Talk:Cecily McMillan/Archive 1

Comment

So I can have some record of it, if it is deleted again! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The talk page will be deleted also: read WP:G8. G S Palmer (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

First it was deleted because it "did not state why subject was notable", now it is being proposed because it does not do so credibly.

The cited criterion states the following: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."

Emphasis added. Could a noble wikiwarrior please explain the deletion rationale more fulsomely? Because the stated criteria don't seem to apply so far. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Socialist/Communist/Anarchist

To be clear (in the interest of full disclosure), I support deletion of this article. IF the wikicommunity determines that the article should be kept, Ms McMillan's political views should be included--she does after all describe herself as a political activist. To that end, the wiki article should not that she advocates that the US should be transformed to a communist country: She has grand visions about how to fix society. First, she says, we need to start with democratic socialism "to get America on par with the rest of the Western world. Then socialism, then communism, then anarcho-syndicalism." Read the rest of the article here for context: www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/cecily-mcmillan-occupy-protestor-sentenced --173.79.76.211 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So?TheLongTone (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll go one better than so. She doesn't advocate for the US to be changed into a communist country - your quote says quite clearly that she advocates for an anarcho-syndicalist country, which would take several steps to accomplish, including passing through communism. Anyone who takes what she says, as equivalent to a red-scare scenario, doesn't know remotely enough about communism, socialism, capitalism or anarchism, to be weighing on the relevance of her personal political idealism. She advocates for a governmental system which focuses on supporting workers over corporations and treating human needs as equally important to profit and innovation. If you intend to paint that as something negative, that people reviewing this article should be warned about, you need to learn A LOT more about it before speaking again - and you should learn a little about McCarthyism and HUAC, and what happens when we turn benign terms like communist into bad words. 04:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverTitania (talk • contribs)

New source

• Crabapple, Molly (June 11, 2014). Dissident fetish. Vanity Fair.

For your consideration... Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

American criminal category

I've removed the "American criminal" category. That is totally unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dramatic & fully unsubstantiated retelling

Currently the entire description of the assault for which the article subject was jailed is given via unsubstantiated hyperbole, completely in her own words. This is entirely inappropriate per WP:REDFLAG and needs to be removed. If you disagree, please state a rationale that is clearly rooted in WP policy. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Your statement is completely false. Her own words are entirely appropriate for this particular section and her own words are entirely supported by the preponderance of reliable sources. You will need to show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have restored the recent unprovoked removal and modification of content based on no known reaason.[1] If the editor in question would like to explain the rationale for their edits, this thread is open for discussion. Relevant points for discussion are as follows:

• Cecily McMillan is an American Occupy Wall Street activist and advocate for prisoner rights in the United States
  • There is no explanation as to why this material was changed and the link to the topic deleted. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• after elbowing New York City Police Department officer Grantley Bovel in the eye
  • This statement is clearly disputed in the article, hence it should not appear in the lead. The very idea that police routinely arrest peaceful protesters based on trumped up charges of alleged "assault" is incredibly well-documented and quite frankly, mundane. This particular point has been discussed ad nauseum in the news for the past six months alone. This article should not be making a disputed claim appear as fact. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure
  • This quote was removed for absolutely no reason, and forms the primary basis of McMillan's complaint. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you done lying? Can you read English? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you avoid the personal attacks and address the edits you wish to implement please? I addressed the stable version that you changed above. I'm certainly open to saying more about the assault in the lead, but please don't remove other information. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You can read English? Freaking fabulous. Then respond to edit summaries and talk page comments which is where article content gets talked about. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we most certainly do not discuss nor respond to edit summaries. I have brought your primary complaint to this talk page for discussion. You are welcome to begin addressing the content at any time as I have done above. Unless of course you are not here to improve this subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You ignore the edit summary clearly stating the policy supporting removal, ignore an obviously related comment on the talk page itself, ignore a clear explanation for another edit posted to your talk page, then start a new talk page section to complain that the edit was made "for absolutely no reason", revert it all, and call it a day? Do tell, how is that not outright dishonesty and why should you not be banned for it? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Viriditas; at some point we'll need to discuss the policy implications of the improper material I removed, and also the proper material I restored that you keep removing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are pinging me when you have failed to respond to every point in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mmmmmhmmmmm. Indeed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove the statement "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure". Please respond directly to that question here using policies and guidelines. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Per redflag, as repeatedly cited, now please stop with your campaign of selectively not hearing things. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how talk pages work. Do I need to point you to the talk page guidelines, or will you explain how "REDFLAG" applies and why it supports your removal? Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing edits

A recent edit improperly removed textual attribution of a heavily biased source, and also improperly converted a source-attributed claim into a claim in Wikipedia's voice that conditions are "deplorable" at Riker's Island, together with a vague implication that an inmate's death was due to mistreatment (if you actually look at the source she's essentially claiming that a prison doctor committed fatal medical malpractice, despite her not having any medical expertise and likely not knowing any real details of the case).

I don't see how any defense can be made for this edit, though I encourage anyone to speak up if they disagree, but failing that it will be reverted shortly. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but nothing you have written makes any sense at all. It is difficult to take you seriously when you aren't able to compose a coherent message. You have continued to revert information in this article based on absolutely no good reasons. I think the root cause of your problem is that you failed to do the slightest bit of research on this topic, therefore, you aren't the least familiar with the preponderance of sources on this topic. For example, you recently removed the uncontroversial quote from McMillan that she "learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure." Can you explain your reasoning? Your above comments and (multiple edit summaries) can't be parsed by rational people. Further, you have removed the statement "that deplorable conditions existed in the prison, and that an inmate had died while she was there". This is an uncontroversial fact supported by dozens of unreliable sources. I think you actually need to review the literature on the subject or stop editing. Modifying this article based on sheer ignorance is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have trouble understanding English. I don't see how responding further (in English) is going to help. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've directly challenged your reverts and removal of content over the last week. You have not once responded to that challenge. You have removed material based on no rational reason. It will be added back. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Look brah, I removed once sentence comprised of just a few words, and I clearly stated that the removal was required by REDFLAG. It's not the only portion of that quote that needed to be removed per REDFLAG, but it's the most egregious. You're not even paying attention. Just stop. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You really don't understand how to use a talk page, do you? Saying "REDFLAG" over and over gain isn't a rationale justification for removing anything. Now, explain how and why REDFLAG applies and why that supports your removal. Of course, you don't have to explain if you can't, in which case you can simply self-revert and take this article off your watchlist. Your choice. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you freaking read the policy? FOR EXAMPLE:"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include [] surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" Also note that her "interview", or rather her self-written piece in Cosmo, doesn't appear to have been subjected to any editing, fact-checking, or other tasks that secondary sources normally perform, thus it's actually more like a primary source—just another reason to treat with caution. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No offense, but your communication skills are quite poor. It sounds like you are challenging the statement and implicitly requesting additional sources for support. While that may certainly be a valid request, this is her biography, and that kind of claim in her biography is perfectly acceptable and reasonable. REDFLAG does not apply, nor is this claim considered "exceptional". However, I will certainly indulge your fantasies and attempt to find additional sources. But the fact remains: you should not have removed the statement and your rationale for removing isn't valid. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My communication skills are excellent. You have trouble reading clear English. REDFLAG is not inapplicable to biographical articles. The claim is clearly exceptional per the very first example that appears under REDFLAG. Yes, by all means, please go find better (and more) sources if they exist. The removal was clearly proper per the repeatedly cited policy. Stop whining and start editing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your communication skills are horrible. I asked you four days ago (up above) to explain your edits, and you have only just started to respond, predictably while engaging in yet another edit war. There is nothing "exceptional" about her clam in the context of her biography. It is you opinion that her claim is exceptional, an unsubstantiated opinion, I might add. And here we see the root of the problem. You have great difficulty (again and again and again and again this comes up) understanding the difference between an exceptional claim supported by sources indicating that the claim is exceptional (REDFLAG), and your own personal opinion. Got it, yet? Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG lays out criteria for determining what is an exceptional claim. I'm citing the first one on the list. You're incompetent, full stop. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Far from it, I've actually read the sources. You came here and removed what you personally believe is a REDFLAG. That's textbook incompetence, normally attributed to newbies. What's amazing is that you've been here how many years now? And still you act like a newbie. At least you aren't trolling Slashdot while you are here, so in a way, Wikipedia is doing the world a favor. In any case, I will repeat this again, there is no indcation whatsoever that her claim, "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure", meets any of the REDFLAG criteria. None. So what's happening here, is yet again, you are misreading, misinterpreting, and misunderstanding what you read. Because you can't support your position that this quote fits REDFLAG (you've been asked over and over to do so but have failed to meet the criteria) the quote will be added back. At this point, you're just a disruptive troll. You have made the bullshit claim that this quote is a "surprising claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources", but this is nonsense, as any source search soon discovers. You aren't here to improve articles, you're here to waste the time of other editors. I'm going to get back to improving articles and wait unitl you've crawled back under your bridge. At that point, I'll restore the material you removed. Please stop trolling this page with your nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read extensive sourcing on this article. I recall no source nor any court document saying that police (or anyone) beat her in the head. I recall many sources saying she hit her head and that she had a seizure. I remember a source saying she repeatedly hit her head on the ground while having a seizure. Currently the #1 google result for the claim that Cecily McMillan was beaten in the head is this Wikipedia article. I do not see this sourcing that you speak of. It's downright silly to suggest that is not a claim requiring solid sourcing. It's an accusation of criminal police brutality. Why would this not have been addressed at her criminal trial? Why would the only source for it be an article written by the article subject in a magazine? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Judging by your above comment, it sounds to me like you know less than nothing about this article. And based on what you've written, I don't believe for one minute that you have "read extensive sourcing" on this subject, because every question in your above comment is immediately answered by looking at the sources. Furthermore, you are engaging in goal-post moving with every comment here. We have solid sourcing, it's just that you've never looked at it. The New York Observer covered her alleged beating back in 2012 and pointed to two separate videos of the incident. The Nation covered her trial. Furthermore, she has been attacked and beaten by cops before, so this is nothing new or out of the ordinary. Finally, I would like to put the final nail in the coffin of your absurd argument. Many, many people were being beaten by cops during the OWS protests, and McMillan's arrest and subsequent seizure and hospitalization was covered by many mainstream journalists and sources. Your crazy claim that this alleged "beating" is somehow "surprising" or "exceptional" is the height of lunacy. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read countless sources about this article, I've seen multiple videos of the incident and they didn't show her getting beaten in the freaking head, nor have I seen sources saying that, including the multiple Observer articles I just read. Holy crap, after hundreds of words of invective I'm surprised you had the energy leftover to say "New York Observer". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Another straw man, another goal-post move, and yet another personal opinion divorced from what the sources say. It doesn't matter what the videos show or don't show. What matters here is that your rationale for removing this material is entirely debunked. "Redflag" does not apply here. And if you actually read the articles on McMillan's trial and the evidence regarding the arresting officer, you would know this. McMillan isn't the first victim of this officer, a man who according to The Nation has a violent record involving an attack on a teenage boy in 2010 and kicking a suspect in the face in 2009. And, according to The Nation, the same officer who arrested McMillan "assaulted Occupy protester Austin Guest on the same day as McMillan’s arrest". So how in the world does "redflag" apply here? Of course, it doesn't. That's just a wild, irrational claim you invented. Need I remind you, there is nothing "surprising" nor "exceptional" about McMillan claiming to be attacked by a man who was involved in three separate incidents, one of which occurred on the same day as her arrest. And, we have dozens of news stories by reliable journalists documenting the brutality and aggressive force used by the police against OWS protesters and even bystanders. So we see then, your "redflag" claim destroyed, with not a shred of support left for you to ever bring it up again. Finis. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please produce a source that say cops beat McMillan on the head or stop talking. There is no point in ranting. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:V and WP:NPOV for the first time. There is nothing preventing us from quoting McMillan here, and your continuing attempt to find some kind of rationale to prevent it from being including is POV pushing. "Redflag" doesn't apply. Perhaps if you read the policies for the first time, you can find something that does apply. Good luck with that. However, you should know that your continuing edit pattern of "I don't agree with the opinion of X therefore I'll remove it" is highly disruptive. Now, please provide a valid policy rationale that allows you to exclude McMillan's claim where she says, "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure." Given that the officer who arrested her had been previously involved in three separate incidents involving alleged excessive force, and that OWS protesters were beaten and attacked by police, her claim is neither "surprising" nor "exceptional". Since this is her biography, her quote is allowed to remain as a record of her experience during this ordeal. You have no policy-based rationale to prevent or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap. Redflag applies. It is a sub-set of WP:V which applies everywhere. We are talking about a "surprising or apparently important" claim. Therefore "multiple high quality-sources" are required. So far we don't really even have one. We have you conducting some iterated ranting about how sources which you refuse to point out supposedly exist that would support the claim, followed by me going and doing internet searches based on your comments and finding no support, rinse freaking repeat. And you're the one calling me a troll; it's silly.

Also, there is no WP policy that says a person may say whatever the hell they want in an article about them. You're offering a confused reading of WP:SPS, which I'll now point out specifically excludes claims about third parties, and claims that are "unduly self-serving", and claims that would otherwise fall under... TADAAAA... WP:REDFLAG. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that "redflag applies" has been completely and totally refuted and debunked. There isn't a single aspect of "redflag" that applies to the quote you removed, not one. It's her recollection of the notable incident involving her seizure, and that's been covered in dozens of reliable sources. As editors, we are not in business of evaluating the recollection of a notable individual as true or false, we simply report it. Her claim, "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure". There isn't a single thing surprising about this claim given its 1) coverage in mainstream sources 2) the fact that she had a seizure, was admitted to the hospital, and had severe bruising on her right breast consistent with being grabbed by the officer 3) the officer in question had a previous history of alleged excessive violence including another one on the day McMillan was arrested, and 4) OWS protesters were being beaten and attacked by police. So, how does "redflag" apply here? Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"surprising or apparently important claim", dude. Let it sink in. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly informed that there is not one single thing "surprising" about OWS protesters being beaten and attacked, and there is nothing "surprising" about the arresting officer being accused of excessive force when he has three previous claims lodged against him. Sorry, we go with the sources, not with your personal opinion. More to the point, "redflag" does not apply to biographical quotes by the subject about their historical recollections of an incident. You don't get to censor what the subject recalls about an incident in their life. That's just absurd. "Redflag" is for unusual claims about things and concepts; it has no bearing on the recollections of a biographical subject in their own article, even less when it turns out that subject has been part of a movement that has been repeatedly attacked by police, and an officer in particular with a past record of excessive force. The sources fully support this quote. The New York Observer notes that McMillan had a seizure and trouble breathing after she was "tackled and handcuffed by law enforcement" with a video showing evidence that the "police clearly perform a violent take-down".

This is corroborated by the preponderance of reliable sources. For example, James C. McKinley, Jr. in the New York Times writes: "She ran a few steps before being tackled by Officer Bovell. A few minutes later, she appeared to have what looked like a seizure as she was being loaded onto a bus with other protesters. Another officer took her to a hospital." So, nothing "surprising". The sources report that the officer tackled her, and the sources report that this was a violent "take-down". Now, how in the world is that inconsistent with her claim that she was " beaten on the head, triggering a seizure"? Newsflash: it is entirely consistent. If an officer takes down a suspect in a violent manner, it is likely that you will get beaten on the head. Nothing "surprising" here or out of the ordinary. In fact, it is all too common. According to the NYO, in a separate incident, McMillan had been "blasted with pepper spray" by cops who "knocked her down" and "stepped on her head and snarled at her 'Shut up. You get what you deserve, cunt bitch.'" "Redflag" has no bearing on this quote, so please stop citing it. You've been completely and totally debunked. The quote is going back in. You don't get to censor a part of a quote you dislike and there's no policy that supports your action. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The policy reads "surprising OR APPARENTLY IMPORTANT" [ALL CAPS ADDED IN CASE THAT HELPS YOU READ THREE SIMPLE WORDS OF ENGLISH WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU REPEATEDLY]

LEARN TO READ AND STOP TROLLING

GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR

Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I refuted your "red flag" argument quite some time ago and I've moved on by adding additional sources representing a larger range of opinions. It's time for you to put the stick down and stop edit warring. Your most recent edit summary made the ridiculous claim that these were low quality sources representing one person. They are anything but, and this absurd claim tells me you have not read them but are reverting for no reason. Please explain your problem with these sources instead of continuing to edit war. Do not bring up "red flag" again, as I have totally refuted that argument. The subject claims she was beaten and the sources report that claim. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This potpourri of total bullshit and personal attacks merits no response. Reverted. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, you're a liar. Your latest bit of prose sourced to the guardian is outright bullshit. This is against so many policies there's no point in mentioning them anymore. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding sources that are increasingly marginal and increasingly irrelevant to the claim in question doesn't help the case... Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Another thing that doesn't help: adding claims that are not supported by the reference they're attributed to. But again, why would I need to explain basic policy to a good-faith user? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)