Talk:The World Can't Wait

Not Objective
I'm no good at editing these articles, but someone who is better at it than I should rewrite the bit at the bottom of the article. "However, in the wake of the wholesale collapse of the anti-war movement that followed the Obama election, WCW continues to organize mass restistance to the "former" Bush policies of War in Iraq, expansion of the War in Afghanistan, torture, domestic spying, rendition and assaults on civil society that now define the Obama administration." That's definitely not objective in the slightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.104.170 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Photographs
I have photos of some of the rallies, what should I do with them? -Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.159.101 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance of Long List
The long list of supporters is necessary because not everyone knows who Sunasara Taylor is (and to this date there is no wiki entry on her) or why Dennis Rivera is important. A small list also gives the wrong impression that this isn't a very popular movement. However there are high school students getting class credit to not only attend the protest(s), but to document through video and term paper what they experienced, what rights they were exercising and if any of those rights are in danger of being lost.

The long list shows that educators, authors, celebrities, politicians, people of the cloth, etc. are all supporting and involved with this movement, and it's walk out day. The reader should then be able to ask themselves "why" was this so important and. hopefully be encouraged to dig deeper. Please do not minimize the movement by editing the support list down to a few names, many of which are not recognizable nor have their own entry on wikipedia. Bcc cindy 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Be careful. Wikipedia is not soapbox to "promote" WCW or "encourage people to dig deeper". You are walking a fine line here. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit the list down to a few names, the list was a few names before and somebody decided to add a bunch more. In addition I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Large lists which do not contribute significantly to the article would, in my opinion, fall in this category.  If you look at other articles you will notice that they do not have lists with over 40 terms in it.  This is unsightly and unnecessary.  I'm not going to do anything futher right now to see what other people think, but I would highly recommend that the list be cut down, and preferably integrated as well.  That is, pick a few important supporters and find some way to work their names into article text instead of just having a list.  Also to reiterate, this is not a soapbox.  The goal of this article is not to make the reader ask themselves "why" about this movement, nor to encourage them to dig deeper.  It's to provide a verifiable, neutral article which provides useful factual information on the movement. Fightindaman 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The list of supporters needs to be removed. Wikipedia entries on organizations never show lists of supporters. WCW partisans have posted this list because they are desperate to show that their organization has been endorsed by a few famous names. This information is irrelevant to the entry. Chuck0 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's totally irrelevent. If you look, for example, at the PeTA article it mentions a few celebrity supporters.  And as I said, if they want to mention a few that'd be fine, but take them out of the list and work them into the article somehow.  Anybody wanna volunteer to do this? Fightindaman 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Celebrity endorsers are notable only if they play an important role in the activities of an organization. Look at any entry on a minor political group listed in Wikipedia and you won't find a list of endorsements. In the case of PETA, there are celebrities who do ad campaigns and appearances for the organization. If Howar Zinn, for example, was a spokesperson for World Can't Wait, that would be notable and should be listed in the entry. But a list of endorsers has no place in an organizational entry. Chuck0 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article
Please do not delete this article. It is a valuable resource for anyone looking for information on this particular organization, which is similar in nature to Greenpeace or any other valid political activist group. The article itself is completely neutral in its description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinajavor (talk • contribs)

Why would anybody want to delete this article? I can't imagine it! Because it's somebody's vanity trip? Whose? Jane Fonda's? Al Sharpton's?  John Conyers's? Cynthia McKinney's?  Studs Terkel's?  Howard Zinn's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.155.82 (talk • contribs)

Please stop spamming Wikipedia
Someone has placed on a notice on the wikipedia page of everyone who signed this document about "The World Can't Wait." Please don't do this. You're spamming an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griot (talk • contribs)

Connection to Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)
The page has, up until now, claimed that it has merely been the assertion of rival left groups that the WCW is a front group for the RCP. However, it is important, as a neutral encyclopedia, to note the truth, even when that truth would rather be kept secret by both the WCW and RCP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Nizzil (talk • contribs).
 * And can you cite a source? I agree that WCW is a front-group, but other than your own experience (which is original research), can you show this to be true? The Ungovernable Force 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These accusations, and the open fact of RCP involvement are discussed in the very first lines of the entry. What is not there, because it is not true, are anonymous, unsourced claims that there is a "direct control." This is not there because it is not true. Harrassment of this entry and its talk page have been obsessive from one individual, previously banned from Wikipedia for other, similar behavior. With nothing new added to the discussion, this should be kept clean and not used as a backdoor to use this as a platform for attack, disinformation or harrassment.In the Stacks

From the 'Frequently Asked Questions' on worldcantwait.net:

Q: But aren't there communists in World Can't Wait?

A: Yeah, there are. Supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party helped initiate it. They're in it because they think it's absolutely urgent to get rid of this regime, that it would both lift a huge burden from the world and would also give people a sense of their own potential power, and they think all that would open up avenues to get to the kind of society they want. Same as a whole lot of other people in World Can't Wait which, by the way, includes Greens, Christians, Republicans, anarchists, Muslims, Jews, feminists, Democrats, pacifists, and people who claim no affiliation also think it's urgent to drive out the Bush Regime and also think it can help lead to bigger changes that they want in society, coming from their own viewpoints.

— Linnwood 10:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a way we can argue that WCW uses rhetoric that's similar to the RCP's? Like "Christian fascism," etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.119.68 (talk • contribs)

Links section edit-warring
Ok, how about we take a step back from this undo-redo thing and talk about this? First off, In the Stacks, good faith edits, even if they violate NPOV (and I'm not saying that this link does) are NOT vandalism. Lets not make this into a personal battle by calling editors who think that their content is making a contribution to wikipedia vandals. Second, you will notice that just about every article about any person or entity involved in politics includes sections and links which are critical of said person/entity. So that this link is critical of WCW is not reason alone to remove it. Why, more specifically, do you think that it does not belong here? Fightindaman 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop.org is a more than notable anarchist website and anarchists are some of the most common critics within the anti-war movement of WCW. And as pointed out, most political pages include external links to critical information as well as supportive info. It seems from some of your other edits that you and Chuck have a bit of a feud, and that really shouldn't translate to which sites to link and which ones not to. Why didn't you get rid of the Seattle Anti-Imperialist link (which isn't nearly as notable) as well if you really think including critical links violates neutrality?  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 04:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * check the edit histories of Munson/Ungovernable Force -- they have worked as a tag-team to impose their ideological categories on various entries with links to Munson's Infoshop website The claims that Munson makes are pure POV -- and factually false. He has posted the same links to dozens of other location – and in the interests of veracity, anonymous "articles" without references will not start such a reference chain here. If Munson wrote this personally and its important to him, he has a website to host it where he is personally responsible (as the owner) for the content hosted there.


 * to the point, anonymous, unsigned articles being promoted by the owner of the website that hosts them is the definition of something not verifiable. In the Stacks


 * This is just a silly accusation. Ungovernable Force is not a sock puppet for me. The only reason why we may edit the same entries is because we are both anarchists interested in the same things. I haven't vandalized anything here--I'm just trying to establish some links that I put together to better source anarchist criticism and analysis of these groups. Chuck0 18:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The other criticism was not removed as there's no problem with criticism. Munson is engaging in disinformation, which is differnent in kind from disagreement. Regarding a "feud" -- the issue is whether vandalism will be tolerated, and whether it should be noted that he has been banned from numerous public/interactive forums for exactly this kind of behavior. In the Stacks


 * Listen, it doesn't matter what you think about this link, but the fact is that it does not appear that he is trying to compromise the integrity of wikipedia by placing this link there, thus it is NOT vandalism. Vandalism requires malicious intent, and this appears to be lacking.  What has gone on at other forums is irrelevent really.  Also, you seem to miss the point of links.  The link presents a criticism of WCW.  This is an opinion, not a presentation of facts.  It is verifiable that this criticism exists, as the page in question cites various examples of it.  Now seriously, I want a concrete description of what is wrong with this link.  If you can't give me a solid reason (not vague descriptions of disinformation and slander which don't point to anything in particular) then the link should stay.  I'm assuming good faith on your part, but if you can't give me a specific reason why then that may change.  I'd much prefer if we can work this out ourselves, but I'll call in some non-involved parties to settle it if I have to.  Fightindaman 16:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * the individual(s) attempting to place unverifiable links are ideologically motivated, and refuse to understand the difference between criticism/opinion and UNSOURCED, ANONYMOUS, AND BY NATURE UNVERIFIABLE CLAIMS. That someone, somewhere thinks something does NOT make it verifiable. That is the standard. That there is a clear pattern by the owner of the website that seeks to host this link of posting such pieces to various activist groups is apparent in his user edit history. That is the reason I am responding here, and will remove all such unverifiable links.In the Stacks
 * Well, I for one am not assuming good faith on either of these people's parts as they have been at each other for a while. This is clearly a personal issue. The same thing is going on at Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. At the same time, this is a link to a notable and incredibly popular anarchist website and as such, serves as a good example of anarchist criticism of WCW and RCP. It stays whether or not it's accurate, and you haven't convinced me that it isn't. Regardless, that isn't even important here.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 16:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is personal dispute between us, but I think people should look at the bigger picture here. In August, In The Stacks and other pro-RCP partisans kept removing a paragraph on the RCP page about anarchist criticism of the RCP. That criticism exists, it is substantial and has been the subject of several articles in the anarchist press over the years. I tried to restore that paragraph several times (which I didn't add originally) only to have my changes reverted. I then decided to play along with the spirit of Wikipedia and create a page on Infoshop that sources the anarchist criticism of the RCP and WCW. I posted that page last week and added links here. In The Stacks came along and removed those links. He clearly wants to censor these links. Chuck0 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a personal dispute beyond that fact that we are both, presumably, people. Munson is attempting to insert anonymous, unsourced and ideological attack pieces hosted by his personal website. He has many targets for this, and aside from its general shadiness -- is not verifable. The use of anonymous, unsourced materials such as the link he attempts to insert is why it's not going to go up. In the Stacks
 * Well, I could argue, with some obvious evidence, that you are trying to prevent criticism from being posted of these groups which you have an affinity for. You have no right to remove links to sourced criticism on other websites. Wikipedia has plenty of external links to websites that have a mixture of opinion and factual information. And who are you to boldy claim that these links are not "going to go up"? Wikipedia operates on some rough consensus and this means that you can't decide what gets posted and what doesn't. Once again, you have again posted this disinformation that Infoshop is my personal website. Infoshop is a collectively-run project which can easily be seen on our About Us page. Chuck0 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
The problem here is the following link. http://www.infoshop.org/texts/rcp.html User In the Stacks contends that this is "disinformation" "slander" and that its addition constitutes vandalism. Users The Ungovernable Force and Chuck0 contend that it is a valid criticism of The World Can't Wait that should be linked to. In the Stacks has been unwilling to provide what specifically constitutes disinformation or slander, and as such we have an edit war. Please comment. Fightindaman 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I came from the RFC page. In my opinion, that site is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It claims (using weasel words, I might add) that World Can’t Wait has used money it raised for the Revolutionary Communist Party. There is no evidence to back this up, and I don’t take things at face value. I don’t think an Anarchist’s community would be the best place to get real information about political activists.
 * Doing a simple Google search, I have come to the conclusion that it is widely known the RCP has a few people in the WCW. However, the sites suggesting that WCW is a front for RCP are either blogs, or independently published articles. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against small media (it beats the hell out of mass), but the sites are not in compliance with WP:RS. I say don’t include.--Connor K. 21:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, however, the site in question is not being used a source. The question is whether or not it can be placed in the external links section as an example of Anarchist criticism of WCW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightindaman (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, this is about an external link, not about a source. It could still be used as a source to show that some anarchists make the accusation, but it is not reliable enough to say it's true. I agree with that completely. Also, In the Stacks is doing the same thing on the RCP's main page. Just thought I'd mention it.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 05:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Look folks, this is about a link to a page with analysis of the RCP and WCW, as well as sourced ifnroamtion about anarchist criticism of the RCP. This page was created as a response to the paragraph on anarchist criticism being removed from this article on the RCP. If you don't allow this link, you are effectively aiding the RCP and their supporters censor opposing viewpoints. The entry on anarchism has links to opposing viewpoints, which many anarchists see as being inaccurate. The Wikipedia sourcing policy is about documenting content in an entry, not the veracity of outside sites. If you applied the same standards to outside sites, there would be no external links section for many Wikipedia entries.
 * For someone who has widely posted this anonymous link (from Munson's website, by Munson) to claim this is "widely known" is an utter distortion. Links to anonymous attack pieces have no place. A cursory review of Munson's editing record on Wikipedia shows that he is an inveterate troll and vandal. This link will not go up here, and interested third parties will recognize that ANONYMOUS and UNSOURCED attack pieces are not vefiable. They have no veracity, and the whole purpose is a smear campaign. Munson/Ungov Force work in tandem (if one is not the sock puppet of the other) across several entries to do this same routine. You are caught and noted. Opposing viewpoints should, of course, be featured. But just as every entry on evolution or abortion is not a playpen for aggressive "Christian" lunatics, every post related to left-wing activism is not a sandbox for professional liars/provocateurs. Criticism is mentioned in the second paragraph, quite prominently -- sourced and signed. It is not anonymous, unsourced links to generate spam to Munson's personal website. Further, Munson here makes claims as to the membership of individuals which he has no verification for. Case in point. This is not against genuine anarchist criticism of the RCP. This is an entry about World Can't Wait. That they can't tell the difference is the issue. Also, that Munson/Ungov Force are filling up the comment pages is further evidence of their intentions. Trolls should only be indulged so much, and we're a few minutes past that time.In the Stacks

If there's anyone being defamatory here, it's In the Stacks. I just read the infoshop.org page, and it's not an attack piece. I've heard far worse things said by people who were in the RCP for a bit, or who were targeted for recruitment by RCP. The infoshop page is relatively benign, going so far as to point out that anarchsts have worked with rcp members on projects (again, very true - in los angeles, there's been more cooperation than conflict, and it seems like the rcp copies ideas from anarchists). The opinions on the infoshop page seem to be from the linked articles. - jtk

Vandalism, harrassment
There is a dispute over the placement of an anonymous, unsourced external link by an ideologically motivated person who has been suspended from Wikipedia in the past for editorial malfeasance, and is here engaged in rumor-spreading to bring site traffic to his personal website. This unethical behavior is here noted. Efforts to impose anonymou rumors as external links, particularly those false from start to finish, will be blocked. This Talk page will also not serve as a bully board for this individual, or those who work in tandem to the same effect. In the Stacks
 * You have yet to demonstrate that that site is "false from start to finish" and even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It is a common argument amongst anarchists against WCW and is therefore notable and has a place within the external links section. And again, for all your criticism of Chuck's behavior, you're not acting too nicely yourself.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsourced, anonymous attack pieces are intrinsically not verifiable. Harrassment campaigns are not "opinions." Sourced, signed criticism is included in the main body of this piece, including in the second introductory paragraph. Smear campaigns will also not be conducted across the Talk page, nor will this degenerate into a personal issue through further unverifiable claims and personal attacks of any kind. Simple: Unsigned, anonymous, unsourced attack pieces are not criticism or opinion, they are by nature disinformation and unverifiable. It doesn't matter how many people get dragged into this discussion, real or sock-puppets -- the plain fact remains. Unsourced, unsigned, unverifiable = disinformation.In the Stacks
 * Agreed. Infoshop is a well-trafficked site and just because the link was added by Chuck Munson doesn't mean it's any less deserving of a place here. Likewise simply disagreeing with the content of an essay is not a good enough reason to merit disclusion. What matters is whether the piece represents an opinion shared by enough others to deserve a place in this article. If you do have a valid reason for not listing the site here, it should be fully explained. Simply disagreeing with a source or attacking the credibility or neutrality of the user who added it is not sufficient grounds. As Force says, ad hominems are only regressive and don't help in any way toward resolving issues. Owen 07:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the individual: anonymous, unsourced political hit pieces are not relevent and do not in any way meet the standard of being verifiable. Criticism and SOURCED accusations of the same nature are already indluced in the entry and make up far too much of the text already. This is related to political harrassment and the effforts to impose anonymous, unsourced attack pieces are not in the interests of informing anyone of anything. They are about distortion. In the Stacks
 * "Far too much" criticism? There's one sentence and one (or two) links! If anything, there should be more critcism. Wikipedia should represnt organizations in a neutral manner (i.e. both support and criticaism), not sympathetically. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I put some very non-controversial and widespread criticism in and :::User:In the Stacks edited it off. I think this move was inappropriate. If he doesn't like the criticism, then fine, but it exists nonetheless. User:sarsnic 22:53, 11 December 2006


 * Thank you for bringing the discussion to the talk page. Please sign your talk comments per Sign your posts on talk pages (four tildes), so that they include a date/time; it's much easier to follow the flow of conversation that way.  (I just added the date/time to your posting, immediately above.)


 * Here's the text you posted to the article (a second time), which I deleted :


 * Critics maintain that World Can't Wait overly stresses having been initiated by people with a "broad array of political affiliations," without indicating the special role of the RCP. Although the campaign literature and website may mention RCP members' participation, connections to decisions by RCP leadership are not mentioned. Critics claim that if RCP involvement in the campaigns were transparent, many participants would not have joined.


 * Here's what my edit summary said: Removing "critics claim" paragraph - violation of Avoid weasel words, failure to provide any sources (see WP:V), failure to comply with WP:NPOV because no sources).


 * If you need an explanation of my edit summary, please let me know. Also, you might want to reconsider saying that the criticism you posted was "non-controversial"; that's a bit of an oxymoron. John Broughton |  Talk 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. What I meant that the fact that the criticism exists and is widespread is uncontroversial.  Here are some sources out of the hundreds: http://www.wcw-nyc.blogspot.com/ (a chapter of WCW defends itself from charges of being a front group) http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/346766.shtml http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051028142252927 www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1715515/posts http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184896.php http://www.mediamouse.org/briefs/110305world.php http://www.discoverthenetworks.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7213 http://www.inblogs.net/indymediawatch/2005/11/tired-of-waiting.html http://hammeringsparksfromtheanvil.blogspot.com/2005/11/world-cant-wait-to-celebrate-one-year.html http://thedefeatists.typepad.com/apoplectic/2005/10/when_government.html http://www.americanprotest.net/columns/09082006.ph http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/05/29/world-cant-wait-other-communis/ I hope this makes it clear that the charge is very widespread and belongs in the wikipedia. The criticism is shared by a wide array of political groups. Sarsnic 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am hoping Sarsnic has thought through the passing on of such rumors without basis in fact. This is not about criticism per se.In the Stacks 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarsnic - may I strongly recommend that you (re)read WP:RS and WP:V. Blogs, forums, and similar sources are NOT acceptable as a basis for ANY information in wikipedia except in an article about the blog itself.  It's quite possible that hundreds or thousands of websites contain criticism of a group or individual (particularly one on the political extreme), and yet not a single one meets WP:RS. (For example, any website with "blogspot" as part of the URL is automatically disqualified.) So please review your list, and note here any that you think ARE actually suitable as a source. Thanks.  John Broughton  |  Talk 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note
Please also see Talk:Revolutionary Communist Party, USA where the same poor excuse for a debate is taking place.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 04:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right -- attempts to insert anonymous, unsourced attack pieces -- that is a spam rumor that by its nature is not verifiable -- is being placed in multiple location by an individual with helpers and a history of doing this. Anonymous, unsourced rumors posted to private websites will not be added. The standard is "verifiable" and it is not. User:In the Stacks
 * You're just as much of a problem as Chuck is, if not more.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

talk page dumping
all this talk is just an attempt to edit the main story by hijacking the talk page to reinsert further slanders and ideologically motivated attacks. Since this discussion seems about done -- and is related solely to one external website, it would seem to be akin to vandalism.

NPOV
This page is giving too much weight to pro-WCW statements. Any attempt at add criticism is reverted. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox to push the WCW agenda. This page should discuss the organization and criticism of the organization, not attempt to portray WCW in the best light possible. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding that NPOV tag! It's absurd that critics of this organization can't post a simple link in the links section. At least more veteran Wikipedians are taking notice of this situation. Chuck0 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * you are absolutely correct about NPOV. That's why criticsm is fully highlighted already, with references. Attempts by a handful of so-called anarchists to dump on any page they disagree with is vandalism. The issue I see is regarding unsourced slander pieces that are not signed being put on pages. The issue here is not "neutrality" so much as the attempt to place libelous statements without attribution onto a link by Chuck0 and various anarchist enablers he's been recruiting through his website to help him. {unsigned2|19:45, October 13, 2006 (UTC)|64.61.110.254}}
 * Uh... There's one sentence which mentions criticism (actually, the article says "attack[ing]"). That hardly qualifies as "fully highlighted". The issue is neutrality; this page has a severely sympathetic POV for WCW. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment (Second time)
There is a dispute over whether or not The World Can't Wait should be criticized in the article, and what criticism merits inclusion.

Statements from the editors involved:

Comments: Stop posting unrelated materials. World Can't Wait is an organiztion, with members, a basis of unity and history of work. Criticisms of a different organization written TEN YEARS before World Can't Wait was founded obviously have no place here. Your effort to insert them is not done in good faith. I would assume that if I could. In the Stacks
 * First of all, I'm not posting the Infoshop link. At the moment, my main concern is simply the ==Criticism== heading which you keep removing. Just because WCW is "an organization, with members" doesn't mean it's immune from criticism. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 03:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm readding the link. In the Stacks--as I've stated before you clearly have a personal issue with Chuck that is making you dead set against including anything from his website here (or on the RCP page where the same thing is happening. You have yet to provide any good reasons why it should not be included. It's from a notable anarchist website. And why do you say it was written 10 years before world can't wait, that page was just created.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 06:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * you are clearly mistaken, this is not a personal issue no matter how much he (or enablers) attempt to insert unsigned, unsourced materials meant to distort the record of not just World Can't Wait, but many organizations. The standard is verifiability.
 * I have no issue with the Criticism subheading, and did not mean to remove it. I believe all entries should have appropriate sub-sections for criticism. That is not the dispute here, or involving the Munson character. Criticism should be signed so that the author is accountable for the truth or falsehood of made claims, not Wikipedia. Anonymous, unsourced materials are by their nature unverifiable – that's my only issue. I've begun looking for similar, potentially libelous pieces on a number of other entries and applied the same standard. Perfectly fine criticism was removed, but not by me – and I didn't agree with whoever did that. In the Stacks

In the Stacks is removing these links precisely because he has been involved in a feud with me going back at least 4 years. That feud has mostly been one-sided, as In the Stacks has posted defamatory material about me on numerous websites. If you try hard to ignore this personal animosity between us, his arguments against the article having a link to Infoshop just aren't that logical. He says that Criticism should be signed so that the author is accountable for the truth or falsehood of made claims, not Wikipedia. In the Stacks is attempting to make a wild extension of Wikipedia policies to external websites. Wikipedia's policies on veracity and citations cover the content of Wikipedia articles, not the content of external links. That's why links to external websites are put in a section at the bottom of entries. It's understood that Wikipedia policies do not extend to the content of external websites. Citing my analogy earlier: there is an entire Wikipedia entry on criticism of Noam Chomsky. Most of the content on those critical websites are right wing nonsense, but it makes sense to link to those pages so that people can read that criticism if they are interested. In the Stacks is trying to prevent any kind of anarchist criticism from being added to these entries. When he removed the paragraph about anarchist criticism of the RCP from the RCP entry, I created the Infoshop page on the RCP to document what anarchists say about the RCP. Now we can't even add that link to these pages. Ridiculous. Chuck0 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Munson is spinning what can only be called fiction, again. It's simple, really. I've removed unsigned, unsourced attack pieces hosted by Munson's website, that he links to attack and spread unverifiable rumors on a number of left-wing organizations. These Wikipedia entries include World Can't Wait, but several others as well. Signed pieces are the responsibility of the author, legally and ethically. Without attribution, they are unverifiable. Since each of the external links in question is filled with factual errors that wouldn't pass muster here, he hosts these pieces externally to both boost his site traffic AND to distort groups he obsesses over. There's nothing "personal" about this as I have never met Munson and don't care to. His efforts to obscure this basic issue won't fly. At some point, his efforts to hijack the entries on national organizations to suit his personal agenda should cease – and these talk pages can be about more than him... which looks to be an additional part of his agenda.In the Stacks

The content of the infoshop.org page that Chuck0 wants to link to only has one paragraph specifically about World Can't Wait. The rest of the page is a brief history of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a list of some mass organizations the RCP has participated in over the years, and a general anarchist criticism of communists who participate in mass organizations. The one paragraph about World Can't Wait is also filled with unverified claims and insinuations and weasel words. Should every wikipedia page about a progressive issue-based organization that communists allegedly participate in have to have a link to a general anarchist criticism of communists participating in issue-based organizations ("front groups" as the infoshop.org page perjoritavely calls them)? That seems unreasonable to me. I'm not against criticisms of groups being linked to in an entry about that group. If a criticism of an organization is specific to that organization and has verifiable information or is in some way noteworthy (i.e. a criticism written by a prominent ex-member, a polemic between organizations, etc.) it would make more sense to me to include a link to it in a criticism section. I don't think the infoshop.org page meets that standard. I don't think the material at the link in question on infoshop.org is helpful for giving readers a factual understanding of the activities and politics of World Can't Wait; in fact there is almost no information there about World Can't Wait at all. I don't think the link should go on the World Can't Wait page. Takealeft 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate that this is not just about the entry on World Can't Wait, but several entries where similar, unverifiable links are added. In the Stacks
 * In the Stacks is not a credible source. He is a troll hiding behind an anonymous Wikipedia account. His history on Wikipedia has been one of vandalism, censorship and disruption. Infoshop.org, on the other hand, is a widely respected and popular website visited by activists, anarchists, leftists and many more. We are run by a collective of 7 people who are widely known and respected by activists. In the Stacks has been unsuccessfully argued that the content of external websites linked from Wikipedia articles should be governed by Wikipedia policies. This is just absurd. Chuck0 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the people who wrote the article can't just express themselves. Is anything inaccurate on the page? if no, then why bother them so much? just leave them alone and back off their scrot. So what if the neutrality of the page is disputed? Do you want Bush out of office too or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.236.89 (talk • contribs)

Call to remove all this "talk"
As this has been up for some time and appears resolved, I'd like to remove this one issue that has clogged up the entire talk page, effectively "back-dooring" the dispute into the entry.In the Stacks 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the basic rules for talk pages. The final rule listed is "Do nor edit other people's comments". I believe deleting massive amounts of discussion would violate this rule. Second, in the paragraph above the one I linked to, it is said that talk pages often have partisan discussion, and it is better to have such material on a talk page than in the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for any particular viewpoint, so you cannot delete a paragraph simply because you disagree. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that one (or two) individuals are hell-bent on making all discussion related to a national organization fixate around their desire to impose unverifiable rumor links into the entry. I think this talk should be removed at this point.In the Stacks 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You constantly refer to this infoshop site as unsigned, unverifiable, etc... Can you give an example of what kind of website would be signed and verifiable? Furthermore, 50% of this talk page is you attacking "this Munson character" and his website, so don't accuse them of dominating the discussion. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to archive talk page info, per How to archive a talk page, but, as noted above, unacceptable to delete text except in unusual circumstances (spam, for example). Please don't archive any threads that have been discussed recently, of course. John Broughton |  Talk 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am preparing to archive this talk.In the Stacks 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd let this page go a while longer. I don't think it's long enough to archive yet.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is several times longer than the actual entry, and despite efforts to recruit additional people to insert unverifiable materials here by user Chuck0, the basic fact remains that this material is not true, is anonymous and unsourced, and is potentially libelous. Using the talk page to backdoor this unverifiable material that is tangential to the topic of the entry is plain for what it is.In the Stacks 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Stacks continues to censor links to legitimate, notable external links that contain criticism of groups. Chuck0 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Waiting
A question the article doesn't yet explain: From where did the name come? I wondered if it was a parody of true love waits - does anyone know? Just nigel 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but I would hazard a guess that since the purpose of the group was to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, "The World Can't Wait" means that the world can't afford to wait until their term finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.104.170 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The name refers to the need for people to take on the threat that the Bush Program/agenda represents to the world and the fact that not just Americans who recognize this on some level or other but people of the world and the planet cannot wait. It is also a call for people to take matters into their own hands as independent politically engaged actors from the grassroots rather than wait for what were then the upcoming 2008 elections in the hopes that elections would solve the problem. Ablebody656 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing war
I have been trying to correct false statements about WCW and gotten into an editing war with TomPointTwo who cites an article as a reference as justification for the opening sentence in the entry about WCW stating that WCW is "a communist group." If you look at the referenced article you can see that the article referenced does not say anywhere that WCW is "a communist" group. It says:

"Calling itself The World Can't Wait, the group was initiated in part by supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party, and it has a simple goal: removing Bush from office by impeachment or resignation -- even if, according to the organization's Web site, they're not quite sure what should follow:

"'The question of what will replace the Bush regime should be discussed and debated as we join together and work shoulder-to-shoulder toward our common political goal," according to the Web site worldcantwait.net.

"Today's demonstration, which will coincide with similar protests in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Chicago, is not sponsored by International Answer or United for Peace and Justice, which have been behind most of the nation's mass demonstrations in the past few years.

"Among some of the group's supporters are left-leaning writers (Eve Ensler of "Vagina Monologues") and artists (Boots Riley of the hip-hop band The Coup).

"'They're in it because they think it's absolutely urgent to get rid of this regime, that it would both lift a huge burden from the world,' according to the site, which also touts, 'Greens, Christians, Republicans, anarchists, Muslims, Jews, feminists, Democrats, pacifists, and people who claim no affiliation' as members."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/02/BAGKAFHM8U1.DTL#ixzz1COkbFJpP

Thus, the article says that WCW was "initiated in part by supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party." This is accurate. But it DOES NOT say what the Wikipedia entry's sentence says, that WCW is a communist group. There is a big difference between saying that something is initiated IN PART by a group and saying that that group IS something. WCW was initiated by communists and non-communists. Its membership then and now is made up of a variety of political persuasions. As the news article goes on to say there are "'Greens, Christians, Republicans, anarchists, Muslims, Jews, feminists, Democrats, pacifists, and people who claim no affiliation" as members.'"

I would like to update the entry on WCW - which is another problem with the entry now posted - but after I requested full protection I got my wish but the existing, erroneous version is now protected. I would like a discussion about this so that we can resolve these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablebody656  (talk • contribs)  05:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article identifies WCW as a communist group in the very title. The WCW was started and is run almost entirely by RCP members. It's a C. Clark Kissinger project and has always been a Maoist organization. That the WCW has supporters who are not communists and works alongside people that are not communists was never challenged. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Copy of a post I just left on WP:EAR: The Chronicle headline is contradicted by the text of the article. I've spent some more time with this now and found not one other reliable source, just a lot of speculation on blogs and conspiracy sites. I did find what is probably the source of the Chronicle's assertion: a FAQ on worldcantwait.net which says, "Supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party helped initiate it." It also claims a lot of other people are involved. If this is all the evidence you have, calling it a "communist" organization in the lede is inappropriate.  You might substitute a sentence, probably not in the lede, saying something like, "The organization acknowledges being founded in part", etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no contradiction in the text of the article. It points out a specific party affiliation but at no point does it refute the premise of the title. The SF Chronicle is about the only RS you'll even get to mention most of these groups or individuals in a less than passing context because it's, basically, their hometown newspaper. The SF is plenty familiar with the WCW and the RCP, I mean they molotoved their offices. The Chronicle's specific use of language was not a passing generalization concocted from hearsay. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think more evidence than this is needed to confirm that the title is more than a passing generalisation. Above, you claimed that "WCW was started and is run almost entirely" by people with that specific party affiliation, which is not supported by the source. Being molotoved by masked men doesn't make you pretty familiar with the membership of that organisation, either. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is SFGate on the Molotov incident. It notes that violence was perpetrated by a handful of people among the 2,000 mostly peaceful marchers, most of which were obviously no WCW members themselves. Methinks an anarchist/Black Block background for the Molotov cocktail guy is more likely.
 * Finally, note that the source in dispute is from 2005; SFGate itself removed the "communist" epithet in all later articles. In this 2006 article, which is a more detailed profile including short interviews, they still mention the RFC, but only this way: The World Can't Wait's founders included supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party, but in the past year the list of backers on its Web site has grown to 24,000 names. In later articles, they aren't mentioning even that, like in this 2007 one. That's a pretty good evidence of a changed evaluation as the journalists became more familiar with the group. I think the communist epithet and the source should be cut from the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TomPointTwo: if you haven't already done so, please look at WP:RS and WP:LEAD. You are trying to source a sweeping and condemnatory statement in the lede to a headline and your own personal knowledge. This isn't going to work. Wikipedia require reliable sources for all assertions, and you don't have one here. There are many instances in which something may be disseminated all over the web on blogs, user generated and conspiracy sites, and still not be includible in Wikipedia, especially information of a controversial or negative nature. Please let me know if you will agree to the compromise I suggested above, of a "was founded in part" sentence in the body of the article. Rontombontom--thanks for weighing in and fo digging up some useful information. Please let me know if you will also agree to what I described. I think the fact that the RCP was involved in the founding is now reliably sourced and deserves a place in the article, along with the statement you found that the list has grown to 24000 names,etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing against mentioning RCP members' involvement in WCW's creation in the body. The 2006 source I dug up can be used for more on the background and backers, for example the prominent people who are likely to have Wikipedia articles. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ablebody656 that the citation that says "the group was initiated in part by supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party" is not grounds for bluntly describing WCW as "a communist group." It's both a cherrypick and then a stretch of what has been cherrypicked. It's too bad the page got locked like that, and I hope it is removed and accurate writing emerges after. DanielM (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a process for requesting an unlock and an edit--anybody know? If not I will check it out and be back later in the day.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The lock/unlock request page is linked directly from the lock box at the top of the article. But the prerequisite is consensus, and that requires TomPointTwo stating his agreement to the proposed new edit. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo: you say: "There's no contradiction in the text of the article. It points out a specific party affiliation but at no point does it refute the premise of the title. The SF Chronicle is about the only RS you'll even get to mention most of these groups or individuals in a less than passing context because it's, basically, their hometown newspaper. The SF is plenty familiar with the WCW and the RCP, I mean they molotoved their offices."

First, as someone who has been a journalist I have to point out to you that the journalists who write the articles are generally never the ones who write the headlines for their pieces and it is not uncommon for them to be unhappy with the title given for their piece because the headline can be misleading. In this case it obviously is when you read the article itself. It does not say what you claim it to say. As I pointed out, the article 1) makes a distinction about who started the group with who is IN the group, and 2) clearly states that the people who started the group included members of the RCP AND others. The RCP has never pretended that they weren't involved in initiating the group. To state flatly that the WCW is run by the RCP and that it IS a communist group is contradicted by the article referencing the claim and by the actual facts. As Rontombonom correctly points out, the misleading and false "communist" appellation was removed in subsequent editions of the article. The fact that YOU are convinced that the RCP runs the WCW and offer as evidence that they molotoved their own office (a "fact" that is NOT a fact) shows major bias by you towards this group. This is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I would be fine to keep the reference to the SFC article but the text of the entry should accurately reflect what the article actually says and your preferred version does not. Please reread the SFC article.

Secondly, the entry now correctly identifies WCW's HQ as NYC. The SF Chronicle is not the hometown paper of the WCW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablebody656  (talk • contribs)  16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed "initiated in part by supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party." or something similar, not in the lede. Bonewah (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ablebody656, please sign your comments with four tildes (see Tips/How to sign comments).
 * On the content, a minor nitpick: its not subsequent versions of the 2005 article from which the "communist" epithet was removed, but subsequent new articles on WCW. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rontombontom - thanks for the clarification.
 * My apologies for not signing my comments using the proper formatting. My name keeps showing up in red whereas the rest of you are in blue, even when I use four tildes. Am I still doing something wrong here? Ablebody656 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You just needed to create your user page, which i did for you. Feel free to edit that however you please. Bonewah (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bonewah! Ablebody656 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion: put an appropiate number of ":" characters before each paragraph for your comments to be indented one level more than what you reply to, so that a discussion can be followed easier. (Check how it looks above.) --Rontombontom (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

After the auto-unlock, I now edited the article in line with what emerged from the discussion above. Having checked the sources, I note that TomPointTwo was also wrong in assuming that this is an SF-based group. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job, thanks for taking care of that.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks Rontombontom. Now the entry needs to be updated, which I will work on and hope others will contribute to that too. Ablebody656 (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for dropping off the radar, I was on vacation. There's seem so to have been quite the pile up while I was gone so I will try to briefly hit on all the major points so far raised here instead of individually. First, I'm putting the terminology back in. I'm not going to do it now because I want to allow for greater discussion first and I don't want to leave the false impression that I don't care for the imput of others but, barring some unforeseen revelation, it's going to happen. The reason is simple: I have the reliable source. I know that sounds brash and I'm sorry to ruffle feathers but I'm not into "the game"; it's policy and it's a good one. If someone doesn't like what the RS has to say then the onus is on them to provide another RS to refute or clearly contradict that initial assertion. So far I don't see one.

As far as the concerns raised about WP:LEAD, there is nothing in LEAD that prevents the simple labeling of a political group by ideology, as a matter of fact concise terminology is encouraged. If other editors want to create a more nuanced description based on other reliable sources I would be happy to help. Something like "communist anti war group" "communist leaning anti war group" or "communist protest group" seem to be supported by RS. I'd be open to other terminology instead of "communist" if a preponderance of RS can be provided using a single term instead but, again, I haven't seen that.

There seems to be some confusion about my statement of "hometown newspaper". I know where the WCW HQ is located. I also know that all the major players in the WCW inner circle frequent and often congregate in SF. It's were they do they most successful protests and have the broadest base of support. It's their home turf. The SF Chronicle covers these people like no other paper in the country for just this reason. This is what I meant but I understand the confusion; it's my fault, really.

Lastly I see a lot of people assuming bad faith on my part. In order to rationalize this so far in this discussion people have asserted that "communism" is bad, that I think it's bad or that I think that assigning the term "communist" will in someway disparage this particular group in the eyes of Wikipedia readership. These are personal opinions editors should probably keep to themselves and/or leaps in logic that are contrary to what it is we do here. Let's please try to rein that in. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the above discussion carefully, there is strong sentiment here that the adjective "communist" does not belong in the lede. Instead, it has been properly referenced in the body of the article. Also, here and if I recall correctly on the reliable source noticeboard as well, there is substantial agreement that a headline (not supported by article text) is not a reliable source for the "communist" assertion. If you reinsert it in disregard of other editors' opinions, it will very probably be reverted again and we will wind up right back where we started.Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noted the objections to the use of the particular adjective "communist" in the lead based on a discomfort with that particular word but not the role it plays in establishing context in the lead. I know I don't really to need to but I will quote directly from wp:lead: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. The group's politics are integral to it's character and administration. It's leadership (including Debra Sweet quoted on the article already and Sunsara Taylor who appears on Fox all the time as its spokesperson) are RCP members and they get significant space and time in organizing their protests on both the RCP's website revcom.us and their news paper Revolution. It's important, contextual, notable and reflected in published, reliable sources. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources for the additional claims you make above (that the WCW "inner circle" frequents SF; or that the leadership, including not just those you mention by name, are RCP members), then please cite those in the article. Your original SF Chronicle article, or the subsequent Chronicle articles I dug up, do not support these claims. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TomPointTwo: As Jonathanwallace correctly points out, there is no one among those who weighed in on this question of the lede who agrees with you. On what grounds do you continue to claim that the SFC article says what you claim that it says, other than by your simple assertion that it does? Where is your evidence in the article, other than the use in the title which is belied by the entire text of the article itself? You say no one has clearly refuted your erroneous interpretation of the SFC article. Yet read the article again and read the comments thread. And how does the very earliest (perhaps) article on WCW outside of its home city/state make it the ruling source against all of the other articles that have been written about WCW since? You seem determined to misrepresent WCW and your claims that calling some group "communist" is not meant in that way by you is not believable. It is a MISREPRESENTATION of WCW to call it a "communist group," anywhere in the entry, but most especially in the lede. It has communists in it, but it has non-communists in it too. To say that it is a communist group is like saying that a chocolate ice cream sundae is chocolate syrup. Or perhaps, a better analogy since you clearly have a bias towards WCW, would be it's like saying that a hamburger patty IS a transmitter of diseases because there are some microbes in it. You say that you are observing Wiki policy but your editorializing anti-WCW and RCP comments belie that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablebody656 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Communist group" is a verbatim transcription of a reliable source. I'm sorry you don't like that characterization. I would suggest you spend your time trying to find other reliable sources that more closely reflect your understanding of the group instead of accusing me of being malicious in intent. I do now wonder though, what is your relationship with WCW? You seem to have some strongly held personal convictions concerning it's composition that you haven't supplied any backing or facts to. Are you a member of WCW? A supporter? TomPointTwo (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Communist group" is the vcerbatim transscription of a headline, which is not supported by the article body. It is not a reliable source. Nor is your assumption about why that headline was used (inside knowledge) supported by later articles in the same paper. These points have been pointed out in the discussion before. I remind you of Assume good faith too. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ablebody656, what you write up to "You seem determined to misrepresent WCW" is correct editorial discussion, but what comes after is IMO not, but a statement of bad faith. For the Wikipedia guideline, see Assume good faith. Note that Wikipedia Discussion pages have stronger standards of civility than normal discussion boards. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign the above comment. Ablebody656 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The simple problem is that TomPointTwo has not cited a reliable source for the assertion that it is a "communist" organization, as opposed to being co-founded by communists. He keeps saying that he knows and that everyone knows, but the only reference has been a headline contradicted by the article. If we have to, suggest we take this to WP:RSN. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have, my terminology is a verbatim transcription of a reliable source. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your source? Apparently, It is not the SFC article or its headline that we have been discussing. You appear to have abandoned your prior claims that the SFC is your reliable source. Care to explain why? Care to share with us your UNNAMED "reliable source" or are we supposed to just take your WORD on it? If so, then what's the point of Wikipedia's policy of citing reliable, nameable, and inspectable sources? While we're at it, would you care to justify your deletions of part of my most recent posting in the WCW entry? Is it because it reveals the level of support of WCW from extremely prominent individuals such as Cornel West and Noam Chomsky and makes your continued claims that WCW is a communist group that will molotov their own offices appear even more uncredable? Ablebody656 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Calm down, you're becoming unhinged. Let me repeat several points for you that I've already clearly made in this thread: The source is SFC, the verbatim transcription is "communist group". The molotoving was of the SFC offices during a WCW protest. No one ever disputed that the WCW has supporters and people who have signed onto their statements in ads that are not communists, but the people you're citing are not members. I'm getting weary of your constant hostility toward me. If you can't take it down a notch I'm simply going to cease interacting with you and do so only with the other editors here. Okay? I would also appreciate if you would clear up your relationship with the WCW as I've already requested. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TomPointTwo: I am not the one who is violating Wiki policy and therefore "unhinged." You are. Your claim is that the headline of the SFC story includes "communist group" and therefore your announced plans and past practice of insisting on a lede that states that "WCW is a communist group" is justifiable. As I have already pointed out in my original comment in this thread, the SFC story doesn't sustain the headline kicker. Everyone else but you in this thread agrees with that. Your response to that has been to simply state that it does without actually showing how that can possibly be. You have made no argument sustained by real evidence. As I also previously pointed out, headlines of new stories aren't written most of the time by the journalists who wrote the article. They are written by the editor(s). Where did you ask me previously to "clear up [my] relationship with WCW?" While I would have no problem answering that, I'd first like to know if that is policy on Wiki to ask people such a question. WCW did not throw a molotov cocktail at themselves. That was probably done by anarchists. You also took out other parts of my addition to the WCW entry that provide historical transition and explanation besides the excising of the ads signatories. My point was not, as someone can plainly see from my statement, that these signatories such as Ed Asner and Roseanne Barr and Mark Ruffalo were WCW members. The point was that this showed that WCW and its raising of issues wasn't just the actions of some marginal "communist" group but was in fact supported by prominent people of conscience. Ablebody656 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of explaining this over and over. No where in the article was the title contradicted. It clearly says that "in part by the RCP" stating a particular party allegiance of some of it's supporters. It doesn't say "partly communists". I'm also aware of how the creation of titles work but the practice you're referring to is usually on large stories in print papers, particularly those appearing on the front page and it's done for physical formating/marketing reasons. The smaller articles and those that are posted "live" or in a blog format on the internet, often without paper circulation at all, are written by the article's author. Regardless, unless you can demonstrate beyond a doubt that this article's title was written by a second person who did not understand the article it doesn't matter. I'm tired of revisiting the molotov thing. Read what I've already wrote, slowly. I'd also point out that your finger pointing at "anarchists" being the culprits and not the WCW leads one to believe that you understand that the WCW doesn't include anarchists (as you've already tried to assert that it does, without a source) and that the WCW has another homogeneous ideology. No?
 * The only thing the article says about members other than RCP is quoting WCW's own long list of those included, and the RCP is mentioned in the same paragraph quoted. So yes that does contradict the title, and no it doesn't reveal detailed knowledge of the group by the article's author, only the reading of their webpage. Furthermore, I again refer you to the later articles on the group by the same paper, none of which call it communist, even if noting the RCP involvement. Sorry but I can't see how that 2005 headline alone suffices as reliable source, you make too many unfounded assumptions to support it.
 * Regarding anarchists and molotoving, before assuming insider knowledge, you will note that this was brought up by me and Ablebody656 repeats that. WCW indeed states that anarchists are among its members, thus it is possible that the Molotov cokctail thrower was both a WCW member and an anarchist; on the other hand, the identity and membership of the Molotov cocktail thrower is unknown (or was at the time of the source article): what it says is that there was a handful of violent protesters breaking off from the 2,000 peaceful protesters, and that a guy carrying Molotov cocktails (no affiliation given) was arrested afterwards, but the police is quoted saying that they don't even know if the arrested guy was the one who actually threw one at the paper's headquarters. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally there is no policy on personal disclosure here. You can be as transparent or as anonymous as you wish and you certainly won't get any beef from me, either way. We do though have a conflict of interest guideline which I consider to be a valuable guide. I asked you your affiliation with WCW (above you "opps I forgot to sign" statement a few indents above) because you're making blanket assertions about the composition of WCW and you seem to be quite emotionally involved here. Now that you've acknowledged that you do have a relationship with the WCW I would request that you disclose it now in order that rest of the editors here can understand where you're coming from. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TomPointTwo: You say "No where in the article was the title contradicted." The title and the article's contents are in obvious contradiction to each other. You are tired of explaining this over and over and yet no one agrees with you because as I previously have pointed out, you offer nothing beyond a flat statement without actual evidence. That is not an argument. Ablebody656 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, while I can't follow TomPointTwo in his interpretations of that single source (not to mention others), and you don't have to disclose anything about yourself (we have WP:OUTING for a reason), I do suggest that you read WP:COI, in particular the Campaigning, Close relationships, How to avoid COI edits, and Declaring an interest sections. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Done and done already. Since this is the first discussion section I've participated in at Wiki, tell me, how typical is this? I have found it, shall I say, very frustrating.Ablebody656 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ablebody, I'll ask you, yet again, what is your relationship with the WCW? TomPointTwo (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you are carrying forward with what you said that you would not do, playing gotcha here at Wiki. Why are you so interested, asking now, what is it, three times this question? You've said that it's because I was "emotional" in some exchanges here about the lede. I will own up to being emotional at moments, but there are two reasons for that. One, I found it extremely upsetting that you would insist against all the preponderance of evidence that WCW was "a communist group" and that that should be in the lede. When you came back after I and others had pointed out explicitly what the SFC article actually says against the headline kicker and you continued to claim that you were merely transmitting verbatim a reliable source, I concluded that you must be referring to some unnamed reliable source, since the matter of what the article says in plain language to anyone who is not determined to misread it was so clear. I thought, and I must say it was reasonable under the circumstances, that you were asserting some kind of privileged information based on some unnamed source. Then you came back and said that you were actually still referring to the headline kicker. That in itself is astonishing. Two, I actually have a commitment to the truth, which is something maybe you'll scoff at. Whether or not I was a student of WCW or not (and aren't we all of us, in relation to the Wiki entries, aren't we all supposed to have some knowledge and interest in what we dare to write about for the entire Internet community?), if I knew even a little about WCW, such as visiting its website occasionally, or encountering some of its members at a demonstration or at a book table, or reading any of its literature and its signs at actions, I would consider your stubborn insistence that the headline kicker in only ONE very early article about this group vitiates the body of the article itself and all of the subsequent mainstream media articles about it to be maddening. Forgive me for being a bit emotional about that. But let me get to the main point I want to make here. I could engage in a back and forth with you and demand that you identify what your relationship is to an ideology of anti-communism, since you have shown this repeatedly throughout, but I am not going to do that because that would be the wrong thing to do. It would be stooping to your level of a fishing expedition or put more strongly, witch hunt. The goal for Wiki, as I understand, is to produce fair descriptions of the people and organizations and events that we write about. Anything I post for use about WCW for instance is subject to review by other editors. If it's the consensus that something I have posted is not supportable by evidence and is not accurate, then it is subject to being taken down or modified. You are subject to that as well. You persist in making an argument that WCW is "a communist group" in a fashion that I have to compare to someone who in the immediate aftermath of the Truman-Dewey presidential race wants to cite the infamous newspaper headline that Truman held up for the cameras: "DEWEY WINS." There was an RS. There it is in big bold letters, and top of the page one to boot. Ablebody656 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're refusing to disclose the nature of your relationship with the article's subject? TomPointTwo (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, because you yourself have said so previously, that you have no right to ask this question. You know that this is improper. You have said previously that you will not have a beef with it if I didn't choose to answer the question. Apparently your words aren't your bond. Are you accustomed to getting your way by being a bully? Is it that upsetting to you that my joining this group has made it harder for you to carry out your anti-communist vendetta against WCW? I am a student of WCW's work. I follow political affairs and movements closely. What are you? What is your relationship to anti-communism? Your preferred and I don't know how long standing edits/contributions to this article's former lede ("World Can't Wait is a communist group") are not supportable by the facts. Yet you presume that you have the right to engage in a gotcha campaign against me and have stubbornly refused to acknowledge your errors when they have been pointed out to you. Your stand on the SFC article's headline kicker and your other irrelevant assertions (e.g., molotov cocktails) don't stand up to scrutiny and have won you no plaudits here. You think that by making this site toxic in nature that you can get your way? I do feel sorry for you. Ablebody656 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relax guy. I have every right in the world to ask you your relationship with the article's subject, there's nothing improper about it. I suggest you read up on our relevant policies on the matter before throwing stones. I also told you that if you refused to disclose that relationship then I wasn't going to go after you over it; it's your prerogative to be as transparent or as anonymous as you wish. You're refusal to be honest and up front is instructive though and will be noted in any future discussion about content in this article in which you participate. As for the rest of your unfounded claims and unconvincing leaps of logic that I have some sort of vendetta or agenda I just have to say I'm sorry you feel that way. I've done a lot of work here and I'm an editor in good standing, you're not. You're a single issue editor with a personal relationship on that single topic which you refuse to disclose even as you accuse of others of conspiracy. I hope that you can branch out and then reexamine your paradigm in your future dealings here and start assuming good faith on the part of others. That's all I have to say about that. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting, but not too surprising, that you can so readily misrepresent what I just said. After pointing out to you that you didn't have a right to ask the question and that you had previously said that if I didn't answer the question you would not ask it, you continued to insist that I answer it. Then when in an attempt to satisfy you I do answer the question, you claim that I'm refusing to be honest and upfront. Perhaps you are a better editor on other material than WCW. I certainly hope so. You are obviously not with respect to WCW and anyone who wants to review the record of back and forth here can see that you have shown your determination to misrepresent WCW in spite of the evidence, just as you have just done so in the space of a few inches here. (I'm not a single issue editor, either, unless you want to characterize political movements as a "single issue.")Ablebody656 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being redundant here, I'm going to copy what I said above in my next to last comment so that you can't possibly miss this again: "I am a student of WCW's work. I follow political affairs and movements closely." That is your answer to the question that you claim I refused to answer. So I answered it. I would like to point out something else here too. I had every right to refuse to answer the question, but you now say that refusing to do so would be "refusing to be honest and upfront." Can you not see that this is you trying to have it both ways? I suggest that you take your own advice to "start assuming good faith on the part of others. That's all I have to say about that."Ablebody656 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/synth problems
While I agree with some of the changes made by Ablebody in this last edit, there are some NPOV/OR/synth problems with the following sentences: "The movement to unseat Bush and Cheney did not succeed primarily because the Democratic Party refused to move for impeachment" and "The widespread dislike of Bush and Cheney was subsequently funneled by most anti-war and pro-impeachment forces into backing the Obama presidential run." We can work around this by sourcing statements to WCW (The organization claimed that its efforts failed because...The organization disagreed with the backing of Obama by most other...) Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with your suggestions but TomPointTwo instead excised the whole segment. Ablebody656 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and let me add that in the Wiki entry on Nancy Pelosi her opposition to impeachment is laid out in one paragraph. It's a well-known fact. Again, however, I have no problem with your suggested lead in sentences. We will have to see I guess if I can restore those paragraphs that TomPointTwo has taken out. Ablebody656 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A minor note: you appear to be signing your comments twice (are you using eight tildes?) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why that's happening. I'm putting four tildes before my name and four after it. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? Ablebody656 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the four tildes just once. You don't need to type your name, the system will do that. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jonathanwallace said: the four tildes aren't opening/closing tags, but something that is automatically substituted by user signatures. I have now removed the double signatures upthread for better readability. Another style hint: if you use indenting, the person you are responding to will be obvious to readers, so there is no need to address them by username. (Similarly, quoting is seldom necessary.) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions and the specificity of them helps! And thanks for cleaning up the extra signatures. Some of us are slower at following the manual. LOL Ablebody656 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all -- I made the same mistakes as newbie until I got helpful suggestions, and just for the heck of it, you should know Please do not bite the newcomers applies to us non-newbies :-)
 * Appreciate it very much. I am going to attempt to restore what I feel was dismembered by TomPointTwo's excisions and word substitutions of my recent editing effort for the WCW entry so that the continuity historically and its full significance as a rare breed of political movement comes through. If not censored, these differences will be clear to people whatever their political dispositions and make for a very valuable and interesting Wiki entry. The material in this entry ought to convey these dimensions because it is real, though almost unknown to the wider society. I plan to offer those changes here in the discussion for feedback of the community before attempting to post it in the entry itself in part because I am sure that feedback will improve it and in part frankly because I don't want to enter into another series of edit wars with anyone. If I can get some consensus about my proposed additions and alterations within the discussion then I suspect that it will be more likely to remain more intact once entered because of the previewing and discussion. I had intended to add FURTHER to what I wrote previously and this addition material will be in this proposed revision of mine. Relatedly, can anyone tell me how we get the preamble now that says the entry is outdated to be lifted? The entry as it stands now, even though I think it's been dismembered, a bit choppy and fragmentary, and not really accurate historically, does bring the entry up to date enough so that it shouldn't be called out of date anymore. Ablebody656 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

I removed the tag which said the article was out of date. You have the right idea to post suggested changes here. I have the article on my watchlist and will help in any way I can with neutrality and sourcing issues etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. By the way, how do you do that line that transfers the thread to the left hand column again? Ablebody656 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Use to make the mark that you're thinking of.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming at the "Communist" SF Chronicle Question Again
I looked at the source again, particularly at its headline, and I have to change my position that World Can't Wait can't be described as "communist" based on the San Francisco Chronicle source. I had overlooked the headline previously. The headline says "communist group," the article body really doesn't, but the headline is enough under Wikipedia rules, which don't as far as I know distinguish source from source headline. I have my concerns that the article's author would not have said it that way, because it's not what is said in the article body. Yet neither does the article body conflict with the headline. So if an editor wants to put it in, he or she should be able to do so, because the SF Chronicle is a "reliable source." Now I looked up what happens in the case of conflicting reliable sources, and what you do when that happens is write it as "Newspaper A says," and "Newspaper B says." You don't write it as fact, you say what has been reported and whom reported it. That's what you do when sources conflict. But as far as I know we don't have a conflicting source, so we can't do that. This mean that even though it's clearly a sloppy, and most likely an incorrect headline, the "WCW is a communist group" statement should be allowed in, at least somewhere, if an editor chooses to do so. DanielM (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC) PS: Able656, I would say that few editorial debates are this frustrating.
 * I disagree that a headline can be WP:RS if contradioted by the body of the article. At least you would want anotehr source, and there isn't one. The information "Chronicle called it a communist org in the headline but the body of the article says 'co-founded by ' and other sources confirm" would also overwhelm the lede.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say an headline contradicted by the article body would pass muster. I specifically said "neither does the article body conflict with the headline." In my reading, the article's text referring to "communist" is different from but does not contradict the headline. DanielM (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, no paper, including the SF Chronicle, passes muster as "reliable source" by default. WP:NEWSORG clearly says: However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. The analysis of the disparity between headline and article body was part of our case by case analysis.
 * Second, it's not enough to say that there is no formal contradiction between the claim in the article body that some founding members are RCP and that the entire group is communist (there is the possibility brought up by TomPointTwo, though it contradicts his other contention that WCW is essentially a front for RCP, that most non-RCP members are from other communist splinter groups). On one hand, to accept the headline as a reliable source, you have to assume (as TomPointTwo did) that the journalist had information he didn't tell about in the article body, which IMHO is unwarranted. On the other hand, a close inspection of the article reveals no more information about WCW's membership than what can be gathered from reading a single paragraph of the FAQ of its website: the claim about RCP is a paraphrase of its first sentence, the only statement about other members (none of them comunist) is a direct quote of the last. Furthermore, as I pointed out further up repeatedly, none of the later articles on the same organisation by the same paper call the organisation "communist", even if mentioning the RCP link. All of this negates the possibility that the headline is based on information about non-RCP communist members not detailed in the article body. So, in conclusion, after the case by case analysis, the headline of the 2005 article does contradict the article body as well as other sources, and the headline of that 2005 article cannot be considered a reliable source. (In fact possibly the entire article can't be considered reliable on WCW's origins/membership, being based on the group's own claims on its own website only, without any indication of fact-checking.) --Rontombontom (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As clearly evidenced by your own statements here there is nothing withing the actual article that contradicts the headline. To say that "some" founders were members of the RCP shows a degree of membership to a particular communist group. It's like a headline saying "liberal group" and then stating that "some" founding members were Democrats. They're not mutually dependent terms. Also, the NEWSORG section you cited deserves further scrutiny. NEWSORG is laid out as a warning against verifiable (usually scientific) errors reprinted in RS and to caution against using OP-ED pieces in an RS as a statement in reporting. It is not intended to refute the RS status of an RS simply because someone disagrees with the statement within. My present intent is to reintroduce "communist" but as "communist anti-war group" for a broader context as backed by reliable sources. I'll probably do so soon but I'll wait for your reply first. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A headline is not a reliable source, as confirmed in another discussion on WP:RSN today. Democrats cofounding a group would not make it a Democrat group, so your example doesn't work. Making the change you propose will simply continue an edit war. The information you want is reflected in the body of the article in the statement about co-founding. It is not clear to me why it is so important to you to have a more sweeping statement in the lede. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this. There is total agreement about headlines not counting as reliable sources. Quote: No headlines should not be used as reliable sources. If the headline isn't confirmed by the article, then use the article. I think that should be the end of this discussion. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please address my actual points? You keep insisting on your assumption non-RCP communist members without any evidence, keep ignoring the evidence that the only info the article's author used was that paragraph on the WCW homepage, and keep ignoring the relevance of later articles by the same paper to your assumptions.
 * Your analogy has the same problems: the correct analogy would be an article about a group stating that some of its members are Democrats and then going on to list Republicans, Libertarians, etc. too, with a headline saying "liberal" group.
 * What you call closer scrutiny of NEWSORG is an attempt at re-interpretation directly ignoring the part I quoted, and you are mischaracterising the arguments against reliability as a simple disagreement with the statement. No source is automatically reliable, and your arguments for its reliability (journal's assumed familiarity with the group based on location and having been molotoved) have been countered extensively. But if we can't agree on a single interpretation of the guidelines, it would be best to take the matter to WP:RSN rather than continue here.
 * If you want to reintroduce "communist" for a broader context as backed by reliable sources, I repeat my suggestion from earlier: if you have reliable sources identifying most of the members of the WCW leadership as active RCP members (those mentioned earlier by name as well as others), and you have reliable sources for the same people knowing each other from earlier and regularly meeting in SF, then by all means please add them to the article. Then the reliability of that single headline won't matter, and the additional sources will justify the "communist" tag. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)