nothing proven that I have not acted in good faith since in fact, I have always acted in good faith. Your continuing argument that I am not is growing old and tiresome. I do not presume that you are acting in bad faith regardless of what I personally think of your viewpoint and the actions you take to have it recorded. Please extend the same courtesy to me and other editors. --Tbeatty 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup-date|November 2006

The main problems are the sections marks “Impact”, “ Sample of hosted multimedia files”, and “Sources”. A large part of the material listed is unencyclopedic, and what is left should be formatted to follow established guidelines; i.e. “See also” etc. Brimba 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like OR

In the Overview section,
"The site archives compressed video material and appears to hold a leftist slant due to both the nature of the material stored and the sites to which it has hyperlinks."
has no source. I've looked through the references posted and couldnt find the site call itself leftist or anything similar so I've removed that part as OR. 203.161.8.239 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)