Talk:The World Can't Wait

message: I'm no good at editing these articles, but someone who is better at it than I should rewrite the bit at the bottom of the article. "However, in the wake of the wholesale collapse of the anti-war movement that followed the Obama election, WCW continues to organize mass restistance to the "former" Bush policies of War in Iraq, expansion of the War in Afghanistan, torture, domestic spying, rendition and assaults on civil society that now define the Obama administration." That's definitely not objective in the slightest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.104.170 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Objective

message: I have photos of some of the rallies, what should I do with them? -Rich  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.159.101 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: The long list of supporters is necessary because not everyone knows who Sunasara Taylor is (and to this date there is no wiki entry on her) or why Dennis Rivera is important.  A small list also gives the wrong impression that this isn't a very popular movement.  However there are high school students getting class credit to not only attend the protest(s), but to document through video and term paper what they experienced, what rights they were exercising and if any of those rights are in danger of being lost.
The long list shows that educators, authors, celebrities, politicians, people of the cloth, etc. are all supporting and involved with this movement, and it's walk out day. The reader should then be able to ask themselves "why" was this so important and. hopefully be encouraged to dig deeper.   Please do not minimize the movement by editing the support list down to a few names, many of which are not recognizable nor have their own entry on wikipedia. Bcc cindy 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful. Wikipedia is not soapbox to "promote" WCW or "encourage people to dig deeper". You are walking a fine line here. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't edit the list down to a few names, the list was a few names before and somebody decided to add a bunch more.  In addition I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Large lists which do not contribute significantly to the article would, in my opinion, fall in this category.  If you look at other articles you will notice that they do not have lists with over 40 terms in it.  This is unsightly and unnecessary.  I'm not going to do anything futher right now to see what other people think, but I would highly recommend that the list be cut down, and preferably integrated as well.  That is, pick a few important supporters and find some way to work their names into article text instead of just having a list.  Also to reiterate, this is not a soapbox.  The goal of this article is not to make the reader ask themselves "why" about this movement, nor to encourage them to dig deeper.  It's to provide a verifiable, neutral article which provides useful factual information on the movement. Fightindaman 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list of supporters needs to be removed. Wikipedia entries on organizations never show lists of supporters. WCW partisans have posted this list because they are desperate to show that their organization has been endorsed by a few famous names. This information is irrelevant to the entry. Chuck0 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's totally irrelevent.  If you look, for example, at the PeTA article it mentions a few celebrity supporters.  And as I said, if they want to mention a few that'd be fine, but take them out of the list and work them into the article somehow.  Anybody wanna volunteer to do this? Fightindaman 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Celebrity endorsers are notable only if they play an important role in the activities of an organization. Look at any entry on a minor political group listed in Wikipedia and you won't find a list of endorsements. In the case of PETA, there are celebrities who do ad campaigns and appearances for the organization. If Howar Zinn, for example, was a spokesperson for World Can't Wait, that would be notable and should be listed in the entry. But a list of endorsers has no place in an organizational entry. Chuck0 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance of Long List 

message: The page has, up until now, claimed that it has merely been the assertion of rival left groups that the WCW is a front group for the RCP.  However, it is important, as a neutral encyclopedia, to note the truth, even when that truth would rather be kept secret by both the WCW and RCP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Nizzil (talk • contribs) . 
:And can you cite a source? I agree that WCW is a front-group, but other than your own experience (which is original research), can you show this to be true? The Ungovernable Force 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These accusations, and the open fact of RCP involvement are discussed in the very first lines of the entry. What is not there, because it is not true, are anonymous, unsourced claims that there is a "direct control." This is not there because it is not true. Harrassment of this entry and its talk page have been obsessive from one individual, previously banned from Wikipedia for other, similar behavior. With nothing new added to the discussion, this should be kept clean and not used as a backdoor to use this as a platform for attack, disinformation or harrassment.In the Stacks
From the 'Frequently Asked Questions' on worldcantwait.net:
Q:  But aren't there communists in World Can't Wait?
A:  Yeah, there are. Supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party helped initiate it. They're in it because they think it's absolutely urgent to get rid of this regime, that it would both lift a huge burden from the world and would also give people a sense of their own potential power, and they think all that would open up avenues to get to the kind of society they want.  Same as a whole lot of other people in World Can't Wait which, by the way, includes Greens, Christians, Republicans, anarchists, Muslims, Jews, feminists, Democrats, pacifists, and people who claim no affiliation also think it's urgent to drive out the Bush Regime and also think it can help lead to bigger changes that they want in society, coming from their own viewpoints.
— Linnwood 10:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection to Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)

message: As this has been up for some time and appears resolved, I'd like to remove this one issue that has clogged up the entire talk page, effectively "back-dooring" the dispute into the entry.In the Stacks 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the basic rules for talk pages. The final rule listed is "Do nor edit other people's comments". I believe deleting massive amounts of discussion would violate this rule.  Second, in the paragraph above the one I linked to, it is said that talk pages often have partisan discussion, and it is better to have such material on a talk page than in the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for any particular viewpoint, so you cannot delete a paragraph simply because you disagree. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that one (or two) individuals are hell-bent on making all discussion related to a national organization fixate around their desire to impose unverifiable rumor links into the entry. I think this talk should be removed at this point.In the Stacks 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You constantly refer to this infoshop site as unsigned, unverifiable, etc... Can you give an example of what kind of website would be signed and verifiable? Furthermore, 50% of this talk page is you attacking "this Munson character" and his website, so don't accuse them of dominating the discussion. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd let this page go a while longer.  I don't think it's long enough to archive yet.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is several times longer than the actual entry, and despite efforts to recruit additional people to insert unverifiable materials here by user Chuck0, the basic fact remains that this material is not true, is anonymous and unsourced, and is potentially libelous. Using the talk page to backdoor this unverifiable material that is tangential to the topic of the entry is plain for what it is.In the Stacks 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Stacks continues to censor links to legitimate, notable external links that contain criticism of groups. Chuck0 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call to remove all this "talk" 

message: A question the article doesn't yet explain:
From where did the name come?
I wondered if it was a parody of true love waits - does anyone know?
Just nigel 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name refers to the need for people to take on the threat that the Bush Program/agenda represents to the world and the fact that not just Americans who recognize this on some level or other but people of the world and the planet cannot wait. It is also a call for people to take matters into their own hands as independent politically engaged actors from the grassroots rather than wait for what were then the upcoming 2008 elections in the hopes that elections would solve the problem. Ablebody656 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waiting