33
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: +
Talk:Occupy Wall Street (view source)
Revision as of 17:23, November 24, 2011
, 17:23, November 24, 2011→Ayers quote: Added my own suggestion for a compromise
:::::Wow, you responded right as I came to add something. Now I feel creepy for responding immediately. I won't "reword" something and attribute it to someone if they didn't say anything like that about the topic. He endorsed OWS, that's worthy of the article. But throwing in some random statement that he didn't say about the topic makes no sense unless the point is to insult(you get the point) the person. It is disingenuous in my eyes to do that even if that is how he feels. I actually have added some content and I may continue to do so. I just happened to stumble upon this article(from the main page) yesterday and noticed that so I thought I'd read the article cited and noted the discrepancy. I then googled it to see if I could find a better source but found that it wasn't to be so I thought I'd see what I could do about it. I commented on the talk page and got no answer. The rest is semi-amusing history. Regardless, it is awkwardly thrown in and wrongly attributed. The Citation Needed tag doesn't exactly do it for me because the evidence points to him not having said it. I dunno what else to say about it. If anyone can actually find a source for it I'll happily step back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Wow, you responded right as I came to add something. Now I feel creepy for responding immediately. I won't "reword" something and attribute it to someone if they didn't say anything like that about the topic. He endorsed OWS, that's worthy of the article. But throwing in some random statement that he didn't say about the topic makes no sense unless the point is to insult(you get the point) the person. It is disingenuous in my eyes to do that even if that is how he feels. I actually have added some content and I may continue to do so. I just happened to stumble upon this article(from the main page) yesterday and noticed that so I thought I'd read the article cited and noted the discrepancy. I then googled it to see if I could find a better source but found that it wasn't to be so I thought I'd see what I could do about it. I commented on the talk page and got no answer. The rest is semi-amusing history. Regardless, it is awkwardly thrown in and wrongly attributed. The Citation Needed tag doesn't exactly do it for me because the evidence points to him not having said it. I dunno what else to say about it. If anyone can actually find a source for it I'll happily step back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::How's my latest edit for clarity and cleanup? I'm trying to find a compromise while keeping to the facts, and not taking attention away from the underlining agenda of this movement. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::How's my latest edit for clarity and cleanup? I'm trying to find a compromise while keeping to the facts, and not taking attention away from the underlining agenda of this movement. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Ohhh...I see what the problem is here. It seems to me that, according to citation #10, Bill Ayers DID say that quote, but he ''did not say it in the context of the interview or in reference to Occupy Wall Street;'' he said it many years ago. So Bill Ayers DID say the quote, but he didn't say it in the context that the article seems to indicate. How about we reword the statement to make it very clear that Ayers did not say the quote recently or in regard to Occupy Wall Street, but at the same time clearly demonstrate Bill Ayers' ties to Occupy Wall Street and its similarities to Day of Rage? I think that would be a perfect compromise that would, most importantly, be truthful. I don't want Conservapedia to make up lies just because we think they point to the truth. That's just misguided. We should use the ''truth'' to demonstrate the truth, don't you agree? (Not trying to slander anyone's intentions here, mind you.) --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 12:23, 24 November 2011 (EST)
== Somethings to consider about the article ==
== Somethings to consider about the article ==