Talk:Free speech zone/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia is not one of them.
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, but this article is as loaded as any Wikipedia article I've ever seen with anti-Bush rhetoric and unsupported assertions. The references read like a who's who of partisan, anti-Bush publications: The Nation, Common Dreams, A San Francisco Chronicle *opinion* piece ... come on, people.
That by itself, of course, doesn't mean the allegations they make aren't true. But many are totally unsupported. Just one example, but an important one: "Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protestors on camera or speaking to them within the zone. [7]". I actually went to the referenced article, where I waded through four pages of tedious anti-Bush rhetoric to find support for this claim. Needless to say, it was fruitless. First, there was no evidence for the "often" claim -- the author cited ONE instance. Second, he offered ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for this. All he says is "the media were not allowed to talk to them." Period. There is no investigative reporting at all, just an unsupported assertion. But hey, he ITALICIZED the words "not allowed," so it must be true, right?
Who could possibly lead off an article with "Free speech zones have been used vigorously[1][2] by the George W. Bush administration to quash dissent when the President travels" and not understand the POV that this carries?
In the larger sense, don't you understand that it's stuff like this that makes people distrust Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA is for facts, not for promoting your own political viewpoint. Why is that so hard to understand?
Alaska Jack 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There are 10s of thousands of websites to express political viewpoints

message: I know some may disagree with my insertion of the line that these zones are offensive to some.  But not having the line makes no difference.  Such zones are offensive to some people whether we explictly say so or not.  So we might as well say that the zones are offensive.
JesseG 23:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
:As long as the wording makes it clear the statement is that it is to some people that the zones are offensive it's true. The zones clearly are offensive to some. If you had written the zones were offensive to all, or something similar, it would have been a different story.
 
:Mickel 10:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Speech Zones & "Offensive to Some"

message: I removed two paranthetical statements that implied that bush supporters were also targeted with these free-speech zones. I've come across no such cases, so until someone verifies that, I'll assume it's a POV attempt to whitewash.--Che y Marijuana 02:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
FSZs were utilized during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. There were images of them posted online, just not as many as those for the Republican National Convention, oddly enough. -RannXXV 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush supporters 

message: "Homeland security along with the Joint Terrorism Taskforce of the FBI however have stated that war demonstators and protestors should be considered by local authorities as possible terrorists."
Quite a disturbing fact indeed, and worth mentioning, but shouldn't that be attributed to some particular report, press conference, statement, or something?
I'd appreciate a source for this one too, not because it's disturbing, but because it is so stupid! If someone is a terrorist, they would probably act like someone who liked their target. This measure would only weed out the most idiotic of assassins
Mihoshi 14:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: Is there any way to fix the photo positioning so that the big space between the first and second paras shrinks back to normal? It looks like something has been cut out of the article, but it's really only a coding issue. I only have minimal Wiki photo formatting skills so I would not attempt this myself. Also, the source link on Brett Bursey is inoperative; it merely dumps one on the Salt Lake Tribune main page. David Hoag 07:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a good link for Brett Bursey info, so I corrected the link. David Hoag 07:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix That Big Funky Space?

message: What kind of idiot would go to a rally with an anti-Bush sign with an intent to assasinate him? I know I'd try not to stand out in the crowd waving a 'War for Oil' sign, as that would be plain ol' stupid to do so if I wanted to do something like murder. --Tiler 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting the President...? 

message: There are some statements in the article that are probably true, but which need citations.  They are in the form of "some people feel..." and "civil libertarians claim..."  Guidelines are to avoid generalities and weasel words and to cite specific, noteworthy people who hold these views.  I'll tag the statements. Johntex\talk 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, Raul, at finding some citations to back up some of the most problematic statements. Johntex\talk 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some citations needed

message: The examples are over-wordy.  They aren't needed to describe the subject of the article, which is Free speech zone.  Johntex\talk 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ludicrious. The WHOLE POINT of the free speech controversy is that it's being used to censor protestors. So yes, when a police detective says he was told by the secret service to target protectors, that's QUITE relavant. Raul654 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please call down and stop shouting.  The point of the article is to describe what a free speech zone is.  It is perfectly within that scope to indicate that there is controversy over their use.  The version I created cited all those concerns and the same sources.  The version you are trying to create is very one-sided.  There is nothing here about any beneficial aspects of the zones.  No government response to the criticisms, etc.  We must conform to NPOV. Johntex\talk 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you created deleted every single first-person account, including the fact that police were told to target protestors but not supporters. You deleted the fact that the law used against protestors is seldom-used (it took me 15 seconds to find the NY times cite). In short, your edits made the article significantly less informative. Raul654 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added  because you are tyring to turn this into anti-Bush polemic instead of an article about what free speech zones are.  First person quotes from individual protestors do not merit so much space in the article.  The slimmer version makes all the same points, but in a form that is more accessible to the reader without  having to slog through huge quote blocks. Johntex\talk 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am OK with using summarizing the quotes; I am not OK with your style of "summarizing" (e.g, mass deleting them), especially when those you deleted quotes establish facts that run directly against the Bush administration's stated (and provably false) policy of not singling out protestors. ANd if you want the administration's side of the story, that just about sums it up - they deny singling out protestors and every bit of evidence proves them to be lying. Raul654 22:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Would you like to try your hand at a summary? Johntex\talk 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: How reputable is "about.com". I know that their article is relevant, but I am wondering whether there are any references that can be found on possibly more reputable sites. Ansell 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's answers.com you are thinking of, not about.com. And secondly, since Ansell's comment, a second reference (the San Francisco Chronicle) has been added. Raul654 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About.com reference

message: I'm ashamed that I haven't even heard about this case before, but when I read the Bursey verdict hearing transcipt, it became clear that the wording in this article is POV:  Bursey was the only civilian in a restricted area; officers "suggested" he should go to the "FSZ"; and the judge strongly suggests that the government should never have brought the case.  Anyway, the source doesn't corroborate the wording in this article.--Son of Somebody 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bursey incident 

message: Many of the references used on this article are used more than once.
It would assist the layout if these references were done using named references, that way the details only need to be included the first time a reference is used.
An example from my user page is
 
 
 
 
 
Subsequent use of the same reference would look like .
I tried to implement this the other day but messed it up. I will reattempt in a couple more days when I get some time.
Garrie 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW - is there any problem with breaking the template up with new lines before each |? It is an editing style issue which apparently causes aggravation for some editors. I find it easier to edit each segment of the template using this layout. It does not effect the reader's view of the article.Garrie 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing