Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:49, 7 July 2005

Seems to be trying to make a point, and belongs on the Logan Clements article. We have a little thing called NPOV here, and that means that mere proposals by society's blowhards dont become encyclopedic just because they make the news papers. In other words this should redirect and merge to the Clements article. The encyclopedic nature of the proposal, ATP, is the fact that it has some publicity, and the possiblity of future controversy. Unfortunately the entries on the Kelo v. New London, David Souter, and Logan Clements articles have been extremely POV and superficial, focusing not on the material itself, but the claims of a hence unknown California citizen.

<opinion>It would further seem that, judging by Clements ties to conservative organizations, that his "libertarian" affiliations are right libertarian, and that the choice of targeting Souter (instead of others) is politically motivated. It would seem that there is some coordinated consensus among sympathetic Wikipedians to introduce this material in a POV way. </opinion>

In any case, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and the naming of an article after a proposed "hotel" (note: someone even added a Category:hotels link!) was not done in good faith. Submitting to WP:RFC. -SV|t 3 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)

• keep Gentgeen 3 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
• keep - it is an important trial of the new supreme court jurisdiction --Keimzelle 3 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
  • But is it appropriately named or neutrally written? No, its not. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
• Merge. I find the argument below about Rosa Parks compelling. She gets an article, the event doesn't. Likewise, until the hotel gets built, it should just be a subheading on various other pages. Keep. While the hotel is disrupting Justice Souter's life to make a point, the article about it is not disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, which is what the guideline you linked to is about. Dave (talk) July 4, 2005 15:02 (UTC) Dave (talk) July 7, 2005 18:27 (UTC)
  • It seems to be vanity and promotion for cheezy prostletyzing libertarians; the new wacky cult of our time. But thats just me. Easy Religion, make way for Easy Political Theory. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see your objection. This is a newsworthy item whether or not you have strong political views on the subject. The contributor is sticking to the facts of the matter. The conclusions that can be drawn from them are up to the reader. --Ali M
  • Are you a real user, or a new user? Have you read the article? -SV|t
• keep - it is an important example of activism and protest, to delete it would be to relegate Misplaced Pages to the anal NPOV Nazis.
  • Do you know how to sign your name yet? Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, by the way. -SV|t
• For the record, Stevertigo has unilaterally moved the page to Logan Clements, despite consensus against the page move. Dave (talk) July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • I've restored it, as it was improperly deleted. Gentgeen 5 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
    • It was redirected, not "deleted." All the matter on that page was dumped into the Clements article. And Harry, please work on your NPOV writing. Its slowly coming along, though and I appreciate that. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
      • I didn't write this article. I never touched it. . Please retract your comment. And I've shown myself plenty capable of writing edits criticizing libertarianism and Objectivism. Most of the criticism of libertarianism article was written by me, though it was originally on the Libertarianism page. See , the bottom half of , and a few dozen more edits like them if you need proof. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 13:35 (UTC) Update: my claim that "I never touched it," while true at the time, is no longer accurate. I added a criticism section. I'm still hoping for a retraction.
  • SV, please don't lie, especially when it is easy to prove otherwise. Or is there some other explination for the logs showing you deleting the page? Moving content to another page without proper credit to the authors and then deleting the page's history is a violation of the copyright rights of the author(s) and a violation of the terms of the GFDL. Gentgeen 6 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Keep --Rogerd July 5, 2005 01:55 (UTC)
• Keep. Though it may be a heavy-handed publicity stunt, those editors who chose to cover it as newsworthy made it newsworthy, and a fair subject for an article. Smerdis of Tlön 5 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
  • Huh?? Do I read you correctly? 'Because editors take an interest in it, and make an article, that alone is newsworthiness?' In anycase, you dont seem to understand the basic point, Smerdis: Most of the material is fine, and I dont object to it, but the title of the article is POV, its written in a POV style, and these effec the way its reffered to on other articles. All of it is POV. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
• Keep. Novel form of political direct action I suppose. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 5 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
• Delete. I assume the "editors" referred to by Smerdis of Tlön are the editors of newspapers and magazines who've chosen to run stories about this. I don't know how many have done so -- I'd never heard about this until I saw it in Misplaced Pages -- but, if we decide that Clements's publicity stunt has garnered enough publicity to merit any coverage in Misplaced Pages, it should be under Logan Clements, not an article about a nonexistent hotel. One fax to town officials plus one press release isn't enough for a nonexistent facility to achieve notability. There is no reason whatsoever to believe, as suggested by Keimzelle above, that this will be "an important trial of the new supreme court jurisdiction". Nothing in Kelo requires the town to approve this "proposal". If the town does approve it, reconsider, but until then, delete. JamesMLane 5 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
• Keep. I get 50,000 Google hits on "Lost Liberty Hotel" (in quotes), so this seems to have achieved some "traction" to become notable, even if it is a silly stunt. It's certainly disrupting the legal system to make a point, but it's not disrupting Misplaced Pages. *Dan* July 6, 2005 02:21 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, certainly not for enabling a Libertarian publicity stunt like this. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
  • We're not "enabling" it. Googling for "lost liberty hotel", with "souter" and "weare" added to eliminate false hits, finds over 20,000 pages. The same search on Google News finds 119 articles. The Washington Post carried it . The story is out there, no matter what we do. Also, I don't think it's a mere "publicity stunt". Perhaps Clements will drop the matter in a few days, and then we could say, yes, it was just a stunt. But so far he appears to be serious, and trying to make a serious point and fuel some public debate on a public issue. Many people may disagree with him, but it's not trivial; it's news, it's newsworthy, and it's important enough to justify an article here. Tualha 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
    • He "appears to be serious"? Which is why he whipped up a business plan for a hotel in a day or two? That was pretty fast steppin' to research the current supply of hotel rooms in the area, the average occupancy rates, the construction costs of his facility, and what kind of structure and use would be allowed by local zoning on this particular site even if he were to get it condemned. He's "serious" about milking this for publicity while "seriously" hoping that no one calls his bluff. "OK, Mr. Clements, we like your idea. We'll condemn the land and make it available to you, in return for your promise to have a hotel up and running within a year. You have one week to post a $5 million performance bond to secure that promise." If he got that response from the town, he'd wet his pants. I don't see any criterion by which this could be considered a serious business proposal, as opposed to a publicity stunt. The question is whether an encyclopedia should be let itself be complicit in such publicity stunts. JamesMLane 6 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
      • I don't mean that he seriously expects the town of Weare to screw a Supreme Court justice. I mean that this action is a serious act of protest. When I say it's not a publicity stunt, I mean he's not just doing it for publicity, to get his name in the papers. He's doing it to make a point, and to make people think. Just as Gavin Newsom let thousands of same-sex couples get married in San Francisco, or Rosa Parks got arrested for civil disobedience. Not for the sake of publicity, but to make a point, to try to change a bad law. Which is of greater import, and therefore deserving of more notice, such as a (suitably NPOV) Misplaced Pages article. Having such an article doesn't make WP complicit in the protest; it merely chronicles it, as we chronicle thousands of other things that people might want to look up. Tualha 7 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
        • I have no information as to whether he's doing this to press his political beliefs or because he just loves seeing his name in the paper. I'll charitably assume the former. Nevertheless, his purity of motive doesn't elevate this to any importance beyond publicity stunt. Should we have a separate article on Michael Moore's offer to let Sinclair broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election, without charge? Moore at least was serious in the sense that he would have been delighted if his offer had been accepted. As for your examples, Gavin Newsom and Rosa Parks clearly deserve articles, and I have no objection to an article about the notably less notable Logan Clements. Parks's refusal to move to the back of the bus, although a more important historic event than Clements's fax, doesn't need a separate article. The solemnizing of 4,000 same-sex marriages was significant in itself and has precipitated significant litigation, so it's properly covered as part of Same-sex marriage in California -- though again, not in a completely separate article. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
• Merge to Logan Clements, until the hotel actually gets beyond being a press release and a fax to the town. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
• Keep. The project has attracted a certain amount of publicity and news coverage. It doesn't appear to be frivolous - it looks to me like Clements intends to carry it as far as he can. It's related to an important court decision, an important public policy issue, and a Supreme Court justice. People will hear about it and want to look it up. Tualha 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
• Keep The article does need to be cleaned up some though. Wynler 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)