| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | [edit] Neutrality As most articles that are about and created by the political Left, this article seems to be prone to bias. Please keep a neutral tone and remember that wikipedia is not a soap box.--98.219.224.243 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC) "Please keep a neutral tone and remember that wikipedia is not a soap box." You should keep that in mind too. Ayashe (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Protest Source I just reworked the fourth paragraph under Protests (beginning with "Later in the evening") to accurately reflect the source that was given. Based on that source, the previous version included a distorted timeline and a curious insistence that the demonstration was peaceful even as it recorded that demonstrators were responsible for nearby vandalism.YardsGreen (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC) - And I have reverted you because what you put is NOT an accurate representation of what actually happened. Also, the demonstration thursday evening began peacefully, but turned violent after about 9 pm. That's what it said. That's what happened. Stop trying to change this. I was there. I know what happened. Dr. Cash (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Be careful though, personal experiences mean nothing if you can't cite it to a reliable source (which nobody, in themself is, unless you're writing for a legit news company and citing yourself). blackngold29 06:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- READ THE SOURCE PROVIDED. IT'S ALL IN THERE. Dr. Cash (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- As blackngold29 said, personal experience is not citable in an encyclopedia. Having read the source provided and comparing it line by line to the paragraph I reworked, I found numerous examples in the source that contradicted the paragraph's claim to a "peaceful" demonstration, so I removed that descriptor. I also found a number of instances where the general timeline presented in the paragraph is contradicted by the source. Namely, the source holds that the demonstration began as a small group with few if any students; after the police intervened, according to the source, students from both universities began to join the crowd out of curiosity. The source also does not mention a 9pm beginning to the incident. I am not questioning the veracity of the claim that it began at 9pm. What is at issue is whether or not the claims of the article are in fact cited in this particular source.
-
- On another note, I am troubled by your frequent use of the "minor edit" label for large changes to the article. Such use of the "minor edit" label is inappropriate. I would kindly suggest that you review the guidelines for minor edits at Wikipedia:MINOR. YardsGreen (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Related to this: I added a citation needed next to Carnegie Mellon because the sources do not state that CMU students were present. Some probably were, but this needs a source. Also the "Let's Go Pitt" comment right after doesn't make a whole lot of sense right after saying CMU students were present.Ehlkej (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC) - There's three major colleges right in Oakland (Pitt, CMU, and Carlow), and several other smaller colleges nearby. I don't think anyone was checking IDs or anything, so it's difficult to determine which students were there. If I had to guess, I'd say that, of all the students present, probably 75% were Pitt, 23% CMU, and 2% Carlow and other -- but those numbers were pulled out my butt in an educated guess. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Ban on public urination and defecation one week before G-20 I added this to the Preparations section of the article: "The week before the G-20, Pittsburgh's city council passed a law outlawing public urination and defecation.[1]" Someone else removed it, and commented, "No connection to G-20 on source = OR." I disagree with the claim that it's original research. The article has the date. The information that I wrote is a verifiable fact. I think it should be put back in the article. What do other editors think about this? Grundle2600 (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - It is wp:OR and wp:synth. If you can't see it I can't help.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- PS: Of course I meant "No connection to G-20 in source = OR" but once you missed the right key and clicked, there is no way back. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone who has read any of the press coverage will immediately recognize that the passage of that law was no coincidence, as urine and human feces are specifically mentioned. However, if you linked to the city council discussion of the law I am certain that the G-20 was mentioned. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] List of arrestees Now that wasn't very polite. Since List of G-20 Pittsburgh arrests has been deleted I posted it here so that anyone interested can discuss including it in the article. I think it is an important list, but I created it just so I could look for duplicates and to find out how many people were arrested at each location. In other words I created it solely for my own personal research, but realized that when you are in school there are no dumb questions, if you have a question someone else probably has the same question. If anyone else thinks it should be added to the article, feel free to make your case, and contact any admin, who can then undelete it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC) - No, the issue is WP:BLP. It shouldn't be listed anywhere here. If people are interested, they can go to the file as its hosted elsewhere. Grsz11 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, I'm not the person who needs the information - I created the list, and don't need it here because I already have it, but the point is if anyone thinks it should be included, they are the ones who need to make their case. I do think that it is interesting to see how many people were re-arrested though, which I was kind of surprised to see. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- As you've said, the information is already out there. However, just because its available doesn't mean that it should be here, because of WP:BLP1E, which is policy, and states that people famous only for one event (ie, being arrested once), aren't notable and shouldn't have articles created about them. It places undue weight on negative events. After all, just because something's interesting doesn't mean that it belongs on wikipedia. --Bfigura (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Including the names of the arrestees is an all or none situation. If you put in the name, for example, of the person who broke the windows, it only encourages others to "try to get their name into [the paper]", i.e. into Wikipedia. However if one name is in, all of the names should be included. 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not. If a person already considered notable (such as a celebrity or politician) were arrested, that person could be mentioned. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your attempt at creating a false dilemma aside, non-notable people who happen to be arrested are still non-notable. It is encyclopedic to say 190 people were arrested. It is not encyclopedic to list them all. If a notable individual were to be included, you could name them without naming everyone else. i.e.: "190 people were arrested, including noted social activist John Doe." Resolute 14:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, there were three of them, along with Jane Doe, and one Jane G-20. I really don't think anyone can tell anyone else how to write an encyclopedia. You would be better off herding cats for a living. The issue was never since we listed John Doe, why can't we list the rest? The issue was always since we listed David Japenga of California, we needed to list the rest as well. In fact the only reason the list was added to the article was that David Japenga was listed. How do I know? Because I added it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- David Japenga is included because his vandalism was (a) significant ($20,000 worth) and (b) cited in the news. A list of every single person that was arrested during the G-20 is simply not notable, mostly because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If people really want to get the list, it's available elsewhere. The names of every individual arrested is simply not necessary to tell the story of the protests as a whole, and should not be included. I should also point out that a simple lists of arrestees does not necessarily mean that everyone on that list is guilty, as in this country, we're innocent until proven guilty. And I would bet that a good percentage of people on that list will not be found guilty. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- And just who made you the judge to decide that David Japenga was guilty of any vandalism? There is, however nothing indiscriminate about the list. It was not the names that were of interest to me anyway. My interest was in finding out how many were arrested at each location and when. It was sorted by last names instead of location, for example, because most people are quite likely more interested in the names, and makes a better reference that way, so that for example if you wanted to look up David Japenga, you would not need to do any sorting, but since you can sort by any column it makes no difference how it is ordered. And FYI, all the names in the list appeared in the news, not just David's. And by the way everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be available elsewhere. Anything else would constitute original research, and be prohibited from inclusion. If you look at the article you will see that many of the arrestees were not even charged with any crime, let alone not found guilty. As of today I think there have only been half a dozen or so that have had charges that lasted through a preliminary hearing, but there are many more preliminary hearings coming up in the next couple of weeks. I would have liked to see a column added to indicate the result, as that is something that can be done more easily in a wiki, without me having to do it, but no worries, mate. I have long ago moved on. 2ndAmendment (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] David Japenga A list of non-notable arrestees is not appropriate for wikipedia. If you want to post a "hit list" or "heros list", whichever you think it is, you'll have to do it somewhere else. Try conservapedia. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) - Yes, all the names did technically get printed in the media, but that still doesn't make them notable to be included in a laundry list in an "encyclopedia" article (note: news != encyclopedia). David Japenga was singled out because he was caught more or less red-handed doing much of the vandalism, hence his inclusion. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. You are innocent until proved guilty by a court of law. If you read the reports you would learn that the arresting officer simply thinks it was the same person, but how can he be certain? David was not arrested at the time the damage was done. Including David Japenga's name and not everyone else's name simply encourages everyone to try to get their name into Wikipedia and simply is not appropriate. Either his name goes or all 190 names are included. You choose. I don't care either way. While I don't mind putting the name of someone who say blows up a Federal building, or kills a bunch of people on a train, breaking a few windows simply is not the level of notoriety that gets your name into Wikipedia. 2ndAmendment (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
|
