Talk:The People's Library/Archive 1

Broaden topic to include other libraries?

An unusual library at Occupy Toronto

St James Park Library Yurt

Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Added a new section for this purpose.   — C M B J   01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing, alleged bias

This article lacks many reliable sources. The ALA is not a reliable source for factual information, and I see very few actual reliable sources that would constitute an article for what is essentially a place to complain about the closure of the library by the police. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't stated why the article biased, with specific instances, so please do so or the tag will be removed. --David Shankbone 15:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When the majority of the sourcing comes from self-serving sources it is quite obvious that the entire article is biased. It is little more than a propaganda piece, as every single section is self-promotional. A place mostly to complain about the cleaning of Zucotti park. Perhaps if there were a substantial number of reliable sources that actually talked about this minor issue it would be worth discussing, but how do you show the bias when there are really no neutral sources that even talk about the event? Arzel (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are one or two lines that might indicate bias, but most of it is quotes or neutrally-stated facts at the moment that I'm looking at it now... it appears to be very well-sourced. Also, what? The American Library Association is not a "reliable source for factual information"? The professional organization of librarians, the one career that makes a point of being obsessed with "reliable sources of factual information"? Really? Since when? I mean, sure, they support the idea of the "People's Library" (because they like libraries period), but most of the stuff cited to them is quotes - which is appropriate, and rendered in the proper context of quotes from various sides about it. I don't get how the ALA is not a "reliable source" of... quotes from the ALA.

Really, considering it's just an amateur (albeit well-stocked and well-known amateur) library, which isn't nearly as contentious as a lot of other OWS stuff, I'm not sure how you could come up with a much more NPOV article outside a couple of tweaks here and there. All of the stuff is sourced to the reports that discussed them, and represented as such. Aside from the section on the 2 Am raid on Zuccotti ("despite the fact that the protest...", that really shoudln't be there, that's the only moment of pure bias I see)... really, it's not as controversial a topic, so what were you expecting? o.O

My take is that the article atm provides a decently, relatively neutral view of its subject, with only a couple of tweaks needed to achieve that; it is well-sourced when discussing coverage and statements made about it and what items were held by it. It's also a little too long and comprehensive to lump into the OWS article, which is already pretty massive. I would hate to lose the nice, informative coverage here. I would vote against deletion, and against merging, and merely in favor of slight cleanup on the "Zuccotti raid" section. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

IP68, you should add your vote against Merge to the appropriate section below. And, once again User:Arzel is mischaracterizing the sourcing and judging the OWS coverage through the fog of his arch-conservative activism. To call this one "propaganda" is willfully dishonest. He really shouldn't be touching these articles. -A98 98.92.187.205 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

He has displayed no such "arch-conservative" activism. He just disagrees with you. Stop throwing around accusations to prove points--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

Zuccotti Park raid

I think we should keep this article, but as its new it may be unintentionally biased. In editing I may have been "too" objective and over corrected in attempting to neutralize the tone. I would like to hear feed back where I potentially (and probably) messed up. Thanks.

184.227.254.173 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Moi

The "forcibly evacuated unauthorized people" description is a bit problematic, because a wide variety of reliable sources report that both authorized and unauthorized people were targeted indiscriminately. The manual of style also discourages the use of links in section headings. Aside that, and overall, I'd say you did a relatively good job with most of it.   — C M B J   01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fail to understand why this is an article

First of all, how is this "library" notable enough to merit its own article? Most of the sources used address potentially destroyed content from police raids, not the library itself. Some of the sources are dubious: Politicusa? Daily Kos? 2600: The Hacker Quarterly? The lead portrays this as a well established, highly frequented intellectual gathering; couldn't be more wrong. The picture of the "Toronto branch" looks like some 1960s LSD den. Sure the New York "flagship" has more books but it's still a temporary tent.

I'm not saying this article's information isn't notable. I do see this being more functional in the main article on OWS, especially info concerning book damage. In short, I propose a merge between the two articles. Any thoughts?--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

How is the library just a temporary tent if it demonstrably continues to exist in absence of said structure? Why is 2600: The Hacker Quarterly a dubious source for technopolitical discourse? What does a traditional Mongolian Yurt have to do with hippie drug dens? Moreover, how does that perception relate to the notability of something in another country?   — C M B J   08:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you got me on Hacker 2600. However, sources like this will need to be removed per WP:BLOGS. My comment on the Toronto library criticizes the description of it as a "public library", not its notability.

As stated a large majority of this article concerns the disposal of books of the November 15th police raid. This could all be summed up neatly in a paragraph on the main OWS page. Will open this discussion to more people by adding merger tag. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

American Libraries and the Cornell Daily Sun are both calling it a "public library," which suggests that we should have some compelling reason to do otherwise. The aforementioned source is not definitively in violation of WP:BLOGS as it was being used; regardless, I've removed and replaced it as a courtesy.   — C M B J   23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be newsworthy as a subset of the impact of OWS protests (where it was indeed a rather longstanding "intellectual gathering", what, 2-3 months isn't long? Maybe not compared to a lot of libraries that have a building, but that's pretty impressive for something that only had a space to exist because of a protest). It also has had surprising local impact in a major city that have also been considered somewhat newsworthy, and national support from organizations like the ALA. That alone suggests it should be covered; as to whether it "justifies its own article", I look at it it this way: is it more than a stub-length article? Yes? Is its parent article really long? yes? Than it needs to separate, for reader convenience - at least until we're sure if it's "done" or not. I would however contest the use of past tense in the article's opening, because the end of the article indicates efforts are on to keep it going; I would favor the language "is or was", because while it's nice to be certain, it's better to be accurate. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Occupy Wall Street

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus. -- Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

---

We are not proposing to delete anything. Just merge. If such action is taken I will ensure that little/no information is lost.--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

• Merge: Most of this article and the sources used concern the raid on the library on 11/15/2011. Thought all of this information could be efficiently summarized on the OWS page. Thoughts are welcome--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

• Merge per nomination. The reliably-sourced info in this article isn't sufficient enough to support a stand-alone article. Kelly ^hi! 17:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Merge A tent with books does not have the notability for its own article; the material would fit well in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The scope and size of Occupy Wall Street are not consistent with the conditions necessary for a merger. Wikipedia:Summary style highlights the fact that meaningful content should generally not be eliminated, and Wikipedia:Content forking outlines the need to fork content when the depth and breadth of a subtopic exceed what can be reasonably accommodated in a single article. As for suggestions that this subject is only notable because of one event, that is simply not true: several of the sources already cited in the article predate said event and still provide significant, direct coverage of the subject in detail.   — C M B J   01:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment We never suggested that content would be deleted. Again most of this article describes the November 15th Raid; this information would fit perfectly into OWS's chronology section. Information about the library itself would be merged as well. In terms of article size, I'm sure OWS growth will reverse once the event is over and editors have time to worry about copyediting. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Approximately half of the current material is unrelated to the raid, with about five hundred words belonging to each domain. Considering that the article is just shy of 38 hours old and is still actively being edited, that's a reasonable metric.   — C M B J   02:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge No notability outside the OWS article, and undue information can be removed so it can fit there. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you please provide specific examples of what you consider to be undue information?   — C M B J   03:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Weekly poetry reading (as opposed to why not comic books?) because the poetry reading is about the protesters, regardless if there's a library or not. 완젬스 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Merge If it gains more notability. 173.133.187.239 (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Moi

• Merge and edit down to reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, a complete list of sources is as follows: 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, Al Jazeera, American Libraries, the American Library Association, BeyondChron, Common Cause, Library Journal, Salon, the School Library Journal, Slate, The Cornell Daily Sun, The Globe and Mail, The Huffington Post, The Portland Mercury, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Prague Post, and Time. Please elaborate on which sources you believe to be unreliable.   — C M B J   03:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge A minor footnote in the history of OWS. Most of the sourcing is self-serving and/or blog related. Only real reliable sourcing is about allegations of destruction of some books when Zuccoti Park was cleaned. Arzel (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources reiterates that point, adding about opinions that "otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a 'blog' style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format." If you have material objections to a particular source or the article's content, please specify your points of concern so that we may evaluate them. The only way that such issues can be resolved is if they are made known.   — C M B J   09:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of WP:V, and it does not resolve the self-serving nature of most of their reports. I have seen very little actual reporting on this minor aspect of OWS, but a lot of complaining about claims of destruction of material, which according to this is largely overstated. Ironic that it is a blog, I know, but like I say, not much in the way of actual reporting being done on this, only furthering the reasoning to move this WP:FORK back into the drawer with the rest of the silverware. Arzel (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times article that you linked contains a preliminary report based upon Bloomberg's official statement, which is covered in the relevant section. Subsequent reports from multiple sources then clarified that there was a grievance lodged by the librarians, who claimed that a significant discrepancy existed with their materials and equipment retained by the city. This is also described alongside Bloomberg's position.   — C M B J   22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

*weak merge changed to strong keep While I think the article's got passion, which I like, it barely teeters on the threshold for separate notability. I like CMBJ's energy for the article, and I know he or she could probably bring it up to Good Article some day if kept separate, but just not right now. 완젬스 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC) based on the amount of CMBJ's passion alone! (and to the merits of him out-arguing everybody impressively on this discussion, give the guy credit, he's tenacious) 완젬스 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as a distinct article The Occupy Wall Street article is far too large and cumbersome as it is. This is an appropriate, separate link to explain this specific aspect. It deserves mention, as it gets in the current article, but the whole subject will be weakened by too much detail in an already huge article. The next slippery slope will be to diminish the detail, which is essentially where it sits in the main article now. Trackinfo (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as a distinct article - agree with Trackinfo, for reasons stated. It would be one thing if this was a stub-quality article, but it is not. OWS article is too long to include this much detail, and this article is relatively NPOV and VERY well-sourced and actually cites its sources well, providing a rather good coverage of the topic. That's more than most articles seem to ever get, and this is for an ongoing subject. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Half of this article discusses the raid on November 15th - most of the reliable sources used address only this. POV is nearly sorted out. The primary issue is if People's Library is notable enough to merit its own article. As I stated below, the OWS article is branching off like many large articles, ultimately decreasing word count and making article size in this debate a nonissue. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

• Keep. An article about a notable subject, merging it to Occupy Wall Street just because that was the location of the library is stupid, should we move the whole Occupy Wall Street article to Wall Street because that's where it was located? No. SalfEnergy 23:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are taking this completely out of context. We are not attempting to merge the article because it is located on Wall Street. Please read the above discussion before contributing. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

• Keep We have no idea as to the future of this movement - it may become even larger, or it may just die out. Here in Maine each of our four occupies have their own little library. What's the rush to delete this article? Many Wikipedia articles have far fewer views than this one. Gandydancer (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We are not trying the delete this article. Merge and delete are two distinctly different actions. True, we cannot accurately predict the future of OWS or this library. Those who want merge this article just don't believe enough has happened yet for the People's Library to be notable. Read above discussion for more commentary. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for reminding me that I should have been clearer in my rationale. I have read the above discussion and I am very familiar with the OWS article since I have worked with it almost from the start. We are already having a difficult time at the OWS article in that initially the article was mainly centered on the NYC OWS protest, but the movement has both ballooned and mushroomed and we have twice discussed the difficult job of splintering it off. Initally even the addition of an OWS timeline article was hotly discussed and, if I remember correctly, it was put up for deletion. Again I say, what's the rush? - time will tell. If interest in the movement dies off it can be merged - if not it can stand on it's own. Please let me know if I have addressed your concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing only the library itself, not interest in the Occupy movement. From my understanding the library in Zuccotti Park has been removed as of the 11/15/2011 raid. Books are either in boxes, dumpsters (according to some; has been disputed by protesters and police) or in storage. While it was an interesting characteristic of OWS it is gone and never was a core element of the protests. It never received significant media attention until the raid.

By the way, that OWS timeline article you were talking about is currently up and running. Thankfully the deletion nomination was rejected. We should see diffusion of information into this article within the coming days. This will hopefully result in OWS's deflation, allowing information about this library to be more easily merged. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

The library did not cease to exist after the raid; it is still receiving news coverage as it convalesces its collection and has yet to miss a day of operation.   — C M B J   04:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If it still exists, we need to change the tense. Again, news coverage primarily concerns the raid itself, not necessarily the library. Stories from reliable sources were written about five days ago (naturally as a post-raid media response) [1]. Several newspapers such as the Boston Globe are still catching up though coverage is usually focused on the raid.

I don't understand why this has become a keep/delete debate. We are not proposing to delete anything. Just merge. If such action is taken I will ensure that little/no information is lost. This statement is going at the top of this discussion to avoid any further confusion. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Perhaps you have not seen how the Occupy Wall Street article evolves many times a day. Every statement there is nitpicked and chopped for brevity. Within a huge active article like that, all the information contained on this separate article will get pared down to the bare essentials. That is what has already happened to this subject, but a small part of the bigger picture. On Wikipedia, we create smaller articles to give further information about a subject. This subject goes beyond the average stub representation that "more information" frequently becomes. There is absolutely no excuse to remove this information, which is ,in effect, what will happen if this is merged back. And there are no words Wikipedian1234 can say to guarantee it will not. No one user controls the content that evolves here. Trackinfo (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Brevity should not be underestimated as a core quality. Making clear, concise Wikipedia articles is essential for the encyclopedia itself and readers. Subjects are "nitpicked" and "cut" to make articles more efficient in their conveyance of information. This is a normal process and an important role we take as editors, hence the name.

If information is tightened on OWS then it is for the sake of this efficiency, not to censor or reduce awareness of an issue. This library was never recognized until the police removed it. OWS is about many other things: protest, freedom of speech, unhappiness with government, etc. The People's Library is more of an accessory to the movement than a central ideal or aspect; had it of been so, there would have been significant media coverage on it since the beginning.

Sure, I cannot guarantee that every character will be preserved. But I sure as hell will try if a merge occurs--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Traficinfo made an excellent post and he is very correct in his opinion of the overall view for both this article at the NYC OWS article. I am growing weary of you, WP1234. Please stop telling me what I already know. You do not need to inform me that the timeline article is up and running - I was there before it started and I check it daily. Furthermore, every good editor knows that more time is spent on the talk pages than the article pages, to say the least, but as often as not it boils down to "you have your opinion and I have mine - we do not agree". Let's just leave it at that. Again, I see no reason to rush to delete this article - let's give it some time. Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Media hype. Invmog (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - this library and its sister libraries have received so much mainstream reliable source coverage that it's without doubt deserving of its own article. Perhaps it needs to be re-written and its sources strengthened, but it has more than met our low bar, and even passes our medium bar for notability on its own right. We aren't here to judge whether we personally find it notable, or whether we think it should be notable, but whether mainstream reliable sources find it notable, and without doubt that's the case. --David Shankbone 06:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as a distinct article - The OWS article is already enormous as it is. Let's say we merge it. If a lot of this article is preserved, it would make the OWS article far too big. If it was cut way down, then it'll get "lost in the crowd" in the OWS article. Third party sources are providing coverage, and it's not like the article is a stub. Keep it as is. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, There are lots of good source for this article, and lots of details here which would be inappropriate at Occupy Wall Street. I will go so far as to say that this article must be kept. The sourcing is too good. B^e——C_ritical 02:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The OWS article is already twice the size of what Wikipedia policy says is an appropriate maximum. Certainly nothing should be added, the OWS article needs to be divided. Magister Scienta^talk 05:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep – This article is well-sourced with many reliable secondary sources. The Occupy Wall Street article is already quite long, and as such, merging isn't really the best option in this case. It's reasonable to keep this article in place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This article is substantial and the OWS article is large. The main article of a topic should especially conform to summary style. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP -- The article itself is significant. It has a lot of useful/relevant/valid information that, when added to this article, would make it even longer - not that there aren't longer articles... I vote that the main article for the Library should be kept, and a section - with link - should be added to the OWS article. 59.145.201.70 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• COMMENT --- The Primary Soucing for this article is not a RS per WP guidelines. Most of the information is from OWS activist Christian Zabriskie and the documents picked up by the ALA are his Peoples Library blog reports. Arzel (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The American Library Association is a reliable source. User:Arzel's interpretation of policy is not reliable. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So you feel comfortable to source pretty much this entire document from one OWS blogger? Since when did the standards of WP fall so low? Arzel (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The ALA is not a personal blog. Some of us know the difference. -A98 98.92.188.12 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do not merge -- significant daughter article, parent article is already too big. Another editor recently tagged the OWS article for splitting off several sections, so adding more to it doesn't make sense. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Merge and edit down to reliable sources. I think this is barely noteable in the main article, except to the protesters themselves --Judgeking (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• DO NOT MERGE. This article is a minor part of the Occupy Movement, and may not even be noteworthy to remain as a separate article per Wikipedia guidelines. If it is merged with the main Occupy article, its importance and noteworthiness is automatically increased, which is not desirable. Either this library article should stand on its own merit or it should not stand at all. Truthanado (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

improper Canvassing

Last week User:Wikipedian1234 posted notices on the talkpages of 4 different editors who have expressed anti-OWS sentiments and therefore likely to vote his way:

• [2] at User_talk:Kelly: "Opposition to merge is rising; suspect that they're all supporters of Occupy." (he later realized the latter non-AGF comment should be stricken [3])
• [4] at User_talk:Arzel: "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."
• [5] at User_talk:Amadscientist: "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."
• [6] at User_talk:Reywas92 "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."

Whether or not he was successful, he attempted to influence the debate which is highly inappropriate, per WP:Canvassing. -A98 98.92.187.248 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While not exactly the best use of his time, I am not sure this is canvassing. As we were all a part of the original comment section his comments would have little influence. One would expect all of us to have this page marked since we had made comments already. Also, I take exception to the "anti-OWS" sentiments. I could care less about OWS. I do, however, object to OWS activists writing articles to support their campaign. Arzel (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone who doesn't care about OWS doesn't come here and fight a supposed bias by calling the article "self-promotional" and (ridiculously overstating, as usual) "propaganda." You're not fooling anyone. -A98 98.92.186.202 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the histories here, and I don't believe he was canvassing--Judgeking (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of their supposed "anti-OSW" agenda. After reading read the OWS talk page I cannot find any noticeable evidence of these editors displaying "anti OSW" behavior. Your accusations are unfounded and have serious implications on our credibility.

Just as Arzel stated, I couldn't care less for this protest. I just want articles to be reliably sourced, have notability to gain article status etc. I contacted them because they had stated their opinion and I wanted them to participate. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost six years; why would I jeopardize my hard earned credibility over one non notable article?

Lets take a look at the regulation:

• SPAMMING "Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it."

-I did not post an excessive number of messages.

• CAMPAIGNING "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages."

-I did not attempt to sway anyone's opinion in the messages. I merely encouraged them to participate more in a debate where they had already stated their opinions.

• VOTESTACKING "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters. Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis."

-I only contacted editors who had already voted on the matter.

• STEALTH CANVASSING "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages."

-I only used wiki communication.

Falsely accusing me of canvassing is dishonest, deceitful and manipulative. Maybe I should be reporting you to an admin--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC))

Those diffs represent improper canvassing. B^e——C_ritical 02:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, asking other editors for "continued support for pro-merge" is what's manipulative. Reporting it here (and possibly elsewhere, tbd) is neither dishonest nor deceitful. User:Wikipedian1234 even recognized the possibility of impropriety, or perhaps just risking the appearance of such, with his reply [7] on his usertalkpage. But if he genuinely believes this to be an intentionally false accusation, I encourage him to go ahead and report it himself. -A98 98.92.188.12 (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh for the love of God. I did not recognize any such "impropriety". I wanted you to get off my case. I have nothing to hide; editors have completely free access to my talk page. You assume too much with your attempts to criminalize me--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'll take your offer on the report. If I am breaking policy I would like to hear from an admin on the matter, not from an aggressive IP. Will write it up sometime today--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Here it is--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

Exaggerate much? No one is attempting to 'criminalize' you. But I maintain that you were trying to influence the debate by encouraging others who voted Merge, in order to keep arguing alongside you. I guess you got tired of replying to every 'Do Not Merge/Keep' vote, whether to dismiss or otherwise counter. And by the way, I am no more anonymous than you or any other 'confirmed' user here -- and certainly not more aggressive than you who opened the proposal and then fought to defend it rather than letting the discussion progress naturally. -A98 98.92.185.66 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure why the discussion was closed. But, given that it is now January and the media hype has died down, I think it's safe to express my disbelief that we have an article devoted to a shanty shack. I would cast my ballot that this article me merged immediately before it gets caught into a self-fulfilling prophecy of being note-worthy.70.162.166.233 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was becoming increasingly uncivilized with no real consensus in sight. It seems there's a large group of people who are passionate about OWS and believe that those with opposing viewpoints are biased FOX News cronies. This has severely skewed the development of OWS articles. Just view my attempt to delete Tim Pool. Maybe when the protest dies down we can have civilized, productive conversation--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Fair enough. I came off a little more belligerent than I intended (I apologize, I had a tooth ache at the time). I just wanted to make sure the boat hadn't sailed on a discussion that should probably have been started, like you said, after things settled down and not during the height of it.70.162.166.233 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. My comment on civilized, productive discussion was directed towards the others. I still think this debate needs to be rehashed. When do you think would be a good time? (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Branches

The OWS Library is a just one branch of the People's Library.

173.133.187.239 (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Moi

An interesting article

Here: [8] Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

questioning "Public Library"

Yesterday I edited the article header and removed the words "public library," from its description, as it not funded by taxpayer money and therefore is not a public library. As the article on public libraries states, "There are five fundamental characteristics shared by public libraries. The first is that they are supported by taxes." However, someone has reverted my edit. I do not intend on getting into an edit war, but claiming it's public is downright incorrect. --108.21.63.154 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems pointy and most likely is wp:original research. Do you have a source which specifically says it is not public? Besides, as the article you refer to says upfront, "A public library is a library that is accessible by the public and is generally funded from public sources (such as tax money)..." [emphasis added] and the 'fundamental characteristics' which it cites are from a single, offline source. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source which specifically says it is public? I'm not saying the article should go out its way to specifically state it is not public; we should simply take a neutral stance and get rid of the word "public," as there don't appear to be any linked sources supporting such a classification, and it appears to be the result of original research. --108.21.63.154 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

American Libraries and the Cornell Daily Sun both use the term "public," as mentioned a few sections up from here. The Nation also alludes to it ("...the People’s Library has served as a model of what a public library can be: operated for the people and by the people") and there may be a few other such instances out there. I suspect that the primary point of contention here could very well be the Government of New York's official definition of a public library, which, at least as of 1910, ironically excluded even the New York Public Library: "Finding it necessary to adopt an official definition of a 'public library,' the New York State authorities include under this designation only libraries owned directly by the municipality, supported by taxation and free to the public. On this definition the New York Public Library, the Pratt Institute Free Library, and many others equally well known are not public libraries at all. The definition must be regarded as technical and local." However, "in general, a 'public' library in the United States is either owned or controlled by the public, or freely accessible to the public; or it has two of these features or all three of them."   — C M B J   21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So now saying it's public is POV? That's ridiculous. -A98 98.92.188.12 (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a member of the public. Where do I go to borrow a book from the People's Library? I need a specific address. With every other public library in the world, I can look up the address and go to it. Is the People's Library open to the public in the same way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.73.131 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Zabriskie, Christian

After a little research, it is quite obvious that Christian Zabriskie is not a reliable source although his documents are the basis for most of this article. Christian is a blogger for the Peoples Library and as such is not a reliable source for any factual information. Per the primary source Christian is noted as the founder of Urban Librarians Unite. ULU is an activist page in support of OWS. Unless good reason can be stated for allowing OWS activists be the primary source for this document then we are obligated to remove everything sourced to their work. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The American Library Association is a reliable source. User:Arzel's editorial opinion on what is or is not reliable, especially for this article and anything related to OWS, is itself unreliable. Furthermore, before discussing it properly here he has gone ahead and added 'unreliable' tags to the article multiple times. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I question if the ALA is a reliable source when they simply gave the report of a OWS blogger. It is self-published material. It is not an opinion I was simply trying to verify the source of the information and found out that it is all self-published. Arzel (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your questioning of the ALA is irrelevant if you have nobody else to back you up. The ALA is the premiere organization to represent libraries, and per WP:RS we assume they make responsible pronouncements. You aren't allowed to wantonly, cavalierly place a Neutrality tag on an article without good arguments to back it up. --David Shankbone 00:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliability is about the publication mainly, not the author. ALA is an RS. B^e——C_ritical 02:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I back him up. I'll thank you to not wantonly, cavalierly tell other editors what they can't do. Especially if you're going to bully someone out of their edit before they get a chance to gain any support. As per the opening paragraph of WP:RS, the reliability of a source but be taken into context based on the work itself, the publisher, and the author. There is no "Reliable Source" blanket you can throw on an agency and I agree that these particular works may not be reliable. 70.162.166.233 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)