Talk:2011 Wisconsin protests/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tax Day Rally

If editors (Gandydancer) cannot add information (Breitbart) in context then they should not add the information at all. Yes Breitbart yelled at the pro-union protesters, but it was in response to their actions. To simply include his quote without any proper context is quote farming and highly POV. It is up to the including editor to correctly add material from a neutral point of view, it is not the responsibility of other editors to try and turn highly NPOV into responsible additions. Arzel (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the quote back with the context.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Governor Walker prank call: to include or not to include in article

1. User Truthsort removed the section contending the separate section is not relavent other than it happened. (see revision 06:46, 22 April 2011).

2. Use Gandydancer reinstated the section contending this information is certainly important. (see revision 21:54, 23 April 2011).

3. User Truthsort once again removed the separate section once again stating it is not relevent. (see revision 20:15, 24 April 2011).

4. User Moboshgu once again reinstated the section contending that it's relevant and that it hardened the Democrat senators' resolve to stay in IL and asked if maybe that's not sourced enough. (see revision 20:18, 24 April 2011).

My opinion on it's inclusion in the article: Information related to the prank call ought to be included in the article because it is notable, however it ought not have a separate section. The primary reason for the Wisconsin protests isn't because Governor Walker spoke to someone who supposedly was a Koch brother and from the references I've looked at, it didn't spark the protests from occurring nor was it the main reason the Dem. Senators left the state. The spark for the protests was due to the Governor's attempts to significantly reduce public employees ability to collectively bargain on benefits. The protests would have occurred with or without the prank phone call.

• Include information in the article: Yes.
• Separate section: No.

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you pretty much touched on what I think. It lacks relevancy to the protest. However, I disagree that it should be mentioned at all. If anything it should just stay in the Buffalo Beast or Ian Murphy article. Truthsort (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

When their conversation opened with this discussion:

Walker: Well, we’re actually hanging pretty tough. I mean—you know, amazingly there’s a much smaller group of protesters—almost all of whom are in from other states today. The State Assembly is taking the bill up—getting it all the way to the last point it can be at where it’s unamendable. But they’re waiting to pass it until the Senate’s—the Senate Democrats, excuse me, the assembly Democrats have about a hundred amendments they’re going through. The state Senate still has the 14 members missing but what they’re doing today is bringing up all sorts of other non-fiscal items, many of which are things members in the Democratic side care about. And each day we’re going to ratchet it up a little bit…. The Senate majority leader had a great plan he told about this morning—he told the Senate Democrats about and he’s going to announce it later today, and that is: The Senate organization committee is going to meet and pass a rule that says if you don’t show up for two consecutive days on a session day—in the state Senate, the Senate chief clerk—it’s a little procedural thing here, but—can actually have your payroll stopped from being automatically deducted—

'Koch': Beautiful.

Walker: —into your checking account and instead—you still get a check, but the check has to be personally picked up and he’s instructing them—which we just loved—to lock them in their desk on the floor of the state Senate.

How can anyone even suggest that it is not related to the protests? Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. The phone call was only made because of the entire political situation and in it, Walker talked about ways to handle the protestors. What he said had ramifications on future events in the timeline (rendered negotiation impossible, led to unilateral action by Republicans, which is leading to court proceedings and electoral challenges). It didn't cause the protests, but it helped take them to another level. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The call was in response to what was occurring but the idea that this somehow took the protest to a different level is ridiculous. I'm not sure how you come to this slippery slope conclusion (rendered negotiation impossible, led to unilateral action by Republicans, which is leading to court proceedings and electoral challenges) You're kidding yourself if you think democrats were not coming back due to the call. They weren't coming back regardless. Truthsort (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It belongs in the article. It was a rather astonishing and very noteworthy incident that occurred during, and is directly related to the protests. Richard Myers (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable, but not "very" notable. Is it really at the same level as the Prosser-Kloppenberg election which is how it is being treated in the article right now? I say that it is not and that information related to Koch ought to be included within the pre-March 10th section. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That "slippery slope conclusion" comes from comments I remember reading as it was going on from the senators about their doubts in Walker's willingness to negotiate. It kept them out of state. Also, considering the Koch brothers are funding all of the counter-protests ("Americans for Prosperity" is their astroturf organization), their involvement (even if it was a fake Koch on the call) is relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Walker was interested in a compromise through emails at one point.[1] Sorry, but I'm not seeing your point about "doubts in Walker's willingness to negotiate". Truthsort (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, a district attorney stated that no laws were broken by the call.[2] Truthsort (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody questioned the legality of the phone call. As for the link between the phone call and later negotiations, read the section itself. It's there in the last sentence, with two sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab spring

Excuse my english, I'm French.

What about links between Wisconsin protests and Middle East and North Africa protests ? Are there contestings about this link? Some frenchs contributors, not implicated in editing process of articles on the subject, cannot believe in a relationship between. Archie (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfair tactics on this page

So apparently, I can't cite primary sources for signatures being challenged by the Republican Senators, but when it comes to the objections by the Democrats, primary sources are allowed? I know you are a bunch of raging liberals, but I guess hypocrisy is your middle name. S51438 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• All the legal wrangling about the recalls should be sourced to secondary sources, for brevity's sake. It is clear that you are seeing enemies where there are none. Abductive (reasoning) 11:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Arzel and the well-documented prank phone call

I have been attempting to add some detail to the prank phone call section, but User:Arzel has taken it upon him or herself to "protect" Governor Walker from what s/he characterizes as either a BLP or NPOV violation. Since the Governor is on tape saying the things that I and many secondary sources report that he said, I suggest that user:Arzel is simply turning Wikipedia into a battlefield to advance his/her own political agenda. See User:Arzel's talk page; it is full of admonitions from different users and admins. User:AnonMoos has already questioned the validity of User:Arzel's rational for removing the material, which s/he thinks is somehow damaging to Governor Walker's reputation. Abductive (reasoning) 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The prank call paragraph had some POV issues. I checked the references and made changes that reflect what the references actually say. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopper's and Kapanke's claim not to know anything about the spoiler candidates in the recalls

Added this info back. The original link I posted DID have the information, but it looks like the source tied a different article to that link. The quotes can be found in the reference article as of today. Not sure if there is a better way to reference so that this information doesn't get removed again, as the source doesn't seem to have any sort of permalink option. However, it IS a legit, non-partisan (as much as the media can be non-partisan) source. If anyone feels that this information would go better in another section, I'm open to suggestions, but I feel it does bear mentioning that these two candidates claimed to have no knowledge of the spoiler candidates in the press the day before the Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader went on the record stating that they (The WI Republican Senators) ALL did. - 66.188.97.36 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the references in question, Senate Leader Fitzgerald didn't say ALL Republican Senators were aware, however he did say "the Republican Senators" were aware. I think technically this might not be a contradiction of what Hopper & Kapanke said, but it seems to be at the very least an apparent contradiction. I'll leave this one for others to look at. It might be worth noting the apparent inconsistency. I'm not sure if it is a blatent contradiction however. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

After further reflection, it would probably be best to indicate Fitzgerald's comments and then also indicate Hopper's & Kapanke's comments without the "contradiction" language. I'm not convinced myself that it is contradictory. The reader can read the article and make there own decision whether or not it is a contradiction. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Impact of the Arab Spring?

I realize the two have been said to be connected, but how in the world are these protests "effects" of the Arab Spring? Not to mention on the Arab Spring article, there is not one mention of Wisconsin or the protests. I will delete this again. Opinions needed. Thanks. S51438 (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Wisconsin Protests are not associated with Arab Spring with the exception of vague connections made by some. I'll concede it could be included in the "see also" section, however, it is not an effect of the Arab Spring as far as I can tell. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is mention of the Wisconsin protests in the wiki-article titled Impact of the Arab Spring. However, it has a wiki-request tag asking for expert advice regarding the subject matter. I'll add the same tag here on the talk page until the matter can be resolved from someone with more substantive evidence on why it ought to be included as an "impact". Stylteralmaldo (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be mentioned now, so removing the template.--Salix (talk): 08:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning for including the recent Concealed Carry bill?

Just noticed that this has been added recently to the Timeline in June:

"On June 14, the Wisconsin Senate passed a bill that would allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, if they had a permit and gun training, with a 25-8 vote. The Assembly is expected to take up the bill on June 21."

What does this really have to do with the 2011 Wisconsin Protests? In my personal opinion, the Concealed Carry bill really has nothing at all to do with the protests here in WI, outside of the fact that it's coincidentally taking place at the same time. Because of this, I'm inclined to remove it, however, I will leave it in the article for the time being so as to give the person that added it (and anyone else who feels it should be included) a chance to make their case for how the concealed carry bill is related to the protests. As always, opinions are most welcome one way or the other. If I don't hear anything, I'll go ahead and remove it in a couple days. - 66.188.97.36 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The way it reads now, it isn't clear how this is related to the protests. Has there been protests related to concealed carry? If so, we probably need evidence directly related to that for it to be included in the article. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed the reference. Doesn't seem like anyone objects... - 66.188.97.36 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fact checks?

Two quick points. "On June 8 in Madison, protesters of Scott Walker dressed as zombies and caused a disruption during an event where the governor honored the accomplishments of members of the special olympics."[175][176]

This line is very screwy, when read it makes me fell as if the number of protesters where large and actually disruptive. When one views the video it can be seen to be just a group of about or less then 10. MW defines Disrupt as: 1a. to break apart : rupture b. to throw into disorder <agitators trying to disrupt the meeting> 2. to interrupt the normal course or unity of

when i view the video I do not see either of those happening. as walker never stops his speech, and the crowd watches on with very little reaction to the "Zombies"

Also the protesters where protesting the VoterID bill that passed in Wisconsin shortly before this. (check the source, even saying "Yet the protest on Wednesday appeared to be unrelated.") So this event is unrelated to Wisconsin union protests??

If anything a more correct line would be that similar to that of the Fox news source. "Several protesters in zombie makeup "silently" injected themselves into a Special Olympics ceremony in Wisconsin this week when they walked in front of Gov. Scott Walker and stood between him and the group of athletes he was paying tribute to in front of the state Capitol."

Lastly!!! The Special Olympics organizers told media they didn't disrupt the event!

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123554474.html

"Rachel Grant, a spokeswoman for the Special Olympics, said officials were nervous when the zombie protesters first arrived, but they turned out to be peaceful.

"We were all a little bit on edge, but it turned out for the best," Grant said. "Nothing was disruptive at all."

Kelly Kloepping, another Special Olympics official, said the protesters were respectful and did not diminish the excitement the Special Olympians felt about being in Madison to meet Walker and other leaders.

"We feel it's really about the athletes," Kloepping said. "We knew the protesters were there, but they were respectful of our athletes."

All in all, this line is factually incorrect and seems at the slightest bit biased. Something an article of this political debate, should stay away from but doesn't. Both sides in this wiki article are tit-tating around and fingerpointing with petty and unrelated interjections.

Also with the email"s" of recall challenger Shelly Moore, it talks of e-mails, i believe I've only seen the one mail talked about in the paragraph. I may be wrong though as I've only briefly heard of this "issue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.70.251 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The protest is relevent as the Wisconsin Protests, although primarily related to the collective bargaining, are not exclusively related to it. There continues to be protests....albeit diminishing related to voter ID, as well as the rest of the proposed fiscal budget. Nonetheless, I've added verbiage to give better context as to why the zombie protests were important. There were concerns related to an incident earlier in the day which saw some zombie protesters being arrested at Representative Vos's office. I've included comments indicating that the protest itself was not disruptive as the Journal Sentinel reported. However, it was disavowed by Republicans and Democrats alike and have included that commentary to the article. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Per Wikipedia's policy on Copyright Violations, I removed several blocks of text that were cut-and-pasted from copyrighted web pages (with only slight alterations):

• This edit copied from the Wall Street Journal opinion page.
• This edit copied from The Chippewa Herald.
• This edit copied from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

According to Wikipedia's policy on Non-free content, small blocks of text can be copied if they're in quotation marks or block-quoted and clearly attributed as quotations. But in this case, a better choice would be to rewrite the text and paraphrase.

I suspect there are numerous other cases of WP:COPYVIO in this article. Davemck (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-added with paraphrases. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's better, but I think there are still copyvio problems -- some sentences are still virtually identical. There's a good discussion, with examples, of what to avoid at WP:Close_paraphrasing. (I probably should not have used the term paraphrase; "close paraphrasing" can still be copyvio.) I think Wikipedia text should be written so that the reader can't detect that the writer has ever seen the source article, other than that they convey the same facts.

The first edit above (from the WSJ opinion page) brings up a different problem: opinion pages are not reliable sources. As WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." A case in point is the WSJ sentence "Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits." That's pretty clearly not true -- but after all, it's just an opinion. Davemck (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Precisely on the WSJ opinion page. I'm removing that statement that "all union moneys come from the taxpayers" because that doesn't make sense on its face. I've paid union dues. Where do they go? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that whole sentence was a WP:COPYVIO from the partisan opinion piece cited. There are a good number of COPYVIO and NPOV violations on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Muboshgu, you clearly are not looking at this issue in a non-partisan manner regarding the small sentence "Union members in the public sector are paid entirely from tax revenues". You have not made a case to dispute this sentence, and continue to disrupt editing. Your union dues go to pay the union leaders, political campaigns, and various other things. As a union member, I'm surprised you do not know such things. Union members clearly can not edit this article without having a biased point of view. S51438 (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My "bias" is towards fact, and opinion pages don't meet that level of WP:V. I am challenging this based on WP:V. You need to assume good faith and not use derogatory language about other editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have removed "all" opinion references from this page? What you removed WAS fact, regardless of what source it came from. You know it's true. S51438 (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume that I have removed all opinion pieces, at least all that I recognized as opinion pieces. Opinion pieces fail WP:V. We work for verifiability, not fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why is there an option to allow a FACT in-line citation? 98.196.173.156 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to {{Fact}}, it's a synonym for {{Citation needed}}. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." – Davemck (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not whether I think it's true, IT IS true. S51438 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

February 14?

Have we decided on an end date yet? Clearly, the protests are not currently happening, but why have we labeled the date February 14? S51438 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The best reference for when things cooled down considerably was June 16 (reference is in the lead). I put this as the end date in the article. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

While things have considerably cooled down from the 50,000 in the winter, there are still Capitol Sing-A-Longs Monday through Friday that would qualify as protests. Will revise back to ongoing. Qwertyyqwertt (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sing-a-longs have been scheduled for years in the future. No, such events can not be considered protesting. Protests are continuous. People singing Monday through Friday is not protesting, nor continuous. S51438 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Taxpayer funded pay and benefits

I'm at a loss as to why information explaining that the taxpayers fund the pay and benefits of pensions and health care is not allowed to be explained in this article? This article from the Wall Street Journal contained the following information regarding taxpayer funding of benefits: Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits. This article from the Chippawa Herald contained the following information regarding the same: According to the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds, in the past 10 years, taxpayers contributed more than $8 billion to health care coverage for state workers, while the employees put in a total of $398 million. It was argued by Moboshgu that the Wall Street Journal info was not allowable because he/she said that taxpayers do not entirely fund pensions and benefits. Now he/she is claiming that we can't include the Chippawa Herald info because ALL pensions and benefits are paid by the taxpayers. Which is it? I've put the Wall Street Journal info minus the word entirely as a compromise. Either way, it seems a bit odd to me not to clarify to an uninformed reader of the article not to mention that taxpayers are the ones who had been funding these benefits - particularly since two sources say it is the case. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ piece was a problem because it was an editorial, written from a clear POV slant. I'm not the one who opposed inclusion of the Chippewa Herald, that was Gandydancer (though I did agree with him/her). To me, that sentence is redundant. The term "public" refers to taxpayer funded groups and organizations. It seems like you're trying to make a point by making specific mention of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sty stated in his edit review that the WSJ was the "key", however the WSJ editorial used that information to make an argument against public unions. From the article:

Thus the collision course with taxpayers. Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits. They thus have every incentive to elect politicians who favor higher taxes and more government spending. The great expansion of state and local spending followed the rise of public unions.

To use the phrase in this article and state that it is reasonable because it is referenced in the above wording doesn't make sense since all public officials, including the governor's salary and benefits, are funded by taxpayer money. Gandydancer (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning given at the time of omitting the information from the WSJ was because the argument was that taxpayers did not entirely fund the public employee benefits. I then provided the Chippawa Herald reference which stated that taxpayers funded $8 billion towards the benefits. This to me solved the problem of what portion was funded by the taxpayers. Then to remove the taxpayer reference within the article didn't make sense to me because it doesn't explain that $8 billion of the funding was provided by taxpayers. To merely say the state paid $8 billion does not adequately explain how the state funded that $8 billion. The problem with the WSJ reference was not because it was an opinion piece, but because it was opinion that the taxpayers entirely funded the benefits. Removing the verbiage stating that taxpayers funded the $8 billion doesn't explain how the state funded the $8 billion. It was established through the removal of the WSJ info that not all funding is taxpayer provided. The Chippawa Herald info explains the portion that is taxpayer funded. I hope that made sense as to my reasoning why the information is key. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Are protests continuous?

The page says it is "ongoing" while only sing-a-longs are scheduled Monday-thru-Friday. That means protests aren't occurring on Saturday or Sunday. Aren't protests continuous? 98.196.173.156 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get that "definition"? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

ONGOING

1a : being actually in process b : continuing

2: continuously moving forward : growing

My opinion - The protests are neither actually in process (i.e. it's Sat. with no sing-a-longs) nor are they growing (protests actually have declined significantly by mid-June). Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization and Trimming

This article is a mess, I think. I intend to begin a fairly extensive re-organization and trimming of the article. I appreciate any help and think it will be important to have other editors assist. The more hands and opinions involved, the better. I'm thinking a lot of the minor points of contention can be eliminated. I will try to be impartial in determining what is minor side issues or what belongs in separate articles (as has been done with the WI Supreme Court election in spring 2012 already). Input from others on what should be retained or removed is appreciated. *Seen a Mike* 19:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Kristen Crowell a player in protests, recall elections

There are numerous sources here suggesting her participation in the protests and recall were extensive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The ref does not support the statement. Find a ref that supports the statement, bring it back to the talk page, and we will discuss. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What about this one. There are many more.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposed language is: "and were led by a coalition of activists, including Kristen Crowell of "We Are Wisconsin". " The Chicago Magazine does not support that. That ref would support that she headed "We Are Wisconsin" but not the importance of Crowell to the protests. Interestingly the WaPo ref at her blp article describes her as "field director" not "executive director". Capitalismojo (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is, by the way, an entirely WP:UNDUE addition. Living in Madison, living through the protests and recall efforts, I have a pretty good sense of who the players were. The most important was arguably Marty Beil, head of the state AFSCME. He isn't mentioned at all in this article. It would be odd to highlight the importance of a young political operative (field director) paid by AFSCME (and WEAC) and ignore the actual leaders in the protests and recall. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll trust your knowledge of the Wisconsin political scene.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)