Talk:Steven Crowder/Archive 1

New article

 * I saw Crowder popping up in the news this week in a more significant way than in the past, and checked to see what his wikipedia article said about him, and found it was deleted in July 2011. I think circumstances have sufficiently changed since that time that recreation is appropriate, as notability is likely established.  I am not going to oppose an AfD if someone wishes to bring one, but please review the situation first.  Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This article seems terribly NPOV, especially the parts about recent events where there are reports that things aren't as they are being described. . While likely not up to the standards of a cite, it would seem to suggest that the description given here is one sided in favour of Crowder. Kaotac (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In favor of Crowder? I hardly see how my version was in favor of Crowder; it was dry but factual.  I see its been completely rewritten, I need to look at it, if its unsourced I'm gonna start whacking it because otherwise someone will complain.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the article, replacing cites inexplicably removed, and removing unsourced personal information. If you don't like Crowder, fine, but let the facts speak for themselves.  E.g., some people will find a reference to "knickers" which is a clear allusion to "nigger" to be improper on their own, without editorializing.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say the article is NPOV as it seems to cover both sides of the union incident fairly, but it certainly needs some work. One big question I'd ask is: does the union incident deserve so many paragraphs worth of information?  Could it not be more succinctly summarized while still communicating the same basic, fully referenced information?  5minutes (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For instance, I would edit the entire section accordingly:
 * In December 2012, Crowder and others were involved in an altercation at a demonstration in Michigan concerning a right-to-work law. The incident began with an earlier attempt by union activists to tear down the Americans for Prosperity tent.  A fist fight broke out between union members and members of Americans for Prosperity.  Eventually, the occupied tent was torn down by union members.  When Crowder released a video of the incident, he was accused of "selectively editing" the video, to which he responded in a tweet, "All editing is selective by definition."[10]  He later offered those who attacked him a choice to either be charged with assault to the fullest extent of the law or to a fair and sanctioned bout in an MMA ring for charity. While several of the violent protesters were arrested during the days-long demonstration, as of December 18, 2012, none of the group with Crowder have been charged nor arrested in connection with any crimes. [14]  An AFL-CIO spokesman, Eddie Vale, stated that the organization did not condone the tearing down of Crowder's tent nor the violence against Crowder and his group. [15]
 * Thoughts? 5minutes (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad Language
It hasn't been "reported" that Crowder released a "deceptively edited" video. It has been speculated a priori of investigation by either the speculators or any impartial authority. Of the blogs engaged in such speculation, the two which possibly comply with RS have each had to retract key points of their body of speculation. Further, the article here still dill doesn't reflect that Crowder filed charges two days ago. I reccomend the section be blanked and protected until people are able to behave responsibly within the BLP guidelines. 174.252.43.73 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The POV pushers are going both ways here. They are all ridiculous.  I am questioning now why I bothered to create this article on this D list comedian.--Milowent • hasspoken  00:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"mid 2000s"
Among the other bullshit edits being made to this article, its been inserted a few times that Crowder become popular via youtube in the mid-2000s. I can find no proof of that. In 2006 he was still in college, he uploaded just one video. 2009 would be the earliest one could claim (some) fame resulted, unless someone can source it. Crowder is simply not that well known, let's not overblow his fame.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Knickers"
I have to question whether this comment is of necessary notability to include in the article. 5minutes (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I created this article was because I realized Crowder had been in the news before the Michigan protests -- the knickers episode was one of his most high profile episodes before now. I frankly don't understand why anyone would be upset at Mr. Crowder making a "nigger joke", if they are one of his adherents.  It must be related to absurdity like this --Milowent • hasspoken  18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe because his "adherents", as you call them, aren't racist enough to use the n-word so freely. Either way, the reference is inflammatory and adds little to the article, I believe it should be removed. 5minutes (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault
A lot of gossip, and claim/counter claim removed. Not suitable for an encyclopedic article

Cjmooney9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has become a clusterfuck of POV pushers who think Mr. Crowder is far more notable than he actually is.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion Of Any Proposed Changes

 * This article keeps getting edited to push ridiculous points of view. Crowder is not Conservative-boy-Jesus, nor is he Conservative-boy-Hitler, he is a public figure due to press coverage of a few events over time.  If you want to propose a change to the article, please get consensus here first, or else these battles will never stop.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By virtue of the continued edits, it seems that there is at least some consensus that some of the more inflammatory material in the article needs to be removed. Again, I point to my earlier proposal to streamline the union protests discussion and the continued attempted removal of the "knickers" comment.  5minutes (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to propose my own edit of the page to replace the current edit. I believe that it is less inflammatory, more encyclopedic, and has less tendency to invite biased reporting than the current edit. 5minutes (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5minutes, your proposed edit looks fair to me. I am ok with your minimized reference to the knickers incident, because it does not editorialize it one way or another.  Ideally these references in your version should include dates and sources in them.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can to get that information. 5minutes (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of my article is referenced. Per our discussion and the attempted edits by the community, I've gone ahead and moved it over.  Hopefully, some of the edit war stuff will stop. 5minutes (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"So you Think You're Funny" Myspace Contest Winner

 * Can anyone locate a reliable source verifying this win? I am having trouble, what year did this happen?  I am concerned the import of this is being overblown since I can't find anything about it except in promo pieces on Crowder.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Crowder was reporting he was the winner as early as March 2007, so perhaps it was in 2006?March 2007 Archive.org page of stevencrowder.net. Disney and Myspace jointly sponsorsed a "So You Think You're Funny" competition in mid-2007 to promote the movie  "Ratatouille", but Crowder was not one of the three winners of that contest Myspace Archive Link 7/2007 (finalists were Christian Reyes, Mike Drucker, and Harry Terjanian) - his win must have been before the Disney one.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A looked a bit more and it appears the claim is that Crowder won this in 2006. I can't find any "So you think you're funny" contest held by Myspace in 2006.  I can find a "Stand up or Sit Down" contest which myspace sponsored in the 4th qtr of 2006, but Crowder was not the winner or finalist of it either.  Am hoping someone can help figure this out.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we think Crowder made up this contest award?  Surely not.  I can't believe no one can figure out what exactly he won.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the reference to this award from the article, since it cannot be verified after diligent searching. I can find no evidence a contest under this name even existed in 2006, but there's no need to cast aspersions in the article.  Presumably he won something, we just don't know what.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  12:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. If future evidence can be dug up, I'd be OK with restoring the statement. 5minutes (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-Ordering the Article
In order to bring this article more in line with other bios of people, I'd like to propose that the article be re-organized thusly:


 * Early Life and Career
 * Covering where he was born and raised and his stint on "Arthur" up through his early comedy career.
 * Political Punditry
 * Covering his career as a Youtube pundit, growing into a recognized personality and the 2012 Union Protest.
 * Personal Life
 * His marriage, religious beliefs, and talk about sexuality.
 * Filmography
 * His films

That's my take, anywho. 5minutes (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the personal information belongs near the top as it is on nearly all other person bios. I don't think I've seen any that have their place of birth at the bottom. I would ask that the entry for Charles Krauthammer be used as a template and example of how most entries are. Change the section to "Life and Career" and that would remedy the "where to put what" issue. JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Compare it to Rush Limbaugh and the dozens of other personalities who have split the early life and career with the later personal information. That should be the model for this page.  While most bios place the birth information at the top, other personal information goes under their careers unless they have a rich enough life history to justify mixing career with their life history. 5minutes (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason I picked Dr Krauthammer because they are more similar in that they are Fox News contributors. I don't believe people should have to wait until the end of an entry simply to find out where someone is born. Rush Limbaugh, being a long-time radio personality I don't think is as applicable a comparison than Krauthammer. And as I've said before, nearly all personal bios have place of birth at the top. JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Would also encourage a glance at Alan Colmes to a great layout that puts info in a logical stream of basic info to career and then less relevant info. ThanksJohnKAndersen (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * So far, the consensus among the page's editors - other than you - is that this is not acceptable. 5minutes (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is information in the "career" and "demonstration" sections that are repeated verbatim. I would like a consensus so I can correct this oversight. There also is a random "]" typo in the body.

The article is now very disjointed; shortly after his career information, it immediately goes into a controversy over a video that is irrelevant to the previous sentences. I believe this belongs in the demonstration section, and would like consensus to put it in the section to which the video refers. JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * This should be corrected in my planned re-organization. I'd say you could remove the extra bracket, no problem. 5minutes (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we agree this is an error, I put the info (without editing) back in the "demonstration" section. JohnKAndersen (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Will your planned re-organisation be posted here to ensure consensus? JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * It already is posted above.5minutes (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I think the sentence that "he later released an unedited video" should be strengthened since it makes the previous 24 hour controversy over whether it was unfairly edited moot. Or, all references to a conspiracy to the video could be deleted (since they were debunked) and it be written simply "a video of the event was released that showed Crowder being assaulted" which no one on either side denies. (Only the WHY of the assault was questioned, not that it took place and clearly recorded.)

Thanks, JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * I fully disagree with this suggestion. 5minutes (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Which part? The accusation of selectively editing video was NOT the controversy, the assault and his "fight for charity" were. The unfair editing part is what I think should be dropped, since it was proven false...why include a false and debunked accusation in an encyclopedic entry? It was a very minor part of the coverage; the footage of his assault was played on all the cable news stations for days, the accusation of unfair editing was a very brief part of the story and made moot by the release of the entire rough footage.JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * You removed this information without getting a consensus. Based on earlier discussions between you and Milowent, and based on my own opinion, the consensus seems to be against you doing this.  Please do not edit it again. 5minutes (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you are talking about...the only thing I removed was a random character and deleted the sentences that were accidentally repeated in the middle of his unrelated early career. Please clarify? And is this a honest question; I keep hearing of consensus when it is something I strongly agree with, but others are seemingly able to edit at will claiming "consensus". So if I get 10 other editors to support my version, would then that make the consensus MY version? I know it's not a democracy, but this "consensus building" seems to be operating that way.JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Based on cleaning things up, I've put together this userpage article for review by the folks editing this page. 5minutes (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This version looks VERY GOOD. FINALLY important biographical information is placed at the top. I don't know why that has been such a chore, since that is the consensus WIKI-WIDE, not just on this article. I still think that there is too much made of a so-called unfairly edited video while the fact he very quickly corrected that by releasing the full footage is mentioned sort of as a side-note. But this is the best version so far. How do we get this moved to replace the current one?JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * I'll give it a few days until we get a little more input. 5minutes (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Having given it 5 more days for open consideration and hearing no objection - and reverting 1 edit that basically did some of what the re-ordering will do - I am going to copy over the new edit. 5minutes (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this much improved and fair version.  --JohnKAndersen

Picture
If you can advise on how to add a pic, I'd appreciate it! I assume using his promotional pic if cited meets Wikistandard? (I've never added a pic before.) Thanks! JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson
 * No, promotional pics do not meet the standards. You would need to find a copyright-free picture of Crowder (say something taken by someone at an event that has released it to the public domain or under some sort of copyleft standard like Creative Commons. 5minutes (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a fan pic on the web at a blog. I contacted the copyright owner and he has given me permission to use the image here (many thanks!).  From the e-mail: "Hi --: Here's the pic. You have my permission to insert it wherever you see fit."  I have uploaded the image to commons and have asked him to verify his permission with OTRS.  Hopefully that will be done soon and all will be well. In the meantime, I've posted the picture here as a reference for the article.  5minutes (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I reached Steven personally, he was thankful for all the effort to create an accurate wiki entry and gave me permission to use any pics I wanted. However, if this person is kind enough to offer theirs, I have no problem with it; I was just going to use the publicity shot that Steven uses for his twitter profile or the promotional ones that come up when you google his name. (I assume his permission would satisfy the copyright issue?) Maybe there will be room later for more pics. Thanks again for adding substantive content to this entry!

And thanks as well to the fan who was so kind as to give permission to use his picture. :) JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKHAndersen
 * Promotional pics are typically frowned upon. I've had some difficulty with some of the other articles I've worked on with getting promotional pics allowed.  Part of the problem comes with the fact that often the person in the picture doesn't own the copyright (it's owned by the photographer), and so even the person's permission isn't sufficient (or legal).  There are a few promotional shots out here, but they are few and far between (and frowned upon).  5minutes (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * AH, very true. It would make sense that one would own one's own image, but I know this is not always true. I'm not sure that another pic is necessary, other than Steven is relatively small in the pic. Other than that, it's a very nice pic of him taking a photo with a fan. I do think the well-known still from his assault would fit nicely in the that section, and I'll double-check with him that he owns the rights (I suspect he does as it was from his footage). He expresses his appreciation of the creation of his Wiki page, and our efforts to edit it so that it is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talk • contribs) 06:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional edits reverted
Reverted this entry to the version that over many weeks had been hammered into a consensus. The implication that the victims of the violence caused it, in any way, I believe does not advance the story. References were removed regarding those who were in danger in the tent; the innocent women, children, and even the hot dog vendor who claimed to be a victim of hate speech during the attack. These people obviously had not been "instigating" anything, so in fairness, if their suffering cannot be included, neither can any inferences that "they brought this on themselves". Please discuss any revisions here first for consensus. But as I said, many weeks of vigorous back and forth negotiating and research resulted in this page, and a consensus was reached that this was the best version and shouldn't be edited (until new information comes to light, like the sentence that Crowder's alleged assaulter gets, etc). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the reversion.  Crowder-Jesus should not be besmirched.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd debated it. The revision was a quote from the linked article, and had left it alone accordingly. 5minutes (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The current sentence paraphrasing the spokesman's comments is not an accurate reflection of what he said in the linked article as it only portrays one part of the the spokesman's comment, which was not even the main part of the comment. Whatever consensus was reached on the rest of the article is irrelevant to this issue. In order to take any doubt away from it, we can just include the direct quote since it isn't much longer than the paraphrasing. - Maximusveritas (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. A direct quote is better than an interpretation, keeping in mind that the quote is not shifting the tone or balance of the article, simply providing a more accurate reflection of the statements regarding the event. 5minutes (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason for including Vale's comment was to point out that the union did not condone the action, which is a statement of fact. The further comments about "disciples of James O’Keefe" etc are unsubstantiated opinions that could never be properly cited. Additionally, the "O'Keefe" that he refers to has nothing to do with Crowder nor the American For Prosperity organisation with which Crowder is associated. So the statements about some other group and its leadership is irrelevant to Crowder and the people who were attacked at the AFP tent. No one claimed Crowder personally had instigated anything, and this entry is about him. If we want to include the entire quote, for context we also should include the numerous arrests of violent union protestors (while NO ONE from AFP were arrested, which was deleted as a compromise) and also should a quote from AFP further down in the same article, "“Angry, violent union protestors are yelling, screaming, and physically assaulting citizens they disagree with all while chanting ‘this is what democracy looks like,’” he said. “That isn’t what democracy looks like, democracy is about free speech and peaceful assembly, not putting people’s well-being in danger just because you disagree with them.” I don't think these kind of dueling quotes adds anything to the entry. Therefore, I believe the simple statement from the union rep that it was not condoned by their organisation but was the work of individuals is the only relevant information. Otherwise, to balance an indication of "fault", to show the other side, statements would need to be added that Steven was attacked without provocation, "sucker-punched" repeatedly without fighting back, also information regarding the innocent vendor in the tent who was verbally attacked with racial epithets and other information supporting the point of view that it was an unprovoked attack (among other actions by union members that are not even denied by the union itself). Keeping the subject of "who started it" out of the article will save a lot of "he said, he said" quotes. It was a compromise to take out comments that Crowder was assaulted without provocation, even though numerous sources could be quoted or just viewed on the video, so therefore it would not be appropriate to imply now that he was somehow part of a group that instigated it when the reverse is the prevailing information from those who were present. Again, this is about Crowder, not the wider incident and the intricate machinations of Michigan union tactics, violence and intimidation and referencing some unrelated 3rd party. This is a simple, short statement that the union "officially" did not condone it. It actually puts them in a favourable light. We worked very hard to make this "blame neutral" and fact based. I believe this version that was so labouriously negotiated word by word and resulted in a satisfactory consensus should remain, lest we open up a whole "who started what" discussion. Thanks, JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Firstly, it is the HEADLINE of the article, so I'd argue it IS the main point of the article.


 * I agree with you that this article is about Crowder, not about the protest incident, but that doesn't explain the bias in dealing with Crowder. For example, a direct quotation from Crowder, sourced to The New York Times, was removed.  The passage formerly read: "Although it is not clear who pushed the union member down, Crowder did admit that there had been a physical confrontation with the union activists by him and other men defending an anti-union tent: 'We didn’t get violent with them, but we did try and push them off the tent,' he said."  That tells the reader a significant aspect of what the bio subject thought about the incident. JamesMLane t c 10:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That is just one of the sources (including the unedited video) that back up the claims that the assault was unprovoked. Many, many quotes from various sources back up that Crowder and his group were not violent and he was attacked unprovoked, and they were only trying to hold them from collapsing the tent with people and flammable heaters/cookers inside. Many of the details defending Crowder have been dropped in a effort to let the reader decide, and click the links if they want more information.
 * This is an example of why I think trying to imply that Crowder instigated the incident will open a pandora's box of battling "blame quotes". JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * I certainly don't think we should imply that Crowder instigated the incident. It appears, however, that you think we should imply (or state) that he was attacked unprovoked.  I don't think Wikipedia should take a position on the subject.  We present the salient facts; in some instances, it may be reasonable to include facts about opinions (on thus-and-such controversial point, A says yes and B says no).


 * We don't want to try to quote everything that everyone said. We have to make some editorial judgments about what's important.  Because this is Crowder's bio, however, his own comments about the incident are strong candidates for inclusion.  Also, this quotation would be seen by many disinterested people as an admission by Crowder that his own conduct played some role in bringing about what happened (even if he did nothing wrong, if we're discussing the incident in Crowder's bio it's relevant to describe his culpable and nonculpable conduct).


 * The current version of the article does indeed avoid the problem of the Pandora's box of battling quotations. It does so by presenting only one side of the story. JamesMLane t c 03:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you read the current article, which was thoroughly edited, fact-checked, and reduced in length, you will see that no where does it (now) state that the attack was unprovoked, despite nearly unanimous reports and the video evidence. With the unedited video provided along with the other citations, people can decide for themselves without saying it was unprovoked or trying to find some evidence of instigation (which also brings up an additional issue, does exercising one's 1st amendment rights, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly,EVER justify violence?) among other issues, which would just further muddy the "just the facts" version that is currently posted. And as stated, it would necessitate inclusions from the other people who were in the tent and nearby who were also threatened and back Crowder's version of events, and escalate into the aforementioned battle of quotations. As it is (now), there are no quotes from Crowder saying it was unprovoked. The basic facts are presented, cited, and we can trust the readers to make up their own mind regarding culpability (as will a court since the alleged assailant has charges pending). That will be a meaningful addition, whether he is found guilty or not guilty. Until then, I don't think any suggestion either way is appropriate, as the article currently reads. (After a LOT of word-by-word editing until this consensus was reached by people on all sides of the issue.) JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * I'm ambivalent about adding the extra statement. While I think the existing article is fairly balanced to both sides of the incident (I firmly disagree that it only shows one side of the story), I'd be OK with including the actual statement by the AFL-CIO rep because it was, in fact, relevant to the specific incident.  No, we don't need quotes from everyone, but a statement from a major involved official would help to contribute more balance to the article.  Having said that, I'm not sure it's actually necessary because, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is not here to provide balance - it's here to provide fact, and once you get more than a couple of perspectives, the facts tend to get cloudier.  5minutes (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a continual process. You don't just do it once and then use that to reject any further attempts to change things when other editors come in clearly pointing out flaws in what is written.  The article as written gives the perspective that Crowder was the victim by saying he "offered those who attacked him a choice" and then by selectively quoting the AFL-CIO spokesman. If there is a notable dispute about what happened, that should be openly discussed rather than tiptoed around while leaving hints pointing in one direction.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that statement, I am willing to change my vote to including the quote. 5minutes (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not all of the union official's statements are relevant to Crowder specifically, he was talking about the entire demonstration as a whole in that article. The only part that is relevant to Crowder is the part about the union not condoning that violence against the tent, which is the headline of the article. Readers can go to the link and read his other statements about an unrelated group (not Crowder's) supposedly instigating which had nothing to do with this smaller part of the overall event that involved Crowder. In other words, if some unrelated group did (by hearsay) instigate something, that has nothing to do with the union protesters later knocking down the AFP tent. To the point that the article points to Crowder as a victim; no one, not even the union denies that Crowder was attacked by a union protester, so there is not a "notable dispute" about what happened. There is unedited video of the assault. The statements by Crowder offering options are just facts. I don't think reporting these facts in and of themselves paints Crowder as a victim, although some may deduce that by watching the video and reading the cited sources, and some may not. But I really don't think we want to get into the area of "blaming" the alleged (possible) victim.
 * I understood this consensus was settled until new information came to light. But if it is indeed on ongoing, continual process, I will suggest some of the salient facts that had been deleted (statements by people more directly affected than the AFL-CIO spokesman) should also be included, such as the vendor and other people in the tent who claim that they were attacked, unprovoked. They were at the site of the altercation, and their accounts would be just as valid as a spokesman's statement given days later. I also would say that the releasing of the unedited video makes the previous accusations and statements about a "selectively edited" video moot. Also the filing of a criminal complaint against Tony Camargo to Michigan State Police by Crowder seems very relevant. Finally, the question was not answered that even if some activist verbally provoked the protesters, how does that justify actual physical violence against Crowder or the AFP tent? It seems an unnecessary addition intended to imply that the people who were assaulted (a fact disputed by no one) were responsible for their own assaults. As stated, this was thoroughly debated, heavily edited for any biased language, then left open for opinion for additional input. This painstakingly and thoughtfully considered version was then agreed upon. Unless there are some facts to support that there are major "flaws", I think it is best to leave this balanced version intact.JohnKAndersen (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * For additional guidance, these statements can be found in Wiki Guide regarding "consensus". "Consensus is reached: A proposed resolution in which all the responses are at least "neutral" is deemed to have achieved consensus. Everyone has in effect said they can at least live with it. The definition of "all" is responses after 72 hours or by all the editors who have posted or responded to positions in the discussion." This procedure was followed and resulted in the current entry. Also: "If an issue is already under discussion or was recently discussed, people may take offense if you boldly ignore the discussion, especially if you make a change away from a version arrived at through consensus, to an earlier or suggested non-consensual version. Ignoring earlier consensus is in general not a wise approach!" This is why the edit was reverted, since the current entry was arrived at via consensus and all issues had already been resolved some time ago. I think these guidelines reinforce that unless there are major, relevant disagreements that hadn't already been considered that an entry arrived at by consensus should stand. A minor disagreement over a quote from an article which is included in full in the citations does not rise to that level in my opinion.JohnKAndersen (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * I see no evidence of such a consensus on this Talk Page, but if you feel the full quote should not be there because it adds this other element, then I think the sentence should just be removed since it is misleading as is. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Under the section above "Reordering the article" you'll see a link to where the page was worked on and the consensus reached: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:5minutes/Steven_Crowder . I don't see how the simple statement, that actually is pro union, that they didn't condone any violence is misleading in any way. Deleting it could leave the reader with the impression tha that the Union itself was responsible. That is the pertinent point; we don't have to include everything he said in his press release about other protesters to make the point that the UNION was not responsible nor condoning the violence, and it was in fact, an individual. I repeat, that is the headline of the article. They also felt it was the salient point of the quote, hence using it as the headline. All of the rest of the article (WHICH IS CITED AND READERS CAN GO TO IF THEY WANT MORE DETAIL) that goes on other tangents about the demonstration at large isn't relevant. If the page was about the protest itself, I'd be more inclined to agree that all of his opinions about all of the groups and other activities might be relevant. But in this case, it was just the point that the Union condemned the violence (a GOOD thing for them) that had to do with the attack on CROWDER, since this page is about him, and the AFP tent with which he was associated. Also from the Wiki guide: "When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion *do not* need to be sourced; indeed, it would be prohibitive to force editors to provide a reliable source for every claim." This should apply to the fact that he was assaulted, that he grew up in Greenfield Park, among others. Facts are just...facts. They don't need to be cited. So if we re-open the page for editing, on that basis I propose we should add back in that he was assaulted as evidenced on the unedited video (not just "involved in an altercation" since no one denies an assault on him and the tent) in addition to the deleted incidents detailed in my last entry. I didn't get a response about the relevance of any alleged instigation by 3rd parties in relation to violence against Crowder anyway; one's exercising of their 1st amendment rights never justifies violence against them (or unaffiliated people blocks away, hotdog vendors, elderly tent volunteers, etc). JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * With 72 hours having passed without any further discussion or responses to debate questions raised, the previous consensus appears to hold.JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Um... no.  Just because no further discussion has occurred does not mean there is a consensus to keep the article as it stands or to add the quote.  It merits further discussion, but it is not a consensus either way. 5minutes (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that no further discussion has occurred kind of does imply that no further discussion is merited. A consensus HAD been reached, and by following the Wiki guide, new information should be given a 72 hour timeframe for discussion in which a new consensus might be reached. No further discussion occurred, therefore the existing consensus that had been made essentially becomes the "default". Numerous other topics of have been brought up and have been not yet been discussed, so I'm willing to let those also rest as well, even though I think they are much more relevant and have gotten no feedback to the contrary (changing "altercation" to "assault", etc, since that fact was not denied by either party and was caught on camera) in addition to others. If a consensus can be reached, then someone changes their mind and "un"agrees, it makes the entire concept of a consensus tenuous. Not to mention that the proposed addition potentially libels the subject without any supporting evidence, whereas how it stands now it states just the FACTS, not hearsay about what might have happened earlier by other groups. To make it plain, relevant fact:The Union did not condone the violence (the union's official position; no controversy). Spokesman's unrelated allegation: "people from other groups had been instigating protestors". (No supporting evidence and a subject of much disagreement.) Once again, if someone wants to write an article on the DEMONSTRATION itself, then all these tangents and details about other groups' alleged actions and the minutiae of words versus violence, that is one thing. Since this article is about Crowder, only that information that relates to violence against his tent is relevant.If language is included that implies the victims caused their own assaults, I would suggest for balance that this quote (from the same article) also be included: “I am saddened by union protestors’ complete disregard for safety and freedom of speech, tearing down an AFP tent and stomping on peaceful AFP demonstrators trapped under the tent,” AFP Michigan State Director Scott Hagerstrom said in a statement.“Angry, violent union protestors are yelling, screaming, and physically assaulting citizens they disagree with all while chanting ‘this is what democracy looks like,’” he said. “That isn’t what democracy looks like, democracy is about free speech and peaceful assembly, not putting people’s well-being in danger just because you disagree with them.” He would be the equivalent person on the other side to the union spokesman, which is why he was included in the article. Addressing the protest at large in this matter just makes the union look worse than providing the citation and allowing people who are really interested into looking deeper into it instead of including all quotes made in every citation in the body of the main article. Also a glaring omission is the FACT that several of the protestors were arrested over the course of the protest, but no one from AFP were arrested. (This was included until the very last drafts of the last consensus.) I would also propose that if we re-open adding details about the demonstration (which we worked so hard to DEemphasize) that this very telling fact also be re-inserted.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Simply put, there is not a consensus at this time. A few of us support the change.  Some don't.  No consensus, so the discussion continues.  No one person - me, you, or anyone else - has the authority to just close all discussion on the matter.  5minutes (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I respect your experience but I'm afraid your statement of Wiki policy is not what is in the guide. Additionally, there has BEEN no further discussion. Issues brought up have been ignored and no progress made at all. I haven't closed discussion; the discussion has stopped due to lack of communication or interest; people have stopped responding so it's gone nowhere. Are we to leave this an open-ended discussion indefinitely? During another period you, arbitrarily, said we should "wait a few days so that others could have a chance". As I have at all steps, I compromised and gave in and gave in and did not argue, the prescribed days passed, and the issue settled due to non-discussion. Why is it different here? You were a member of this consensus at one time, but now you've changed your mind apparently. What then, does a consensus mean, if even those on record as having agreed to one later changes their mind? One could put the whole article in flux by "un-agreeing" to compromises made before the consensus randomly, and we could argue the minutiae of every quote and every word until the birds come home. If anyone, you seem to want to control and decide what goes in and what doesn't and how long a discussion should last and what is the proper amount of time to allow, etc. Why? It's now been over a week without any debate from the person who edited a page that was already debated at great length to a consensus (which also is against the Wiki guide). And this being such a very minor part of the bigger picture, but one brought up with the sole intention to slander and "blame the victim" I can't understand the persistence on this. That editor that violated Wiki Convention by changing an entry that had been arrived at consensus after (lengthy) debate has abandoned the discussion, and certainly has not responded to any of my counter-proposals. Unproductive discussions such as this have been cited by Wiki itself as a major problem for participants. I have posted numerous alternative ideas to reach a new balanced consensus and none have even been discussed. The Wiki guide also states that if an editor proposes that consensus has NOT been reached they must in the same statement propose an action to take. Therefore I agree that apparently NO consensus has been reached AND due to the fact that all further ideas for resolution having been ignored, I propose the deletion of the entire quote that dissolves the union of responsibility rather than adding hearsay that blames those who were assaulted and/or trapped in the tent. If, on the other hand, anyone wishes to engage in an actual discussion regarding the points detailed above, I would be happy to entertain debate and compromise where reasonable. So, compromise offered; if STILL no discussion results, by definition this issue is deadlocked and should be abandoned. As before, to be fair by using your own standard, I think a "few days" should be more than enough time to discuss and arrive at yet ANOTHER new consensus if possible.JohnKAndersen (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * And yet, you do not have the authority to declare a matter closed. The matter is not settled.  Several of us are in favor of including the quote.  You (and one other) are not.  That is not a consensus, no matter how many hours you set aside for discussion.  Some people don't log into WP on a daily or even weekly basis, so setting an artificial time period on your own doesn't work.  In the light of that, the matter is not settled, period.  You are not the [Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|owner of this page] and are most certainly not an administrator (not that administrators would close this particular discussion).  5minutes (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But you set an artificial time frame before the last consensus, is this not an admission of hypocrisy? And again, no further discussion about the topic has occurred, despite my new attempt to compromise. If it's open for discussion, let's DISCUSS it. Otherwise, according the the Wiki guide, it is considered a deadlock and abandoned. I never claimed to own the page, although you have assumed a fair amount of authority about how it has been handled thus far, which I went along with trying to be fair and not fight over every item. I compromised and accepted MAJOR deletions on my part. Nor have I claimed to be an administrator. At this point it seems like it's being dragged on just out of spite since we reached consensus before. I've now offered a compromise similar to one made by someone else; just delete the controversial quote completely, but no one else seems willing to give one inch nor discuss the topic at all, despite all the concessions I've made over the months. So after a few days if there has been no meaningful discussion, I will follow the Wiki guide, delete the quote and citation entirely (which was my own submission anyway), due to "deadlock" according to the guide. After this many weeks (when the guide actually recommends allowing A DAY) over a quote which is peripheral anyway, it is ridiculous that there would be a desire to continue to delay without ANY discussion or meaningful debate. Also using WikiBOLD,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle) it recommends making the change if an article has been deadlocked after "a few days". So there IS precedent on having a reasonable time frame. Now, please discuss the compromise of deleting the entire quote since no consensus can be reached regarding it, and since it isn't core to the entry anyway. This all started by someone violating this policy in the Wiki guide : "If an issue is already under discussion or was recently discussed, people may take offense if you boldly ignore the discussion, especially if you make a change away from a version arrived at through consensus, to an earlier or suggested non-consensual version. Ignoring earlier consensus is in general not a wise approach!" And it has led to weeks fretting over a few words in a non-essential quote. SO, following the guide, I am DISCUSSING and offering a new solution; delete the entire quote and then both side's objections are taken care of. Now let's hear some discussion before we move ahead to WikiBOLD using these notes on Wikiguide: "Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached", and "Active discussion is not producing results." Both you (Feb 15th) and Maximusveritas (Feb 17) have suggested this, but now that I agree, you won't accept it?JohnKAndersen (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Suggest deletion of the quote as "undue weight" Wiki convention; in that in the whole of the article, this quote really isn't that important.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Non-controversial additions
As newly found or sourced information is found outside of the controversial "demonstration" section, I assume they should be edited using WIkiBOLD as a guide, but since some have been deleted before (without discussion) out of courtesy I'll note them here first, with multiple citations to support the additions before editing the article with the most relevant citation. They are not controversial, just additions to fill out his achievements OUTSIDE of politics or controversy.

He won the “So you Think You’re Funny” MySpace Comedy Contest which should be included under his other comedy experience at Montreal's "Just for Laughs" notation. Citations: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/Steven-Crowder/biography/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0189589/bio http://premierespeakers.com/steven_crowder http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-crowder http://weekly.blog.gustavus.edu/2011/10/14/crowder-captures-campus-attention/

He also was the novice NAGA (North American Grappling Association) Heavyweight Jiu-Jitsu World Championship in 2011. He also competes in other MMA disciplines besides Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Judo and is a verbal proponent for its legalization in New York. Citations: http://www.nationallyranked.com/index.cfm?ac=RANKEDEventResults&EID=40365 http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/16/video-the-free-enterprise-system-kicks-butt/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOCN2i_e_vo http://pics.lockerz.com/s/89617026 http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/f/8B4204F76824C91F/Steve-Crowder/ http://pics.lockerz.com/s/163808412 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Myspace issue was addressed earlier. Outside of material based on his personal biography (which is not admissible as source material), there is no evidence online for the Myspace win.  As for the NAGA thing, if it's a referenced thing here on WP and there is factual evidence outside of his personal biography, then it can / should be included. 5minutes (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I spent a fair amount of time trying to track down the claimed myspace win, everything above goes back to his bio, there is no independent reliable source I can find at this point. MySpace did have a "So you Think You're Funny" contest in 2007, but Crowder did not win - his claim seems to go back to 2006, but even old versions of his own bio did not call it that name at that point, I believe.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Myspace issue: Even sources critical of him include this; is this not considered proof enough that these numerous other sources would have checked it out? I suppose I can ask him what kind of proof he can provide. It seems insulting for something that is spread web-wide with no evidence to the contrary whatever.


 * NAGA is referenced on Wiki, its independent site has him ranked (it was the first citation provided)

JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Re myspace, every source, critical or otherwise, tracks back to Crowder's bio. I spent real time researching this issue (see prior discussion), don't insult me by saying I'm insulting him!  The web is full of inaccurate and wrong material, as is Wikipedia, but we try to do things better when we can.  The fact that I can find no news sources whatsoever about the win also should make us question whether the win is even notable.  By all means though, ask Steven if you can, I would have to imagine he has some clippings to verify of some sort, or a plaque :-)--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Charges dismissed
Addition of relevant issue of the prosecutor's subjectivitiy is critical to a full understanding and resolution of this issue. Restoring additional information and deleting the prosecutor's biased conjecture to attempt Wiki-neutral. Keeping it to the facts, he dismissed the charges, he is endorsed and takes money from that union according to his own website; this is critical information to wrap up this issue. Reverting back and request any other deletions of information be discussed here. Thanks JohnKAndersen (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Please read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, then find a reliable source which ties the case dismissal to the prosecutor's political support from unions. Without such a source, your original edit cannot stand. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional information is clearly sourced, and does not accuse anyone, just provides important context of a relationship between the prosecutor and the union but makes no overt accusations. The information is relevant, let the reader check the sources and decide.
 * http://www.stuartdunnings.com
 * http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130318/NEWS01/303180033/Fox-News-footage-flawed-No-protest-fight-charges-planned
 * No accusations were made, relevant facts about the connections between the union and the prosecutor was presented. Some may infer that the union's endorsement and contributions might affect his decision, others may not. In either case, it is way too relevant to the context to ignore. I am open to any evidence to the contrary regarding the political and financial connections between the union and prosecutor.JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * The fact that you think it's relevant is, well, irrelevant. If no reliable sources think the facts you have dug up are relevant, then Wikipedia doesn't think so either. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are seem to think that I've blamed the connection on the dismissal. I'm not connecting anything, just reporting irrefutable facts. It is obviously an important bit of context that a case brought up by a conservative against a union was dismisssed by a democrat who is endorsed and receives money from that very same union. I do not draw any conclusions for the reader, such as a conflict of interest or anything else. But it cannot be ignored, just as if all the players were reversed, and a liberal's case against a large company was dismissed by a prosecutor that was financed by that company and publicly endorsed them. Let people draw their own conclusions, or decide there is no connection. But attempting to suppress that information is misleading, and leaves the article incomplete. This just states facts, with no connection drawn. Again, if these facts can be disputed, I would gladly sincerely consider them and take them into consideration for the consensus, via Wiki convention.And I think the Prosecutor's own website and the local newspaper more than meets the test of reliable sources. Thanks,JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * I am not using synthesized sources. I am using the Prosecutor's own webpage and the local newspaper. Please supply your evidence why these sources are not reliable. It's on the front page of the prosecutor's own webpage; how could I have synthesized that? The paper leans left,and it's from their news section (not opinion). What is the problem with these sources?JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Before this issue is edited/deleted again, I think there should be a period of time for others who have helped create the bulk of this page to have a chance to express their thoughts, as described in "building a consensus". JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Fat&#38;Happy is 100% correct. You are free to continue to argue your point and await greater consensus, but based on the Guidelines provided, I can't imagine any other editor here saying otherwise. I stepped away from this article earlier because it did not appear as if we were getting anywhere and sometimes it is better to just walk away and contribute to other articles. You clearly have interest and knowledge about this subject, which can be helpful in editing the article, but there's a point at which your level of interest can interfere with your ability to reasonably edit. Just my opinion - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input Maximus. In your opinion, the fact that the politician who decides whether to bring charges against someone is financed and publicly endorsed by the opposing party is completely irrelevant? It may indicate buying influence, or it may not signify anything. But the facts undeniably provide interesting context, wouldn't you agree?JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Read the WP:NOR. They give an example that is fairly similar to this one about The United Nations.  "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." That's all that needs to be said about this. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read WP:NOR, am not implying anything. Took great pains not to. Just stating facts that are clearly relevant to the wider context, and also they were not from 2 sources combining to make "new research". If you read the citations, one is simply the prosecutor's page and his affiliations and campaign info, the other is the local newspaper reporting the charges dismissed. No connection is intended or implied; there has to be SOME valid source for just the news story about the dismissal, and I felt the local paper would be a better source than opinion blogs, etc. We want to report that fact, right? And just as the affiliations of all the other people/orgs in the article are described, I feel it is critical to the context to point out from his OWN SOURCE that the prosecutor has a relationship with one of the involved parties. There is no conclusion language such as "some might consider that a conflict of interest" or "clearly his campaign donors influenced his decision" or anything of the kind. Just the straight facts from his page, he's a democrat, he displays the union on his front page as an endorser, and so on. To NOT simply state some basic facts so people not from the area know who this person is and how he got there would be misleading, and I believe violates NPOV by attempting to hide his political and financial connections to the union against whom charges he dismissed. I trust the reader to take all the facts and draw their own conclusions rather than leaving them with a slanted quote POV (that has no bearing in legal guilt or innocence anyway) from one person's subjective interpretation of the video. JohnKAndersen (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * I've been debating this one for a while. The original addition with the quote bugged me a bit and seemed like a bit of a hit piece just as much as the attempt to remind everyone that Stuart Dunnings is a Democrat (he is, according to the WP article on Ingram County and according to this article on the State News website - and I'd add that I'd likely not find a Republican with an Elect Obama link on his website) with ties to the AFL-CIO and therefore a part of a larger conspiracy.  While it's reasonable to assume that a Democrat in a heavily pro-union state has received donations from the AFL-CIO, I can't find any direct proof and so, at this point, it's merely specious.  Since this is a potentially political issue, tho, the mere inclusion of his party is simply encyclopedic and not inflammatory - at least, no more so than saying Obama is a Democrat and Rush Limbaugh is a Republican.  My own take is that the statement needs to be reduced to the basics: "In March 2013, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings, a Democrat, determined that there would be no charges laid in the case against that union."  Short, sweet, and with provable facts. 5minutes (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not wedded to anything particular, but it is notable that the prosecutor said the alleged aggressor was actually acting in self-defense. Surely Mr. Crowder will sue the prosecutor for slander if he is lying.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  22:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. While the opinion of the prosecutor is not the word of law, in Michigan, where Crowder'd have to travel to file said suit (under exactly what laws?), he's be likely to end up in a courtroom controlled by a member of the Detroit party machine and therefore not friendly to his claims.  You really can't read too much into Crowder's intentions by whether or not he files suit or not. 5minutes (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THIS SECTION until consensus discussions have had a chance to progress and possibly come to an acceptable compromise, per the Wikiguide regarding the procedure.


 * I have explained that I did not Wikisynth and the sources are solid (the prosecutor's own page and a simple, unrelated news article stating the dismissal of the charges). The continued accusations are getting near to personal attacks and harassment as it's been shown again and again that the sources are absolutely solid. Just throwing out accusations without reviewing the citations violates the civility guidelines and assumption of good faith . Please respect the guide for building a consensus. You are supposed to offer SOLUTIONS in an effort to reach consensus. I am not wedded to this exact wording either. Since part of the process is to offer new ideas in order to find a solution, how about this. I think the prosecutor's quote should not be included, since he said (in his opinion) the person was acting in self defense. That is not a legal ruling (that would have been a jury decision), and if we start adding quotes of both side's opinions, we will be back to the "he said, he said" issue we resolved with the last consensus.

Now, as far as wording, how about letting the statement of the charges being dropped stand as its own statement, without the contextual information about Dunnings included in the middle of it. Then in a SEPARATE sentence, the simple and important facts about his affiliations could be stated in their own sentence/paragraph, drawing no conclusions nor making any accusations of wrong-doing. I like 5minutes version, but feel that the context that Dunnings has deep union connections should be included for context. So, may I suggest restoring parts of both versions, but the statements separated to avoid some people's concern that it was making a cause/effect statement.

For example, "In March 2013, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings determined that in his opinion there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to prosecute the case and dismissed the charges against the union protester.[12]

Prosecutor Dunnings [11] is a Democrat who is endorsed by the AFL-CIO among other union organizations."

That way the desire that the prosecutor's opinion that the case wasn't strong enough to prosecute is retained without the subjective, inflammatory and sarcastic quote, and then the sentence providing the critical context of his position/affiliations (and there are many articles about union donations to Dunnings' campaigns, so that's nothing to debate) is presented separately rather than inserted within the sentence regarding dismissal. Hopefully that distance will satisfy some concerns that it was attempting to draw a conclusion. There also is the possibility of further appeal, but since that is not filed yet a fact I don't think that should be included yet.

Additional related new information, Dunnings recently also dismissed charged against 3 other union members who were arrested during the same protest, but it is not directly related to Crowder's case, so while I think it also adds further context to the issue with the prosecutor, I'm not sure I can justify including those facts since this section of the article is not about the protest as a whole, just Crowder and his lawsuit, not everyone's. All of that said, I think the rewording satisfies concerns on both sides, compromises, a fair middle ground. JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * I think it potentially slanders Dunnings to imply in any way that his political affiliations affected the decision to prosecute in this case, that would be a strong accusation. Were any "charges" even brought against the union protestor? I think not.  And there is no appeal here, the decision not to prosecute is final.  Here's the real truth:  The attack story was baloney from the get-go, there was some scuffling to be sure, but we don't prosecute 2nd graders for shoving eachother on the playground.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  12:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just moving it to a separate sentence does not remove the implication. There appears to be clear consensus (4:1) against mentioning any union ties.  It is in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies and should be removed.  In terms of his political affiliation, I also feel that should be removed since we do not usually reference political affilations of prosecutors as we would a senator or president, so if you do mention it, you are implying something.  I'll leave it in there for now since it is still under debate.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. I'm satisfied. 5minutes (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again the article was edited without everyone having a chance to have sufficient time to work out a compromise. And I'm not going to go back over settled issues from months ago just to argue for the sake of argument and tossing around insults, declaring I know "the real truth" like "2nd graders" might. That shows obvious bias and disdain for the subject. The issue whether this was wiki-worthy was resolved, and the attempts to delete his page entirely have failed. We've moved on to the current news that adds a new chapter to the story.


 * It is not slanderous to simply include the prosecutor's credentials from his own website on the front page. It is an important part of the story, as has been noted all through the article about the other pertinent people, his political affiliation should be included as you would with any other elected official. I don't know why including the fact that he is endorsed the the AFL-CIO and the other union groups would be slanderous? It isn't slanderous to associate Crowder with AFP or CPAC, because it's true. It is merely a biographical fact that adds to the context of the article. It is kind of silly to me to put on virtual blinders just because some might dislike Crowder and attempt to mislead by omission of relevant facts regarding the person who held authority whether to press charges. (And the matter CAN be escalated, it's up to those who brought the charges to decide that, a decision whether to pursue has not yet been made, and so I agree that should not be included, YET.) Yet another compromise.


 * Also, as described in the process, suggestions for compromise are to be made, so I will propose yet ANOTHER compromise. We drop the content about campaign donations from the Michigan unions, drop the specific name of the union but include merely that he is endorsed by the unions (generically). I've in good faith now made multiple major concessions, and think it would be fair at this point for some others to compromise and consider the sentence (using 5minutes' version as the foundation).


 * "In March 2013, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings, a Democrat who is endorsed by the local unions, determined that there would be no charges laid in the case."


 * It is just stating two main things the prosecutor identifies about himself that is important context to this event. To ignore his affiliations would be just as like ignoring Crowder's. But his public affiliations, such as the AFP and CPAC are included fairly. The union protester who allegedly assaulted him has his affiliations included also, so why do we shield the one public elected person who may have brought this incident to possible end from the same equal treatment? As 5minutes said, just saying he's a democrat is just a provable fact. He admits himself he is endorsed by the AFL-CIO among other high profile unions, and any search containing "stuart dunnings" and "union", "contributions" results in multiple sources of their influence. I'm not proposing including that, or any of the other investigations regarding him, since they have nothing to do with Crowder's case. So I think at a bare minimum, saying he is a union endorsed democrat should in no way be considered "slanderous", I'm sure he is proud of it.


 * BTW, there was some talk of a "4-1" opinion. According to Wiki's guide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus), a consensus is NOT decided by a vote or a majority dominating a minority decision, but rather working towards compromise where all parties views can be expressed if possible, offering solutions and explaining their ideas without name calling or inflammatory statements. I've abandoned a whole LOT of content in order to reach a consensus and compromise to satisfy people with a clear dislike for the subject. I ask at this point that the above-mentioned, much pared down version that deletes the name of the union, the campaign donations and any hint that there is any connection between a union financed prosecutor having a possible conflict of interest be considered as neutral and fair. Simply identifying his party and union connections in a neutral way is crucial context for the story.

There are others who still wish to give their opinion, so please, as we have in the past, give more than enough time for everyone to have the chance to contribute before editing. I respected your request in the previous discussion, and would appreciate the same courtesy. I also did not revert this, (even though a enough time to consider it having come to a consensus hadn't been met) to break that non-productive cycle, assuming this is a temporary version until all voices have been heard, respected and a consensus reached. Thanks,JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * I agree with Maximusveritas's position. Was very surprised not to see you at the AfD, John. In any event, I don't think everyone who endorsed or gave money to a candidate should be added, because it intends to imply something---that he subverted the law in finding that Crowder's attack claim was wholly without merit.  We don't include in the article that Stormfront members approve/endorse some of Crowder's material, because that would imply he is a racist, for which there is absolutely no real evidence.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * John, there's been plenty of discussion on this subject and with the exception of you, there seems to be a consensus among the other authors on how to approach this line in an apolitical way. If the prosecutor ever gets investigated for dismissing charges against union folks due to taking bribes, then it becomes an issue.  Other than that, it's just commentary, not encyclopedic information.  5minutes (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Milowent, you clearly did not read my suggestion. I NEVER said that "everyone who endorsed or gave money to a candidate should be added". In fact, I COMPROMISED and said DROP the money issue completely, and compromised again about naming AFL-CIO by name and ONLY include the general term "Local Unions". Your example of who endorses Crowder is apples and oranges. On Crowders page, he doesn't BRAG about some whacko racist group endorsing him (if it's true); he can't help it, and wouldn't want it, and would ask them NOT to endorse him. In THIS case, Dunnings makes sure on his front page to POINT OUT that he is endorsed and seeks out these endorsements, so that obviously is something he is proud to put on his front page (have you looked?) I also never suggested including him being investigated for dismissing the charges. Again, you clearly did not read my suggestion, as all of those things *I* said NOT to include. It appears even when we agree you want to fight. The ONLY thing that I believe should be added to the existing article is that he was endorsed by the local unions, as that is an irrefutable, provable FACT that is an obvious part of the wider context of the story.

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); NOR IS IT THE RESULT OF A VOTE." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
 * 5minutes, I am giving this 5 more days since there still are voices to be heard. Unfortunately, there are editors who are not even considering compromising, so no consensus COULD have been reached. You yourself suggested including that he was a democrat, a provable biographical fact, like any other elected official and also made comments about Crowder's slim chance of getting fair consideration in a Democrat-dominated state. I'm curious about why you've changed you mind again, like you did over the union rep's quote? As far as voting, that is not how consensus is reached. Consensus is not the majority steamrolling the minority, as stated clearly in the guidelines for consensus:

In the spirit of consensus, I have compromised, abandoned entire issues, and reworded and massaged with very little "give" on the other side. At this point, unless someone has some strong POV issue with trying to paint Crowder in a negative light and shield Dunnings from his basic bio which is relevant to this issue, they should have no problem with this radically whittled down version. Please reconsider this simple, facts only, basic and brief statement, based on 5minutes' own previous suggestion:


 * "In March 2013, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings, a Democrat who is endorsed by the local unions, determined that there would be no charges laid in the case."

or, if the word "democrat" is considered offensive; we can substitute it with another common identifier, (D):


 * "In March 2013, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings (D), who is endorsed by the local unions, determined that there would be no charges laid in the case."

Now, this is a total neutral statement of clear provable facts. Anyone who thinks this information is totally irrelevant info is purposely ignoring the context, and its deletion would be misleading the reader, If you read his actions on the other protestors, even those that WERE arrested (in separate violent events and vandalism), he dropped the charges against ALL of them as well. If the reader chooses to believe that his party and union endorsements are irrelevant, that is totally up to them. But I think NOT providing the information about Dunnings is a clear attempt to imply that Crowder's charges were totally without merit (which is still up to debate and further actions may occur), where the inclusion of Dunning's information BALANCES the article, allowing the READER TO DECIDE if there was any connection. That's BALANCE, which I would think would be the goal of consensus. As far as being apolitical, the entire PROTEST, and all parties involved, were deeply political...politics were the entire point of the protest, so have to be addressed in the article. Consider an article about Watergate, if it simply said "burglars were caught in an office attempting to steal information". The OMISSION that they were Republican operatives breaking into a Democratic office would be, frankly, irresponsible. The parties and points of view of the people involved are relevant, have been included regarding the other people, so it is only fair to include the same about the person who may have brought the issue to a close, fairly or not, and trust the reader to make their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * John, you can give it as many days as you want, but the editors at this page (from all sides of the political spectrum) have already spoken. Let it go. 5minutes (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

SaharaCez (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The highly-charged political atmosphere of the case starting with the setting of the initial incident itself -- a right-to-work rally, with numerous partisans present on both sides -- clearly marks the entire matter as "controversial" in nature, including the question of prosecutorial objectivity in findings and determination of case dismissal, given the officeholder's history of political affiliation and endorsements received. Therefore, given that the public controversy did not end with the alleged assault, but continues with the manner in which the case itself was handled, it is not at all inappropriate to accurately cite the prosecutor's background as further illumination providing context into the matter, in particular its public controversy. SaharaCez (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to wikipedia, sahara, so glad to have a brand new editor like you chime in.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 00:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 5minutes, I am only following by your example on a previous issues, as you said you would grant 5 days more on that issue,I am only exercising equal authority. There are others who worked to keep this page up who have not had a chance to give their input. I will repeat, again, that according to Wiki, it is not a voting system. I have let every other part of my input "go", so I would offer the same advice in return. These are neutral facts (that you initially agreed with as far as party affiliation), make no cause-effect correlation, so no reason to be incomplete. Those who have been trying to conceal it can let the simple facts be stated and then THEY can "let it go". It's clear they want the page to imply that the charges were totally groundless, or they would not be so adamant about allowing only half the story to be told. Why else would they spend so much time trying to hide any union connections when they are provable relevant facts and this whole incident was about...unions?JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Welcome, SaharaCez. Glad to have a fresh perspective from someone who hasn't been involved in previous discussion on this article to provide a bit of non-personal objectivity. As you said, I think it is a glaring omission to hide info that is part of Dunning's biography that provides context, but NOT a conclusion. The readers can make their own minds up if it is related or not IF they are provided complete information. Not his entire background (as that would go on his own page) but to just make the statement that Crowder's charges were dismissed implies they were groundless. Adding the pertinent information gives a broader picture that allows the reader to make an informed opinion based on facts, not hidden or purposely omitted information. JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Once again, there needs to be compromise and suggestions made during consensus, and I've seen very little, with no discussion of the suggested changes that have been compromised on over and over. So, since there has been no discussion nor alternatives suggested per the guidelines, this short and sweet, "just the facts" sentence should round out the article and end the subject until further action is taken. Open to other suggestions about how his union affiliations could be included, rewording, etc.

"In March 2013, Democratic Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings [11],who is endorsed by the local unions, determined that the charges would be dismissed.[12]"JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * It's already been rejected. Let it be, John. 5minutes (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been presented before so how can it be rejected? It is, in accordance with the consensus building guidelines, a reworded suggestion in an attempt to reach consensus. The guidelines clearly state that during the process, ideas are supposed to be offered to work towards a solution, not just complaining or saying "no" without offering an alternative that includes the views of those involved. So that's what I'm doing. Pleaes re-read the latest compromise and the logic behind it (basically, everyone else's associations aren't going to be omitted, why should we omit this important participant's?) BTW, rejected by whom? That is not how consensus works, there are people on both sides and there still are voice to be heard. You wrote most of the page, which is vastly better than the original. You also got the picture while I was researching for one. Apparently, you've decided that your original version of this statement, despite this entire consensus effort should be the final result. That sounds a bit like "page ownership". And it certainly doesn't sound much like compromise. I compromised everything else; this one last detail provides critical context, and I am open to alternative ways to include it, in the spirit of consensus building. There's no harm in including the info, it's a provable fact, and it belongs somewhere in the article.JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * It's not the re-wording of the statement that's an issue. It's that the admins here have agreed (with the exception of you and the brand-new-never-before-edited-anything-on-Wikipedia-user) that the mentioning of the union ties is unnecessary.  It's a matter for political analysis, not encyclopedic information.  Do I think he has union ties?  A Democrat from a union-heavy state with tons of union money in his campaign?  Ab-so-lute-ly.  Do I think his ties influenced his decision?  I sure do.  Do I KNOW they did?  Absolutely not.  And because I don't KNOW, it can't be included because it's opinion, not fact.  If it becomes a fact that later on, it's proven that he made his decision accordingly, THEN it can be included.  Not before.  5minutes (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

SaharaCez (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC) If the circumstances surrounding how the case was dismissed remain in open controversy, and the page (as well as the site itself) strives to be "encyclopaedic", then *why not* have this matter of the Crowder's case dismissal planted firmly (along with the prosecutor's political pedigree) where it should be: -- in a "Controversy" subheading? If matters open to controversy and political/scientific/historical debate were to be slashed across Wikipedia, as is being suggested here, then thousands of biographies would necessitate dissection. There's nothing inconsistent with past Wikipedia practice to make full and factual mention of the players' backgrounds here. And further, as is often the case with personalities connected to Fox News Channel, the mention of political or philosophical POVs is de rigueur (as in the case of Mark Steyn, for example, reported on Wikipedia as "a conservative-leaning political commentator..."), even if their actual party REGISTRATION (in the United States, or elsewhere) is not officially known. So it should be with this prosecutor, along with Mr Crowder himself -- in a quick and dirty (as long as it's verifiably ACCURATE) mention. And, by the way, thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia; I'd rather be editing musicology entries, but this called my attention. SaharaCez (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 5mintutes, again I feel like I am being fought with by someone who mainly agrees with me, due to misunderstanding my intentions. I do NOT WANT TO SAY OR IMPLY THAT *BECAUSE* OF HIS UNION AFFILIATIONS HE DROPPED THE CHARGES. I simply want to mention that he HAS those affiliations, and let the READER decide if that played a part because as you stated, we don't know for sure it contributed to his decision, any more than him being a democrat does. Simply MENTIONING provable facts, and NOT making accusations, adds the full context to the article. Everyone else's affiliations with unions or other groups are included, so shouldn't this person be given equal treatment? Unless you want to gut the article of ALL affiliations, which would essentially have the article reading "two people with no affiliations with any group got in a fight in a park on a tent." Again, I do NOT want to blame his union affiliations as a reason for dropping the charges. Also do not want to leave the impression that the charges were frivolous. (We all saw the tape). Therefore, to make it balanced, you mention BOTH parties affiliations. That makes it "even steven", no pun intended.


 * BTW, I think that was a pretty un-civil remark about SaharaCez; there is no "seniority" in Wiki, and just because some make it a big part of their lives to haunt Wiki, that doesn't mean many thousands of others don't read for years before eventually feeling compelled to edit (as I did about in an article about India). I think that was rude, and that's uncommon for you. And also contradictory/hypocritical, as it was lauded when another "fresh voice" gave their input when it supported another opinion.


 * SaharaCez, you've expressed very succinctly and with more clarity and brevity what I've been trying to say. So would you be satisfied with the last proposed language?:

"In March 2013, Democratic Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings [11],who is endorsed by the local unions, determined that the charges would be dismissed."JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Of course he would. The problem is that outside of the scenarios I mentioned earlier, you are NOT going to get a consensus on that statement.  In fact, other than you and SaharaCez (you're right, there is no seniority here, but the fact that he seems to have joined solely to comment on this article brings into question his involvement with this article), you are not going to get any approval of your proposal.  The compromise is done and was done 6 days ago.  Time to let this go, John.  5minutes (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

SaharaCez (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Considering the kind of banter I'm accustomed to in other online forums and social media, I'm quite used to surly comments regarding who thinks they have primacy in their particular ponds. Be that as it may, and even in consideration that I've only recently launched my own foray into W (more to follow, kids), one has to start SOMEWHERE, after all, and all you lucky lads debating over this matter have the good fortune to have landed me HERE -- FIRST. In light of my own views on the issue at hand, I do NOT see this as a closed matter. This is not anyone's solely-hosted garden party, and as the differing opinions that remain are both entrenched AND widely divergent, the matter by any stretch of the definition remains "in controversy" -- and should therefore be properly filed/framed as such in the article itself. That is, of course, unless the other parties bickering here are Jim Wales or Larry Sanger -- in which case, I bow and concede to their prerogatives and intellectual propriety across all these pages.SaharaCez (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with 5minutes. Also, no "charges" were ever brought.  I noted that Stuart Dunning's campaign page also shows he was endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, and it would be just as inappropriate to say "Democratic Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings, who is endorsed by the police, said that no charges would be filed."  What about the fact that Dunnings is black?  Should we mention that, and suggest Dunnings is biased against Crowder for prior jokes Crowder has made that have been construed as racist?  NO.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about putting the whole "December 2012 union protest" subsection under a "Controversy" section rather than the "Political activity" section, that could possibly work considering we do have sources to back up that the whole matter is under controversy. But if you're saying that this one sentence about the prosecutor's decision should be set aside as controversial on its own, then that's unsupported by any reliable sources and would display a clear unbalanced POV.  It's true that this is not a closed matter in that if sources come to light that support the proposed edits JohnKAndersen or you would like to make, then I think everyone would re-examine this matter.  As is, however, there is no adequate source to support the edits being proposed, so there is nothing further to discuss.  We cannot compromise on the rules/policies of the site.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I had written complete responses to each post, and now they are not here anymore. I would hope it hasn't come to deleting other's comments. Just briefly, Maximus, there is no necessary sources that need to "come to light" because nothing is proposed other than adding the fact that Dunning's is endorsed by the local unions. No light needs to illuminate that easily provable fact. That comes from his own campaign website. My edits are supported merely by being facts, reason enough under Wiki guidelines. (Like I don't have to prove his hometown is a suburb of Montreal, even though it was repeatedly flagged as needing citation until I pointed out that not every fact has to be cited.) However, Dunnings' own website does support the fact anyway. The article as it is shows clear POV since it leaves the impression that the charges were frivolous or unfounded. Giving Dunnings' affiliations, like every other person on the article page has listed, gives the total picture, and people can decide on THEIR OWN if they were frivolous, or IF Dunnings' affiliations played a part. That's the point, to provide the whole context and make no conclusions. No implication is made either way, therefore, balance. Let the reader decide, don't mislead them by omission. JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

"In March 2013, Democratic Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings [11],who is endorsed by the local unions, determined upon review of the evidence that no charges would be filed in the matter.[12]" Just provable, encyclopedic, full disclosure, POV neutral, biographical facts from his own site. It adds context AND does no harm. Please reconsider this reworded version.JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

BTW, going by the rules/policies of the site, if there is "no consensus" to a change, the default is to "keep" the status quo. My edit was altered arbitrarily while still in the consensus discussion stage, and as noted above, I didn't revert it back simply to avoid the needless back and forth. So if there is "no consensus", under the guidelines, the original edit stays by default, so my edit should have remained.However at this point, after so many compromises (on my part) and changes I see no reason to go back to the original. The version above is short, sweet, fair and factual.JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson


 * And yet, we're not changing, John. It's done.  On to the next issue. 5minutes (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're looking at it as consensus to remove your material, but there never was consensus to add it, so that's how it needs to be looked it. I'd say there is consensus against adding this, but even if there was no consensus either way, this is what the policy says about that: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So that means going back to the original article before you made your edit for which there was no consensus.  This is the last response I'll make to this as I may just be leading you on and there's nothing more to discuss at this time.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Maximusveritas: In fact, you came and changed the article DURING the early consensus discussion, and I didn't revert just to avoid an edit war. I've compromised numerous times, gave up entire points, but this info is critical to the larger context and must be included to make the article POV neutral. So my original edit was what the discussion was about,whether to include the union affiliation, then you changed it in mid-process, changing what the consensus was even about. In my post (that mysteriously disappeared) I noted from the guidelines "... "no consensus" should mean that the current status quo prevails, which, therefore, defaults to KEEP." 5minutes has claimed "no consensus", so that should have meant the original (that was deleted in mid process) should have remained, in the same way that if there is no consensus to delete an article, the default is to keep. If there is no consensus here, then the edit should have been kept. The rules for consensus building indicate not to just shoot down others' ideas but OFFER ALTERNATIVES that take everyone's input into account.I never have gotten any feedback or input on ANY of my suggestions, just criticism of me or the subject matter, people assuming some air of authority and deciding on their own "it's over" instead of OFFERing ALTERNATIVES per the guidelines, just saying "no" gets nowhere closer to consensus. There IS some way to include it that should satisfy everyone, consensus. I do understand that you consider yourself an accomplished editor, and therefore are aware how to use rules to try to force a subject to your will, regardless of continued dissent and REAL attempts at consensus via the guidelines. As you well know, it is NOT a voting process, and is supposed to work towards a result that includes all points of view. All editor's input is EQUAL, there is no seniority system. I am going preciesly by the rules that apply to everyone. All we had was one suggestion, and no others considered, then the discussion attempted to be "closed". That is page ownership, squelching other editors' input. The rules don't only apply when they favour your opinion.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * I have made a post on this topic on the noticeboard.
 * 5minutes, you are saying that despite the rules "you're not changing it"? You're blatantly going to ignore the guidelines that you just acknowledged as correct, speak for everyone and make an authoritarian decision? Please read the article on consensus building; it does NOT work that way.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Also for consideration from the guidelines:

Consensus can change

"Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion OR editing. That said, in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion [this matter was NEVER resolved and is still in dispute]. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally AVOID terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor."JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * John, I've been very patient with you over the course of this discussion, but it feels more and more like I'm beating my head into a wall and my patience is now, officially, gone. I didn't say "you're not changing it".  I said "we're not changing" - as in those of us who have taken the side that the union membership is a non-encyclopedic issue are not changing our opinions on the matter, no matter how many long-winded diatribes you scribble out.  The consensus has been built and the only regular editor who can't seem to get that concept through their head is you.  The issue is dead, done, over.  Complain all you want, but the more you complain, the less likely you'll be taken seriously.
 * It's obvious that you've got an admiration for Crowder and for the conservative movement. Guess what?  I do, too.  The problem is that this article doesn't exist to push that ideal on anyone.  It exists so that we can provide FACT-based information in a neutral context - not to imply hypothetical non-conclusions based on imagined connections.  The prosecutor may indeed have union connections, but unless you can provide a newspaper article that definitively links his union connections to his decision to dismiss the case, it's not encyclopedic.
 * As it stands, I'm done with you on this issue, John.  5minutes (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And consensus has changed. The union contributions are fact, not opinion or speculation. Again, it is up to the reader to determine their opinion, but the exclusion of the information doesn't give the reader the chance to begin with. Cheisu7 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheisu7, exactly what I've tried to say, required to provide so many examples and done so much research for such a simple, provable fact. It's even in the Wiki guidelines; "When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion *do not* need to be sourced; indeed, it would be prohibitive to force editors to provide a reliable source for every claim." He is affiliated with the unions, is proud of it, it's obviously relevant to a very high profile union case, and particularly the actions of dropping/dismissing charges against a dozen or more union members from the protest, even those who had pleaded GUILTY, I just cannot see how people think this is irrelevant to the story to simply mention "he is endorsed by the local unions", and let the readers draw their own conclusions.JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * A discussion thread has been begun at WP:NPOVN. TFD (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)