Talk:The World Can't Wait

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 → ΣΕ 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ForceGot 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 ForceGot 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)

[edit] 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 ForceGot 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

[edit] 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 ForceGot 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 → ΣΕ 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 Wikipedia: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) [1], which I deleted [2]:
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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Note

Please also see Talk:Revolutionary Communist Party, USA where the same poor excuse for a debate is taking place. Ungovernable ForceGot 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 ForceGot something to say? 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 → ΣΕ 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 → ΣΕ 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 → ΣΕ 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 ForceGot 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)

[edit] 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 → ΣΕ 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 → ΣΕ 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to archive talk page info, per Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)