Talk:Frances Fox Piven

Criticism

I reinserted the deleted criticism section. As "criticism" it is clearly identified as an opinion. The author is a recognized commentator on race relations who has authored several books on the subject. The fact that he is an "activist" (with no support for the assertion) is a red herring given that Pivens herself was an "activist" -- see biographical information at the referenced Yale web cite. Disagreement with McWhorter's published opinion is no basis for deleting it. If anything, the quote balances the POV since most of the honors and awards cited are from activist organizations on the other end of the political spectrum. As for their respective areas of expertise. it's presumptuous and arrogant to assert that the experience of a Black man who grew up in the overtly racist Philadelphia of Mayor Frank Rizzo, and then in all-black Lawnsdale, New Jersey, is somehow a less authentic experience than that of a white female Canadian-American with degrees in city planning. If you think it unbalances the POV, mark it as such and let someone else review it. 123.127.110.166 (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that his opinions are notable on piven. See WP:WEIGHT for assistance here. I don't give a shit about mcwhorter's childhood. That has nothing to do why his claims on piven's true intent or unsuited for an article on piven.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

McWhorter's quote is representative of a larger body of opinion. If we put in all the references to the New York Times article, Rudy Giuliani's 1998 speech, the John Fund report, the Simpson articles, etc. the criticism section will form the largest portion of the article. See WP:WEIGHT for assistance here. Piven's true intent was expressly disclosed in her 1966 article with Cloward, if you haven't read it. One commentator even noted, "Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article." As it is, the criticism section is the only part of the article that actually has supporting references 123.127.110.166 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ip. you don't have consensus for this.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube

The attempted characterization of Piven's comments in this edit [1] (taken from an interview with her hosted on youtube) is heavily editorial. Raised issues with whom? Why are they notable in the context of her life? What exactly is her view on violence and social change? I'll watch the youtube to figure out what actually was said -- but the best we could do with this to avoid original research is to directly quote her -- and certainly not do a compare and contrast of her own with MLK, GHandi and so on.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, definitely can't use this. There a number of reasons why. This is a 3 minute clip of a much longer conversation, which decontextualizes her comments (possibly). Given all the propoganda efforts surrounding taking people's quotes out of context, some random youtube user's editorial decision to select this 3 minutes alone (and why) is a problem. Further, having listened to her comments, i think the summary effort badly mischaracterizes her comments -- essentially she makes a fairly common argument that non-violence is tactical and strategic, rather than a goal in itself. Other's may disagree with my analysis of her comments (i've posted a quick transcript of my own below) but that's just the point. It's highly interprative for any person to divine the essence of those comments, it's an act of original research and synthesis to do so. Given that she's been a minor public figure sine the 60s, has lots of work of her own published (and commentary on her work and views in scholarly publications) let's go with that.

"Q: It seems most progressive movements are committed to non violence, but you seem to be advocating a more strong, physical resistance. At what point do we draw the line. What amt of prop damage do we accept, what amt of phys violence do we accept. What issues are strong enough to put us in a place where we are willing to stand and take a beating for what we believe.

• A: Those are good qs. They’re hard to answer in the abstract I think. I have considerable respect for non violence, but I don’t treat it as an inevitably necessary rule. The reason I have respect for non violence is that I think it helps to protect the protestors. The espousal of the g oal of non violence is a form of self defense. Now everybody knows that the civil rights movement in the South professed non violence that people were taught to cover their heads when the white mobs came to beat them up and to just endure the spitting, beating and so forth. But, violence, the violence of the white mob was being used strategically in those demonstrations. You think they didn’t know the mob was going to beat them up. Of course they did. They were trying to do -- they were using violence, violence was part of those movements and part of why they were successful. Moreover even African Americans were not always non violent, the riots in Birmingham, were African American riots and there were, I’ve forgotten now what they were called, but there were uhm (someone in audience says “deacons for defense) what? Deacons for defense. That’s right. I met those guys and they were serious. So, look, it’s partly a problem of almost strategy and propaganda, it’s a violent country, it’s a violent government, it’s killing people and they’re going to call us violent if we break a window, but they will do that. So probably, unless you have good reason for breaking the window, probably you shouldn’t do that, unless it’s a big part of your strategy."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Strike/riot quote

Any characterisation of her views will have to use reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) not a users interpretation of her views. We try to avoid using individual quotes in order to summarise an persons views as they can be taken out of context.--Misarxist 11:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The core of the criticism is not just that people disagree with her Marxist philosophy, but that that they claim that she advocates that her policies should be implemented through somewhat violent means. As long as this is clearly attributed, it is important to understanding the debate over her writings. The quotes that you have been deleting are of Piven, not of her opponents. Please quit whitewashing the claims off this page. --Flyboy121 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we please leave out the "whitewashing" rhetoric and just discuss this. My point is that while these opinions about Piven are sourced, because they're not from reputable newspapers or similar, Beck's opinions don't meet the standards we have for sources in blps (WP:BLPSOURCES). So they should only be noted, with attribution, when a reliable source has picked up on them, as in the nyt article currently quoted. The same seems to apply to this [2], ie his opinion "This statement is at odds with her 2004 comment" can't be quoted as straight fact and maybe shouldn't be noted at all. Though admittedly I'm not sure of that, I've never heard of that website before.--Misarxist 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"She’s considered by many as the grandmother of using the American welfare state to implement revolution. Make people dependent on the government, overload the government rolls, and once government services become unsustainable, the people will rise up, overthrow the oppressive capitalist system, and finally create income equality." That's the first two sentences of the quoted article, there isn't a semblance of impartiality, so I'm removing it. Caelestis Filius (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes of Ms Piven cannot be construed as irrelevent in a article on Ms Piven. If you have an issue with the tone, then EDIT the material, don't REVERT it. Deleting direct quotes of the subject of the article amounts to censorship. and fails to maintain a NPOV. --Flyboy121 (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Inserting multiple short quotes that don't actually illustrate anything further than what she's already been accused of are a form of POV pushing. It's inflating the section as if it were more important to the person than it is. Selective quotes chosen by unreliable sources are especially problematic. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The quotes offer significant context. Ms Piven's call for us to emulate the Greek riots is not out of the blue, instead, these are in line with the past thirty years of her scholarship. These quotes do not upset NPOV, instead, they offer insight into her beliefs and writings. If you feel the quotes are out of context, then you could help the situation by offering what that context is, and not by censoring facts that render Ms Piven in an unfavorable light.--Flyboy121 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what I believe the context of the quotes is. I am not a reliable source, and it is up to you to provide the necessary sources to include information, not me to disprove the addition. What is relevant is that the sources for the quotes are not reliable, especially for a WP:BLP. I will take this to the BLP noticeboard if you continue to reinsert contentious information into a BLP. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Glen Beck is listed as a significant critic in a section on criticism, how is referencing comments on Beck's website a "unreliable source"? Now, please stop your edit war and offer sources that show that the quotes are out of context if you wish to censor them. --Flyboy121 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That Glenn Beck has been criticizing/attacking her has been the subject of major news articles. Those are reliable sources. Again, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources, not me to disprove the accuracy of an unreliable source. This is from the lead of the Biographies of Living Persons Policy. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed what in those quotes is unreliable. They are direct quotes that have been publicized by a well known commentator. They are direct quotes of Piven, and are clearly labeled as being chosen by Beck. If they lack context, then please feel free to add that context. Piven has long held nuanced views on demonstrations, and if that last NYT quote is going to stay in this article, then her earlier comments need to be included as well in order to keep a NPOV in this article. --Flyboy121 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The quotes were chosen by someone who has a specific agenda in attacking her, and has a history of quoting out-of-context. As such, they are not reliable by any stretch, especially on a BLP. You have not found a better source, so it should stay out until you do so; I am under no obligation to disprove an unreliable source. The NYT quote is from a major new article, and it is quite reasonable to quote the person's defense of themselves in their own biography. There is no requirement that we balance it out with Beck's attacks. This has been reported on the BLP noticeboard. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Check WP:YOUTUBE, which states "As a reliable source: Nota bene* Sometimes. If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable." The video at theblaze.com link was uploaded by C-SPAN, is also available via C-SPAN's website (which is difficult to link into) and is considered reliable. If you feel the quotes are out of context, you can use the referenced source and add the proper context. --Flyboy121 (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

C-SPAN would be reliable, but then you're combining reliable and unreliable sources, making it a synthesis of material to advance an argument. It's more than sufficient to list what the person's criticisms are, based on reliable sources, without selectively quoting based on an unreliable source. This is not a significant part of Piven's life, so the section should remain extremely short, per WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyboy, I agree with Sxeptomaniac and Misarxist. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sxeptomaniac and Misarxist as well. BLPs require more care in sourcing. Tvoz/talk 09:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree with S+C+M+T regarding reliable sources and over-quoting; some other important points:

WP:BLP notes that biographies should not contain litanies of criticism ("Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral.")

Note also that the latest controversy is one recent event in a 50 year career, which WP:RECENT warns can lead to the BLP being "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens."

For these reasons, only a short summary of the criticism is warranted, not a long textual "debate" between critics and the subject. In other words, the article about Piven, not Beck et al. Rostz (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on Piven and Beck seems to me to be quite unfair. I added two sentences that include Piven's call for Greek-style riots and another explaining the violent nature of those riots. Leaving either of these sentences out makes understanding Beck's criticism of her impossible. She made the quote and the context of what is happening in Greece is relevant. It also seems to me that Piven's complaints about Beck are given more space than Beck's criticisms of her. I find this wrong, especially in an entry on Piven. So, who cares what she thinks about Glen Beck; add those quotes to Beck's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.113.141 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See edit history and above discussion - the section was previously larded with quotations, and per discussion and WP policy the positions were summarized and cited for further reading. The article is about Piven, not Beck. That being said, the recent addition of Piven's "neurotic and peculiar" comment about Beck seems trivial to me, and I'm going to remove it. Rostz (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion

There's a fair amount of internet discussion going on regarding a list of Jewish people criticized by Glenn Beck that includes Piven.
Jeffrey Goldberg asserts her inclusion as a Jew in a post for the The Atlantic: Glenn Beck's Jewish Problem.
(There's also an MSNBC interview of Piven by Cenk Uygur where she leaves the inclusion unchallenged.)
The most reliable source I've found for Piven being Jewish is that she's included in Murray Polner's 1982 book American Jewish Biographies.
What do other editors think of including her religion in the "Life and education" section, citing Polner? (NB: I have no intention of including the Beck/Jewish controversy in the article.) Rostz (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me there are enough reliable sources to categorise her as Jewish (although a self-description would still be preferable). Feel free to add it to the article. Robofish (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the second opinion. Rostz (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed as irrelevant. Glrx (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, though why is it also not irrelevant to hundreds of other BLPs? (Category:Jewish scientists, Category:Jewish actors, etc.) Thanks, Rostz (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of those lists, categories, and additions aren't relevant either. It doesn't matter if they are Jewish, Catholic, or Animist. Unless their particular religion is a fundamental part of why they are notable the tagging is simply stupid. John lilburne (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't identify herself as such here: http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/3076/west_piven_interview_9_15_11/ Dogru144 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Feud

I have removed this section We need to figure out:

1. is it written Neutrally? (IMHO it is not)
2. is it WP:UNDUE weight in WP:BLP given her extensive career? (IMHO it is)

These questions must be discussed before the content can be re-addedThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Section should be removed. It's Beck's interpretation of what she said and her denial of that interpretation. It's not a neutral report of what she actually said. Glrx (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Beck affair section is a reasonable timeout/restart, since WP:BLP issues must always be dealt with conservatively. However...

A number of editors have been editing this section and it seemed we had lately reached consensus on both greatly reducing the Beck section and its tone/wording (see edit history and Talk.)

It would be very helpful for those of you who read it as non-neutral to expand on your asserted opinions and suggest improvements to the wording, which stated the dispute and Piven's response largely using their own words, briefly and succinctly.

Likewise, regarding WP:UNDUE, there is a significant amount of material available in the mainstream press (NYTimes, Guardian) as well as major commentary journals (Nation, National Review) that cover this issue, so I'd like to understand why this doesn't deserve at least some mention in the biography. I'll note that WP:RECENT doesn't refer simply to reporting on recent events, but cautions against editing "without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention". Piven's own contributions to the debate (Guardian, Nation) add weight to the topic; they now comprise a small part of her own work. Does this long-term coverage truly deserve no mention whatsoever?

Finally, in response to the request for most of the article to be blanked, I definitely don't understand how widely-available, reliably-sourced, biographical information contributes to a negative atmosphere; instead, properly handled, it provides a non-hysterical counter to the muck elsewhere on the web.

(I'm a bit worn out from the ANI situation involved here and probably won't do additional significant editing to this article, but instead observe and treat it as a learning experience.) Thanks, Rostz (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's attacks on Dr. Piven have been covered in the New York Times and elsewhere and belong in the article. I sympathize with the rough situation Dr. Piven has experienced, but don't think we fulfill our encyclopedic mission by removing any reference. I also don't think there is any harm under BLP standards in carefully mentioning something so widely reported.Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

They most certainly do NOT belong in the article. Maintaining that they do belong means that if any POV pushing pundit manages to get his controversial slurs about someone repeated elsewhere, he also gets wikipedia to faithfully repeat the slurs for all time, on the slurred person's wikipedia article. If these sort of comments belong anywhere they belong in the article of person slurring, NOT in the article of the person slurred. The person pushing a POV should not be rewarded by having their nonsense spread across multiple wikipedia articles. John lilburne (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That certainly does not seem to be the criteria for inlcusion into Wiki. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This should not be a difficult issue. Beck's slurs have been widely covered, with a number of responses from Piven (e.g. here). So it would be reasonable to include a single sentence, along the following lines: Beck slurred Piven, and she replied as follows... There would be no need to give any space to what Beck actually said (just find a source that described Beck's "contribution" as a slur or the equivalent). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that its a slur and even some in academia thinks he’s right on the money[3]. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In my professional opinion, this is decidedly a minority view, to such an extent that in Wikipedia terms it would be WP:UNDUE to give it any space. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are certainly more than enough citation to be found that make this view mainstream and noteworthy, your professional opinion aside ZippoHurlihee (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gee Whizz we have a blogger reaffirm Beck. Quick insert everything we can back into the article. Add a little bit more for extra spice too. John lilburne (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but its certainly not undue to say that a number of people agreed with Beck's characterization of Pivens call for Greek style violence in the US. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't base articles on vague "numbers of people", but reliable sources. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

How many reliable sources does it take until something is notable? 1, 10, 100? I am not being sarcastic either. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are millions that agree with Beck. I can find 1000s of them everyday on freerepublic, or I can tune into the war that has been waging between opposing parties on USENET and other places for two decades or more. All that has happened is that that war has moved here, where POV sausage grinders of various persuasion are cranking the handle, and churning whatever vitriol gets published on their (political, religious, or academic opponents), straight into the subjects BLP page. John lilburne (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Its my understanding that the articles be a reflection of common facts and notable opinion/commentary. Simply because you don’t read it in the media outlets you frequent does not mean it doesn’t exist with, what might be to you, a shockingly high degree of concurrence. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly not aware of this being notable see my comment below The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Then shove it in the Beck article. That article can maintain a list of all his snark and you can list all the others that agree with him on any particular aspect of the snark. If there is an equivalent of Beck on the other side of the political divide do the same with all their inanities too. That way the whole partisan nonsense is quarantined so it doesn't infect the rest of the site. John lilburne (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I am begining to see the dividing line here that seems to be continual pattern with BLPs and many other articles... Is Wikipedia a place where we are in effect a news aggregate where every instance a person of a person being mentioned we must include in our article? or are we an encyclopedia that summarizes the biographical details of a persons life in the encyclopedic perspective and cannot and should not cover every fact in persons life. So from my POV we do not and should not really need to include every detail from sources. This seems to be a relatively minor incident where Beck she said something (which likely may have been out of context) and she said I did not say that and your ridculous for saying I am. This seems to the extent of the incident and does not seem to be much more than that in comparison with Beck long running feuds with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow or Keith oberman. Not being viewer of the Glenn Beck Program I cant say this is an esepcially notable dispute or longterm dspute for inclusion here than short flurry or reports The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the sources in the deleted section, Beck has been "featuring" her for "the past few years", "relentlessly" for the "past three weeks" (as of January 30.) Rostz (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm fine with the Beck section going away for good. It's worked well enough in at least one other case involving Beck's attacks. If it does come back, it probably should be only a few sentences, and stop referring to what Beck's doing as "criticism", as it really isn't accurate wording. He doesn't actually criticize any of Piven's ideas, but instead just attacks her as supposedly being part of his ridiculous theories. Hopefully, if it does come back, we've got enough editors watching the article that aren't SPAs parroting Beck's drivel to keep it under control this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The deleted section consisted of three reliably-sourced sentences and was already being diligently patrolled. Rightly or wrongly he (and others) certainly are criticizing and attacking her ideas; see the sources. Rostz (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Those three sentences -- particularly framed as a separate section -- were an egregious violation of WP:UNDUE. To clarify my comment above -- I would see a single sentence along the lines I indicated as a maximum here, and I wouldn't mind not having this episode mentioned at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the attacks are very widely known, and have been reported by impeccable sources. We therefore do not harm in including them. We do great harm by making it blatantly obvious to 99% of the people who might come to look at the article that we have censored it. That's the opposite of what a responsible encyclopedia should be doing. Frankly, I respect the judgment of the NYT about what is appropriate to publish interms of the protection of living people somewhat more than our own judgment at Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't abrogate personal responsibility. If I Google a persons name their WP page is more likely to be the first hit than a NYT article from X months ago. By shoving into the article op-ed vitriol about a person that happens to be a the target of hate or derision by a media pundit one gives that op-ed UNDUE weight in respect to its target. The op-ed is an opinion of the pundit, it is not balanced or weighted it is pundits opinion, thus it belongs, if anywhere, in the article associated with the pundit. John lilburne (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I call attention to an essay by Piven just published today in The Chronicle of Higher Education [4] It seems that she is not the least anxious to avoid publicizing this material, but very much the contrary. Given this, and her earlier writing on this, I cannot understand why she or anyone in her interests--or anyone else--should want to keep the material out of Wikipedia. She obviously thinks it will do not harm published elsewhere, so why should it do harm published here? I see that at the moment Wikipedia is the first hit on Google -- but National Review is the second. It is clearly in her interests that a neutral discussion on this be visible in Wikipedia, rather than her opponents be able to say that we are concealing it. As we make very clear in WP:AUTO, no person is capable of writing a neutral article about themselves, or in defining the manner that others write about them. We've long established that if a person seeks publicity, the do no harm argument is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So. What of it? It is an answer to the earlier polemic by Beck - A Marxist, Muslim Caliphate - give us a break. No one says suppress the rant, just put it in the Beck article where it belongs. John lilburne (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion of it belongs in both places; in the Beck articles, it's one of the many attacks he has made on people not of his ideological persuasion & probably deserves no more than a brief mention; he's done even worse. In this, it's criticism of her work from a particular perspective, criticism which has regrettably received more public notice than her very notable work. In a sense, it's more distinctive that she should get ignorant criticism than that Beck should make it. Therefore it's preferable to put the main discussion here, and link it from a sentence in the other Were she an obscure and non-notable assistant professor, we'd discuss it only under Beck, for then Do no harm would apply--we do not discuss everything Beck attacks, unless they are already notable. In this case, she has -- in my opinion quote rightly -- decided to answer the criticism. It's an unfortunate choice one has to make , when attacked in this manner, but that's the choice she made. Had she decided otherwise, there might have been a case for putting it under Beck only, with a cross-reference from here. But what cannot be done is publish it widely elsewhere, and not have it included here. That's the essence of POV biographical writing. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Careful what you argue for. David Icke states that all the POTUS are shape shifting space lizards, and we somehow manage to confine that to the David Icke article and none of them are obscure politicians. Icke's views have received widespread notice and anything that you might say to justify placing the bulk of Beck's notice here can equally be argued for spreading the Icke stuff into the Gerald Ford article. Up above I said that people whose business it is to generate controversy shouldn't be rewarded by having that controversy spread across multiple pages of wikipedia.

As you say it's criticism of her work from a particular perspective thus it should rightly reside with that perspective, just as David Icke's criticisms of the POTUS are appropriately limited to article that concerns Icke and his views. John lilburne (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Very few things are absolute, but I gather that by introducing another issue you have no further relevant comment on this one? DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless one is POV pushing, issues like this should be absolute. One should not have one rule for Beck and Piven, and another rule for Icke and Ford. Either controversialists and media manipulators get to have their nonsense spread far and wide, or they should have their nonsense limited to their own article pages. Currently someone like Beck, and their counterparts, whose business it is to create media controversy, whose pronouncements are always op-ed, as soon as they manage to do what they are paid for,get their op-ed pieces spewed across multiple pages of the site. These pronouncements are the opinions of Beck, the controversy is that of Beck, the commentary in the media is about Beck, it is all about Beck. It doesn't matter whether the target is Piven, a Democrat politician, a Biologist, a Muslim, or the Pizza Delivery guy, none of it is really about them, it is ALL ABOUT BECK and his show and his ratings. That people of intelligence can be so cynically manipulated as not to see it for what it is, is truly astonishing. What I am seeing here is a machine where people are cranking the handle and out comes sausages, only in this case the machine is generating article paragraphs, and instead of the input being pork the input is quotes from media reports. The problem is that the someone has substituted sweetmeat for sausage meat. John lilburne (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

However, is POTUS engaging Icke in a public dialog? The situation is different because we don't just have silly accusations, we have silly accusations which are being responded to publicly. The responsible thing to do is to cover the exchange with BLP and NPOV in mind.Griswaldo (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be saying that if someone gets a spokesmen for the Oval Office to deny that any of them were Space Lizards, that is then sufficient reason to paste the Icke nonsense in all their pages. Or if Y makes a ridiculous claim about X causing a furore, and X says that Y's claim is a miss representation then WP policy is "HAHA LUZER now you engaged in TEH controversy we EDITZ TEH PAGE". That can't be right surly? John lilburne (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not even remotely the same. The Oval Office is not known to the public because of those claims. Piven, unfortunate as it may be, is known to the public because of Beck's nonesense. That she has responded to it publicly only solidifies the fact that it is a dialog and not just someone ranting in a vacuum. I agree that if it were just a matter of Beck spouting off you might not want to post anything on this entry, but that's not the case. Also, ironically, I think those who object to putting this in her entry are doing her more harm in the end. The responsible thing to do for Piven is to add the material and to add her responses to Beck. If you don't you leave Wikipedia with only one half of the story - Beck's half. Do you think it does Piven a service not to cover this dialog and to do so adequately from her POV as well? I don't, and I certainly support her here much more so than Beck. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really trying to understand this argument, but it is making little sense. From what I understand from the above the argument is that: If a person or organisation (X) miss represents the position held by another person or organisation (Y), or makes up some fanciful story about them. So long as Y is silent on the issue then nothing about the issue is put in their article, even though it may later be said that they never denied the story. However, should Y respond to the miss representation then X's miss representation should be repeated in Y's article along with its refutation. If I have that wrong please correct me. John lilburne (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What I have trouble with is the suggestion that it is better to have serial nature of X's nonsense diluted and spread across multiple BLPs, where it may be a dominate part of anyone particular BLP, and where it may exist long after most people may have forgotten about the issue. That somehow this is better than placing the miss representation and its refutation in the article of serial abuser where it can clearly be seen as just one of many such incidents. John lilburne (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reason is that at this point, if people are looking for this particular material, they're likely to come here; if they're looking for Beck in general, they'll go there. The interesti n it fro mthe pt of view of Piven is shown by the sources--the CHE doesnt bother about what Beck says in general, it does about stupid criticism of Piven & other academics. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As DGG points out, people will come to this article looking for information about this. They will already have been exposed to it in the media, perhaps only from one perspective. It is best to present the material here, since it is clearly highly notable at this point, and to do so in an accurate and NPOV manner. What is it about this that you don't understand? If you care about doing no harm to Piven, then you'd agree that it is better for us to inform our readers as accurately as possible than it is to pretend like this issue doesn't exist. Are you concerned about giving Piven a fair shake here or are you more concerned about not paying lip-service to the controversy Beck stirs up because of some real world battleground issues you have? Of course any information would have to conform to due weight standards and should be written to reflect accuracy and neutrality. I'll repeat myself again. I'm much more comfortable having us present the entire issue, from both sides, than I am if we ignore it, thus leaving our readers to the mercy of whatever talking head they pray to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I can make a pretty good case that I care about not doing undue harm to Ms. Piven. My main problem is that if we are going to put that back into the article, we should make very sure we're doing it right. My rather un-enjoyable exchange with Flyboy121 in the section above shows (1) how under-watched this article was, and (2) how committed Beck's followers are to attacking her. If the consensus is that a mention should go back in, OK, but let's be sure it's a good addition and stays that way.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that 100%, and because of these discussions the page is surely now watched by many, myself included. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this issue, for what it is worth. Maybe I am just being naive, but, to me, this seems to be Piven supporters trying to back away from her being an advocate of verifiable, radical, violent, social change. I am not criticizing her for having this opinion, but neither am I criticizing Beck for pointing it out. The prevailing editors of this biography seems to want to whitewash her call for social change and how to bring it about, and to paint criticism of her as being solely from a "wacky" talk show host. I see Piven being very consistent the last 40+ years in advocating her views for the lower classes. Maybe it is too soon for editors to step away from their POV and write this biography in a fair way for everyone involved. In any case - this article, as it exists now, does not do Piven justice. It does not show the point of view she has written for and advocated for. PRONIZ (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism, yes. From what I've read, there's a lot to criticize, and it certainly has been done. The problem is that what Beck (and most of the more recent references to her and her work) is doing is not criticism. He is attacking her as supposedly an important intellectual leader in some kind of sinister conspiracy. In the process, he's taking quotes and playing "GOTCHA!" with them; that's not criticism either. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling for Greek style riots in US streets is certainly going to attract some critics. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's Beck's interpretation of what she said. He took a small quote and made it into a "GOTCHA!" That's not criticism; it's political maneuvering. Academic criticisms would be much more appropriate to the biography of an academic. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Becks interpretation was certainly picked up on and many others concurred with it. I would agree that an academic criticism would be more appropriate, but is not the standard for inclusion. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But that doesn't make it criticism. Notice that the NYT article never once calls what Beck is doing "criticism". Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck made her famous. Their feud belongs here Mitch3000 12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Beck made her famous, but he didn't make her notable. De Guerre (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely

(also posted at WP:ANI)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article; the last thing we need right now is someone who doesn't know better adding stuff in there that can cause further damage. –MuZemike 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree --JLAmidei (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1361

  Triggered by \bbeacon\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Frances Fox Piven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008085049/http://www.dsausa.org/archive/Docs/DSA%20Constitution.pdf to http://www.dsausa.org/archive/Docs/DSA%20Constitution.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009131938/http://pdfcast.org/paid/9780742563162 to http://pdfcast.org/paid/9780742563162
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163743/http://www.cuny.edu/about/people/faculty/bios.html?profName=francesfoxpiven&profile=0 to http://www.cuny.edu/about/people/faculty/bios.html?profName=francesfoxpiven&profile=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163743/http://www.cuny.edu/about/people/faculty/bios.html?profName=francesfoxpiven&profile=0 to http://www.cuny.edu/about/people/faculty/bios.html?profName=francesfoxpiven&profile=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)