Talk:The People's Library

Broaden topic to include other libraries?

An unusual library at Occupy Toronto

St James Park Library Yurt

Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Added a new section for this purpose.   — C M B J   01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, quite biased

This article lacks many reliable sources. The ALA is not a reliable source for factual information, and I see very few actual reliable sources that would constitute an article for what is essentially a place to complain about the closure of the library by the police. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't stated why the article biased, with specific instances, so please do so or the tag will be removed. --David Shankbone 15:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When the majority of the sourcing comes from self-serving sources it is quite obvious that the entire article is biased. It is little more than a propaganda piece, as every single section is self-promotional. A place mostly to complain about the cleaning of Zucotti park. Perhaps if there were a substantial number of reliable sources that actually talked about this minor issue it would be worth discussing, but how do you show the bias when there are really no neutral sources that even talk about the event? Arzel (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are one or two lines that might indicate bias, but most of it is quotes or neutrally-stated facts at the moment that I'm looking at it now... it appears to be very well-sourced. Also, what? The American Library Association is not a "reliable source for factual information"? The professional organization of librarians, the one career that makes a point of being obsessed with "reliable sources of factual information"? Really? Since when? I mean, sure, they support the idea of the "People's Library" (because they like libraries period), but most of the stuff cited to them is quotes - which is appropriate, and rendered in the proper context of quotes from various sides about it. I don't get how the ALA is not a "reliable source" of... quotes from the ALA.

Really, considering it's just an amateur (albeit well-stocked and well-known amateur) library, which isn't nearly as contentious as a lot of other OWS stuff, I'm not sure how you could come up with a much more NPOV article outside a couple of tweaks here and there. All of the stuff is sourced to the reports that discussed them, and represented as such. Aside from the section on the 2 Am raid on Zuccotti ("despite the fact that the protest...", that really shoudln't be there, that's the only moment of pure bias I see)... really, it's not as controversial a topic, so what were you expecting? o.O

My take is that the article atm provides a decently, relatively neutral view of its subject, with only a couple of tweaks needed to achieve that; it is well-sourced when discussing coverage and statements made about it and what items were held by it. It's also a little too long and comprehensive to lump into the OWS article, which is already pretty massive. I would hate to lose the nice, informative coverage here. I would vote against deletion, and against merging, and merely in favor of slight cleanup on the "Zuccotti raid" section. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Zuccotti Park raid

I think we should keep this article, but as its new it may be unintentionally biased. In editing I may have been "too" objective and over corrected in attempting to neutralize the tone. I would like to hear feed back where I potentially (and probably) messed up. Thanks.

184.227.254.173 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Moi

The "forcibly evacuated unauthorized people" description is a bit problematic, because a wide variety of reliable sources report that both authorized and unauthorized people were targeted indiscriminately. The manual of style also discourages the use of links in section headings. Aside that, and overall, I'd say you did a relatively good job with most of it.   — C M B J   01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fail to understand why this is an article

First of all, how is this "library" notable enough to merit its own article? Most of the sources used address potentially destroyed content from police raids, not the library itself. Some of the sources are dubious: Politicusa? Daily Kos? 2600: The Hacker Quarterly? The lead portrays this as a well established, highly frequented intellectual gathering; couldn't be more wrong. The picture of the "Toronto branch" looks like some 1960s LSD den. Sure the New York "flagship" has more books but it's still a temporary tent.

I'm not saying this article's information isn't notable. I do see this being more functional in the main article on OWS, especially info concerning book damage. In short, I propose a merge between the two articles. Any thoughts?--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

How is the library just a temporary tent if it demonstrably continues to exist in absence of said structure? Why is 2600: The Hacker Quarterly a dubious source for technopolitical discourse? What does a traditional Mongolian Yurt have to do with hippie drug dens? Moreover, how does that perception relate to the notability of something in another country?   — C M B J   08:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you got me on Hacker 2600. However, sources like this will need to be removed per WP:BLOGS. My comment on the Toronto library criticizes the description of it as a "public library", not its notability.

As stated a large majority of this article concerns the disposal of books of the November 15th police raid. This could all be summed up neatly in a paragraph on the main OWS page. Will open this discussion to more people by adding merger tag. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

It seems to be newsworthy as a subset of the impact of OWS protests (where it was indeed a rather longstanding "intellectual gathering", what, 2-3 months isn't long? Maybe not compared to a lot of libraries that have a building, but that's pretty impressive for something that only had a space to exist because of a protest). It also has had surprising local impact in a major city that have also been considered somewhat newsworthy, and national support from organizations like the ALA. That alone suggests it should be covered; as to whether it "justifies its own article", I look at it it this way: is it more than a stub-length article? Yes? Is its parent article really long? yes? Than it needs to separate, for reader convenience - at least until we're sure if it's "done" or not. I would however contest the use of past tense in the article's opening, because the end of the article indicates efforts are on to keep it going; I would favor the language "is or was", because while it's nice to be certain, it's better to be accurate. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

American Libraries and the Cornell Daily Sun are both calling it a "public library," which suggests that we should have some compelling reason to do otherwise. The aforementioned source is not definitively in violation of WP:BLOGS as it was being used; regardless, I've removed and replaced it as a courtesy.   — C M B J   23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Occupy Wall Street

• Merge: Most of this article and the sources used concern the raid on the library on 11/15/2011. Thought all of this information could be efficiently summarized on the OWS page. Thoughts are welcome--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

• Merge per nomination. The reliably-sourced info in this article isn't sufficient enough to support a stand-alone article. Kelly ^hi! 17:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Merge A tent with books does not have the notability for its own article; the material would fit well in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The scope and size of Occupy Wall Street are not consistent with the conditions necessary for a merger. Wikipedia:Summary style highlights the fact that meaningful content should generally not be eliminated, and Wikipedia:Content forking outlines the need to fork content when the depth and breadth of a subtopic exceed what can be reasonably accommodated in a single article. As for suggestions that this subject is only notable because of one event, that is simply not true: several of the sources already cited in the article predate said event and still provide significant, direct coverage of the subject in detail.   — C M B J   01:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment We never suggested that content would be deleted. Again most of this article describes the November 15th Raid; this information would fit perfectly into OWS's chronology section. Information about the library itself would be merged as well. In terms of article size, I'm sure OWS growth will reverse once the event is over and editors have time to worry about copyediting. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Approximately half of the current material is unrelated to the raid, with about five hundred words belonging to each domain. Considering that the article is just shy of 38 hours old and is still actively being edited, that's a reasonable metric.   — C M B J   02:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge No notability outside the OWS article, and undue information can be removed so it can fit there. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you please provide specific examples of what you consider to be undue information?   — C M B J   03:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Weekly poetry reading (as opposed to why not comic books?) because the poetry reading is about the protesters, regardless if there's a library or not. 완젬스 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and edit down to reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, a complete list of sources is as follows: 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, Al Jazeera, American Libraries, the American Library Association, BeyondChron, Common Cause, Library Journal, Salon, the School Library Journal, Slate, The Cornell Daily Sun, The Globe and Mail, The Huffington Post, The Portland Mercury, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Prague Post, and Time. Please elaborate on which sources you believe to be unreliable.   — C M B J   03:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge A minor footnote in the history of OWS. Most of the sourcing is self-serving and/or blog related. Only real reliable sourcing is about allegations of destruction of some books when Zuccoti Park was cleaned. Arzel (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources reiterates that point, adding about opinions that "otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a 'blog' style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format." If you have material objections to a particular source or the article's content, please specify your points of concern so that we may evaluate them. The only way that such issues can be resolved is if they are made known.   — C M B J   09:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of WP:V, and it does not resolve the self-serving nature of most of their reports. I have seen very little actual reporting on this minor aspect of OWS, but a lot of complaining about claims of destruction of material, which according to this is largely overstated. Ironic that it is a blog, I know, but like I say, not much in the way of actual reporting being done on this, only furthering the reasoning to move this WP:FORK back into the drawer with the rest of the silverware. Arzel (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times article that you linked contains a preliminary report based upon Bloomberg's official statement, which is covered in the relevant section. Subsequent reports from multiple sources then clarified that there was a grievance lodged by the librarians, who claimed that a significant discrepancy existed with their materials and equipment retained by the city. This is also described alongside Bloomberg's position.   — C M B J   22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• weak merge While I think the article's got passion, which I like, it barely teeters on the threshold for separate notability. I like CMBJ's energy for the article, and I know he or she could probably bring it up to Good Article some day if kept separate, but just not right now. 완젬스 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as a distinct article The Occupy Wall Street article is far too large and cumbersome as it is. This is an appropriate, separate link to explain this specific aspect. It deserves mention, as it gets in the current article, but the whole subject will be weakened by too much detail in an already huge article. The next slippery slope will be to diminish the detail, which is essentially where it sits in the main article now. Trackinfo (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. An article about a notable subject, merging it to Occupy Wall Street just because that was the location of the library is stupid, should we move the whole Occupy Wall Street article to Wall Street because that's where it was located? No. SalfEnergy 23:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are taking this completely out of context. We are not attempting to merge the article because it is located on Wall Street. Please read the above discussion before contributing. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

• Keep We have no idea as to the future of this movement - it may become even larger, or it may just die out. Here in Maine each of our four occupies have their own little library. What's the rush to delete this article? Many Wikipedia articles have far fewer views than this one. Gandydancer (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We are not trying the delete this article. Merge and delete are two distinctly different actions. True, we cannot accurately predict the future of OWS or this library. Those who want merge this article just don't believe enough has happened yet for the People's Library to be notable. Read above discussion for more commentary. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for reminding me that I should have been clearer in my rationale. I have read the above discussion and I am very familiar with the OWS article since I have worked with it almost from the start. We are already having a difficult time at the OWS article in that initially the article was mainly centered on the NYC OWS protest, but the movement has both ballooned and mushroomed and we have twice discussed the difficult job of splintering it off. Initally even the addition of an OWS timeline article was hotly discussed and, if I remember correctly, it was put up for deletion. Again I say, what's the rush? - time will tell. If interest in the movement dies off it can be merged - if not it can stand on it's own. Please let me know if I have addressed your concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Media hype. Invmog (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)