Talk:Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland

Discussion Pages '''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right if you wish to review old threads.'''
 * Archive 1 (8 July 2006 - 25 Apr 2007)

Re: ED being down
It is "down" the same way FChan is occasionally down; over-quota. The account is still active; it just can't receive connections until it gets more monies or until the next billing cycle. Leam 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured, which is why I reverted. I was going off of Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica info. Spaz Kitty 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
I noticed that this page is still protected, or was protected recently. Is there a reason why this article is still protected from editing? -- JaeSharp 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Last edits show this was likely protected around May 15th due to vandalism. If people can behave themselves, I have no qualms unprotecting this.--Kendricks Redtail 09:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"ED is not a good reference?"
Fox News trolls a lot of people, yet they're still a valid Wikipedia source. :-P

The reason why ED exists in the first place is because of how impermanent internet drama is. ED may troll a lot of people, but where else can you find, for example, a list of most of Blackwing Dragon's death threats? Aside from the trolls, there are a lot of screencaps and source on the site relating to the assertion that can be found nowhere else. His original journal has been deleted, most of the other drama has been obscured on FA, and his own comments on LJ removed. Without ED, it will effectively be unsaid.

I don't approve of everything ED is and does but if it isn't a good reference on internet drama, no good reference exists, and I must conclude that the article is being whitewashed. I can understand the reasoning behind it, but it doesn't change the fact that his contradicting and controversial stances (e.g., his closeted anti-homosexuality and neoconservativism) have brought him nothing but trouble on the furry internet. Leam 22:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of Leam's remarks here. My experience with this Duke Otterland fellow has shown that he engages in some extremely distasteful behavior, and then tries to cover it up, even going so far as to hit ED with DMCA requests to suppress the article about him.  While I too do not agree with everything that goes on over on ED, the information contained in their article about Duke Otterland is invaluable and showed me what a total whacko this guy is.  I believe  that, trolls are not necessarily dishonest, and that we should use some of the factual statements about Duke Otterland which are on that site.  --Douglas Muth 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fox News may have issues, but even they hesitate to make factual statements that they know to be false just to stir up drama. ED has no such compunction, nor is the identity of the poster or posters revealed. If you do not have any assurance that what is posted on the site is true, and no way of identifying who said it for the purpose of judging the poster's reputation/position to know, what kind of a reference is it? You might as well have no reference and post it anonymously to WikiFur - at which point it would be in similar risk of deletion for being a contentious assertion which would be defamatory to the subject if false and which lacks any reference. Posting anonymously on another site and in collection with other "facts" which may or may not be true does not improve the quality of the information.


 * If you want to include details of matters discussed on ED in WikiFur, take the sources that they use, reference them, and write your own summary of them. If their article has no sources, then either find some, make some (say, a statement of your own experiences on your own LiveJournal), or don't write about it here. Such things must rest on solid foundations. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fox News has a long history of utilizing drama to get people to vote Republican. They imply otherwise with their statements of being "fair and balanced."  They dedicate entire shows to the question of whether such-and-such is gay because gays are evil, etc.  ED is far more direct with their satire and trolling and doesn't pretend to be a news station.


 * As I said, the sources are very often impermanent. Indeed, those with articles often use ED as a way to track down the threads they should delete.  Not that I can blame them, but given the nature of criticism and drama on the internet, what you ask for cannot generally be supplied.  The only solid foundation the article has is Jeremy's own words, confirming the general accuracy of the article in ED IRC:

4:31:37 PM You claim that ED is posting defamatory information about you, but you do not deny that everything in the article is factually correct. 4:31:40 PM Yes or no. 4:31:48 PM  It is correct, but the truth does hurt sometimes, does it not? 4:32:03 PM So everything in the ED article is in fact truthful? 4:32:04 PM  Just because something is true doesn't mean it's right to post around the Internet. 4:32:07 PM  Yes.


 * There is little more I can add to the discussion. Leam 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gays are evil" is a matter of opinion. My understanding is that Fox News makes heavy use of "experts", who can say what they like at their own risk. Reporting what another person says for news purposes is generally legal for the reporter, even if the actual statement was defamatory. Certainly they imply, mislead, and present the news in a way which tends towards a certain audience - but I'm sure they try as hard as hell to avoid being caught out making an incorrect statement of fact themselves. ED doesn't care, as long as the result is lulz, and that's the difference.


 * If we use ED as a reference at any point then it means that ED does need to be a verified factual source of information, or the opinion of a specified, identifiable person. Encyclopedia Dramatica:General disclaimer makes it incredibly clear that it is, generally speaking, neither of these things. If the original source is no longer present, we should look for a cached copy (as in Mozdoc); failing that, we might rely on the statements of named individuals who had seen it, attributed to them.


 * With respect to the above statement, we'd have to say something like "Leam states that [the specified revision of] the above article was certified as truthful by someone using the subject's name on ED's IRC channel." That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, though it might be enough for some. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion request
The subject of this article has requested exclusion from WikiFur. They have also withdrawn the LiveJournal and Fur Affinity accounts linked to this article. I intend to perform the exclusion within 24 hours unless a pressing reason not to is provided. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)