Talk:Street Artists Program of San Francisco/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggested rewriting

I am not questioning the historical accuracy or necessity of the article. I am questioning the style of writing: of wordiness, foreshadowing, and other journalistic devices that newspaper and magazine writers use to draw people into an article. This is not a newspaper story, but an encyclopedia entry, and needs to be written in much sparser, facts-only, and neutral prose. Rather than work through the piece and have it all reverted, I've gone through the first few paragraphs to show you what I mean by encyclopedic prose. Any inaccuracies in the rewrite are due to the fact that I haven't immersed myself in the article thoroughly enough to really understand what it's saying:

The San Francisco Street Artists Program is a municipal project {not sure of the description} in which independent artists and craftspeople sell art and crafts items that have been predominately created or significantly altered by them, in designated selling spaces throughout the city of San Francisco, California. Founded in 1972, the program is entirely funded by certification fees levied on each street artist, and generates $4 million annually for the city's economy.

The program was the result of a hard-fought political battle by street art advocates who were willing to be arrested many times in order to draw media attention and push for a change in existing laws for public street selling {or whatever it's called}. In 1972, their efforts resulted in the passing of a law allowing artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks. The Street Artist Program has served as a training ground for grassroots political activism, and is responsible for an ongoing political dialogue about what activities should, and should not, be allowed in public areas. The program has also served as a template for other cities wanting to create their own street artist programs.

{I removed these 2 sentences from the lead, as they are more analysis than declaration, and it's unclear what you're talking about}: Although the original Street Artist Program allowed artists and craftspeople to sell only their own, handmade arts or crafts, today the certified artists and craftspeople of the program are restricted to selling items that they have "predominately created or significantly altered". Commercially-manufactured goods are also allowed to be sold in the program, thus negating an important compromise with local retail establishments.

== History ==

The roots of the San Francisco Street Artists Program go back more than a decade before the defining legislation of 1972. During the 1960s, California was the site of many outdoor art fairs, which nurtured a culture of independent artists and craftspersons. At the same time in the liberal Haight Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco, there was an effort to sell crafts on Haight Street's sidewalks. {The foreshadowing in the next 2 sentences should be avoided; state what happened in its own chronological section}: Later in 1971 two gay artists, Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte along with one heterosexual artist, William (Bill) J. Clark, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks. Artists and street performers who illegally set up in public areas were frequently harassed and arrested by the police. In the 700 block of Beach Street next to Victoria Park, near Fisherman's Wharf, for example, about 20 artists would sell their goods with the aid of lookouts, who alerted them to the arrival of the police so they could temporarily move and avoid arrest.

{This also belongs later, and needs to be sourced}: The widespread political activism and protests at cities and universities across the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s is also seen as a cultural catalyst for the grassroots political energy of the San Francisco street-art advocates who would create the first street artist program in America.

Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see where you are going with this. I do not have problem with way you are taking the tone down a couple of notches, and being more objective and concrete. As long as the raw facts remain intact somewhere in the article, I am content. And while I personally see a value in the foreshadowing that I employ to increase the reader's interest, I do not have big problem with its removal either. James Carroll (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Yoninah, I agree that the proposed text is quite an improvement. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to write an accurate history of the SF Street Artist Program then you should have contacted the people who were directly involved in creating the program who are still alive and still in the program and not simply rely on old newspaper articles for your "facts". Newspaper articles about the street artists were not always accurate. I'm William J. Clark and Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte were my personal friends and worked with me to get the Street Artist Program started. You ask about sources. I am the source!!! I lived the history and I have all of the historical records in my own personal possession which support every correction I made to your incomplete and partially inaccurate history. For you to remove the portions of the history that I added to your account is ridiculous and a discredit to the people who you left out of the history who worked with Warren and Frank. I don't question your motives for writing the history but your account contains information that is not completely accurate. For you to leave my involvement and contribution out of the early history from 1971-1973 borders on an attempt to rewrite history. Everything I wrote in my edit of your history of the beginning of the Street Artist Program is true and accurate and I have the evidence to prove it. You started this Wikipedia page but you don't own the history of the Street Artist Program and you should be thankful I made the effort to add to your original writings with a more detailed account of the actual events that occurred and the names of some of the other people besides Warren and Frank who were instrumental in forcing the City of San Francisco to start the Street Artist Program. If you doubt the veracity of any of my edits then point them out and we can discuss them right here. If you have no evidence to disprove any of my edits then you have no right to remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 February 2014

Dear Mr. Clark, it would be much easier for all of us if we could simply interview people and write articles based on their knowledge, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. The project is based on verifiability, which means that any information that appears in a Wikipedia article must be cited to a source, be it a newspaper article, magazine feature, commemorative pamphlet, book, or online source. (Otherwise, anyone could write anything, and a lot of false information would slip in on any number of subjects.) Verifiability is considered one of the "pillars" of Wikipedia, so you will see on other pages that anything added without a source is usually questioned and removed. Another important pillar is neutral point of view, which means that all sides of an issue must be presented, even those you don't agree with. If you wish to add content that reflects your personal experience with the Street Artists Program, perhaps you can dig up printed articles from the past (they don't necessarily have to be online) that quote you or state the same positions that you want to include the article. Then you can amend the article text based on those sources. Meanwhile, I'm going ahead and reviewing the whole article for accuracy based on the sources provided. Best, Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand how Wikipedia works. I know you want newspaper and document sources. However, when someone misrepresents the true history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program because they rely only on old newspaper articles which are inaccurate and incomplete and the person who actually lived the history and was a major leader of the movement during 1971-1973 isn't even mentioned until the 1974 history then you are doing an injustice to me. I deliberately allowed myself to be arrested in 1971 and 1972 in order to challenge the constitutionality of the San Francisco Peddler Laws and to establish the Street Artist Program. For you not to allow a major participant in the historical event to give their personal account of what happened is like telling jews who lived through the Holocaust that their eyewitness accounts can not be included in the history of the Holocaust because they don't have newspaper articles or other documents to authenticate their accounts. I have hundreds of old newspaper articles and documents which support the edits I made. However, not every substantial person or event which played a major role in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program had a newspaper article written about them. Is Wikipedia going to refuse to allow those people and events to be included in the history simply because there was no newspaper article about them? I resent you telling me that a newspaper reporter writing a newspaper article about something I was personally involved in is a more reliable source of what actually occurred than myself. As a result of living through and participating in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program, I became the historian of the Street Artist Program. I resent you implying that the newspaper reporter who wrote an article is more reliable and unbiased than the person who actually lived through the events. There were many newspaper articles that falsely reported what was actually occurring at the time. I encourage you to do more research on this subject and I suggest that you begin with the SF Arts Commission Street Artist Program's webpage which has a short history about the founders of the SF Street Artist Program. If you would like any information about the history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program, I will be glad to provide you with that information. However, in the meantime, I am going to repost my edit of this article and if there are any portions of my edit that you think need to be documented then I would appreciate it if you would tell me what they are before you delete them in order to give me the opportunity to search my files for any documentation. William J. Clark (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you are going to keep removing my edits until I cite a source so I made a few edits at the beginning and cited the sources. It's going to take me a hell of a lot of time to find the documentation to cite all of my other edits that were removed but some of my latest edits use the same cite that Carroll used because they are the same source such as The Arts Commission Street Artist Program's website as a source that besides Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte, I was a founder of the SF Street Artist Guild and the SF Street Artist Program. BTW, Warren Garrick Nettles was his full name. "Garrick" was his middle name not his last name but he sometimes used only Warren Garrick. The same Arts Commission Street Artist Program's website can be used as a source to cite. If I incorrectly cited my sources you can correctly cite them for me or tell me how to do it correctly. BTW, you should at least change the name of the article to "Street Artist Program" not "Street Artists Program" and the source for that edit is the same SF Arts Commission Street Artist Program website.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk • contribs) 17 February 2014

Thanks for the tip about the name; the "s" did seem superfluous to me and I was going to look up the "official" name on the website. Since you know Wikipedia so well, you should also know that secondary or third-party sources are preferred over primary sources like the website. I'm sorry to hear that so many newspaper sources are incorrect, but we can't put in information that can't be verified in print. Perhaps the article will just have to be shorter than normal until reliable sources can be found. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Both the San Francisco Arts Commission website and the Street Artists Program Bluebook call it "Street Artists Program", so I guess we'll leave it at that. Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your edits have not been deleted - only reverted. They can still be found in the page history. If you need to retrieve information from your reverted edits, you can retrieve it from there. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I can cite plenty of sources for all of my edits and will do so as I slowly edit the article in the future. I just wonder if you would remove edits that Rosa Parks made to the history of the Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia because she didn't cite her sources for her edited additions to the history. I am the Rosa Parks of the SF street artist movement because I was the person who refused to move and was arrested when the police told me to get my jewelry off of the sidewalk and leave or else they would arrest me. As a result of my refusing to leave and being arrested, that was how my attorney, Public Defender, Peter Keane and his law partner, Robert Kantor became involved in the street artist movement. Finally, I want to ask Mr. Caroll, in all the research you did for the years of 1971-1973 are you saying that you did not see my name mentioned once? If you did see it then why didn't you mention my name as being one of the people who was involved in the history of the Street Artist Program during those early years?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi - please don't use non-existent usernames as signatures. To sign your post, type in ~~~~ at the end of your post (if you can't do that, just don't touch your comment at all for at least two minutes, and a robot will automatically sign it for you).

The Rosa Parks article was not written by Rosa Parks, largely because 1. Rosa Parks didn't write her article 2. Wikipedia prohibits autobiographies and 3. All the information on Rosa Parks's article were from other third-party sources. Wikipedia asks for third-party sources to verify its content, much like other encyclopedias. It can't accept original research or uncited material. If you were arrested, sure, that would be a personal account. You can write a book about it, like a memoir or an autobiography. But Wikipedia isn't the place for that. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Judging by your response, the point I was making about Rosa Parks obviously went over your head. I wasn't referring to any actual article on Wikipedia written by or about Rosa Parks. I was using her as an example of someone who as a result of standing up for her civil rights became a major contributor to the Civil Rights Movement. I wondered if she had edited an article about the history of the Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia in order to correct some inaccuracies about her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement but cited no sources except her own personal experience would Wikipedia remove her edits? Or would Wikipedia recognize her as an expert on her own personal involvement in the Civil Rights Movement and not remove her edits even though she cited no sources except her own memory of her personal experience which she lived through?

Furthermore, in response to an earlier statement that was made, yes, there were a lot of inaccuracies and lies in the old newspaper articles about what was really happening in regards to the San Francisco street artist movement. All of the SF major newspapers (the San Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle in particular) were opposed to the creation of the Street Artist Program and even published editorials against Proposition "J" after we succeeded in getting it on the June 4, 1974 Municipal Ballot. So for Wikipedia to use any news articles written in those two newspapers as a reliable source is a joke. Those newspapers knew which side of their bread was being buttered by the merchant associations in San Francisco and did their bidding.

BTW, I'm still waiting for Mr. Carroll to respond to my questions. I find it impossible for him to do all of that research in the public library and not find any news articles that mentioned my name and my involvement in the street artist movement in 1971-1973 . Hell, my picture was on the front page of the SF Chronicle in 1972 when Supervisor Terry Francois had me arrested along with Warren Garrick Nettles and Barbara Warfield when we attempted to speak during public comment on behalf of the street artists at a Board of Supervisors' Police, Fire and Safety Committee meeting. Did he miss that old newspaper article or did he just ignore it in order to paint me out of the picture?

Finally, yes, I could write a book about my involvement in the SF street artist movement and it would be the true history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program not the phony history of the Street Artist Program that Mr. Carroll is writing in his Wikipedia article. William J. Clark February 17, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Rosa Parks, yes, I literally mean that Wikipedia will reject text written by Rosa Parks herself, if she wrote her own Wikipedia article herself. Wikipedia's policies generally prohibit users from writing autobiographies. If you feel that you are notable and have verifiable sources that confirm your story is true, then sooner or later someone will create an article about you. You can ask another editor about the article, and I think you can request the creation of the article, but you can't actually create the article yourself. See WP:BIOSELF for more details about dealing with articles about yourself.

As we've already mentioned, we cannot accept original research. Your personal experience of being arrested is an example of original research, which Wikipedia unfortunately does not accept. Someone else needs to write about your story and publish it in another source. Your personal account is an example of "primary sources". Wikipedia generally looks for "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources". If you disagree with it, you can ask for change at the village pump, however you need community consensus (i.e. the community is in favour of your decision). What I'm trying to tell you is that we need someone else to write about you before we can write about you in a Wikipedia article. If I was a mass murderer and went on a drive-by shooting that killed hundreds of people, and the event was heavily publicized and reported on by the media, then I would gain notability, especially if I brought change (stricter gun laws). I would not be permitted to write the Wikipedia article about myself, nor can I add any sort of memoir or my personal account of the situation in any Wikipedia article. That would fall under original research, and it would be tagged or removed. However, if a news reporter interviewed me, then wrote a newspaper article about me, editors can cite that newspaper article and put what the news article wrote on the WP article. That's acceptable.

Also, I would kindly ask for you to assume good faith. Nobody's deliberately trying to exclude you from the article, but more like a simply oversight or mistake. Please refrain from using "phony history" or other negative language. Remember that wikis are collaborative projects - many of our articles are of excellent quality because lots of people worked on it, not because one person wrote it all. You're not being deliberately excluded. We just need an external third-party source to confirm that your story is true. Once we find a newspaper article that details and confirms your account, we can include it in the article. However, please exercise patience as Wikipedia is almost entirely volunteer run. Editors are not required to stay on Wikipedia, and they can leave at any time without providing any reason. I'm sure Carroll is working on the sleuth - you can help as well. If you can find any written or electronic source that meets Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines, you can cite it in the article and help make Wikipedia more complete.

If you believe the newspapers made an error, you can revive the case, bring it back to the attention of the media, maybe arrange an interview, and have the newspapers write a retraction (I think that's the correct term) and apologize for their mistake. Once it's written and maybe re-written, we can include it in the article. However, we can't actually have you write the article yourself without proper third-party sources. K6ka (talk | contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't talking about Rosa Parks writing a wikipedia article about herself. I gave the example of Rosa Parks editing an article about the Civil Rights Movement that someone else wrote which contained inaccuracies about her and/or her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement but only used her own personal memories about what happened to her and did not cite any other sources that verified her personal memories. Would Wikipedia delete her edits or would Wikipedia allow her edits to remain in the article even though she didn't cite any sources for her edits?

You state, ":As we've already mentioned, we cannot accept original research. Your personal experience of being arrested is an example of original research, which Wikipedia unfortunately does not accept. Someone else needs to write about your story and publish it in another source. Your personal account is an example of "primary sources". Wikipedia generally looks for "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources". If you disagree with it, you can ask for change at the village pump, however you need community consensus (i.e. the community is in favour of your decision). What I'm trying to tell you is that we need someone else to write about you before we can write about you in a Wikipedia article."

Again, I thought I made it very clear that I'm not talking about wanting Wikipedia or anyone else to write an article about me. I am simply saying that as one of the 3 people who spearheaded the SF Street Artist Movement from its very beginning in 1971, I experienced what actually occurred at the time and I edited the article to correct some inaccuracies Mr. Carroll wrote about me and my involvement in the SF Street Artist Movement during 1971-1973 and to more accurately reflect what actually occurred based on my personal memories. I find it very suspicious that Mr. Carroll cited Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's article, "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" in City Miner Magazine as his source for Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte being the only people "... instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists and craftspeople to legally sell on the city's sidewalks..." yet that very same article then mentions me by name and devotes the next several paragraphs describing how I was the main person responsible for getting San Francisco's government to create the Street Artist Program.

I cannot accept that omission as simply an oversight on Mr. Carroll's part. There is no way he could inadvertently miss those paragraphs so I can only conclude he did it deliberately in order to eliminate my role in forcing the City to adopt the SF Street Artist Program as well as my role in starting the San Francisco Street Artist Guild. In the past, I have experienced other individuals who have written a history of the Street Artist Movement and have deliberately omitted my involvement in an attempt not to give me the credit I deserve so I can only conclude Mr. Carroll is also attempting to do this. You may consider it "negative" language to call Mr. Carroll's history a "phony history" but I consider stating the truth as being "positive" language.

You state, "If you believe the newspapers made an error, you can revive the case, bring it back to the attention of the media, maybe arrange an interview, and have the newspapers write a retraction (I think that's the correct term) and apologize for their mistake. Once it's written and maybe re-written, we can include it in the article. However, we can't actually have you write the article yourself without proper third-party sources. "

It is absurd for you to suggest that I should waste my time and go to the newspapers that made errors in articles that are over 40 years old in order to get them to make a retraction. As far as I'm concerned, that's water under the bridge and I'll live with it. However, I am not going to sit back and allow those errors and inaccuracies to be promulgated in any present or future articles about the history of the SF Street Artist Movement and the history of the SF Street Artist Program. I am going to voice my objection to those errors and inaccuracies continuing to be promulgated and I am going to use the opportunity to set the record straight.

Finally, I am making it clear to you again that I am not trying to write the article myself. I am simply trying to edit portions of it that Mr. Carroll wrote which inaccurately reflect my involvement in the history of the SF Street Artist Movement and the creation of the SF Street Artist Program as well as include more information about what actually happened and the names of other people who were instrumental in getting the SF Street Artist Program established. To quote Mr. Carroll, "When it comes to history, more information is better than too little". As I previously stated, I will slowly edit the article after I search through my extensive files and find the sources to cite for my edits. William J. Clark February 18, 2014.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8 (talk • contribs)

I just edited Mr. Carroll's article where he made the statement, "Later in the early 1970s two gay artists, Warren Garrick and Frank Whyte, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks." He cited Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's news article, "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" in City Miner Magazine as his source for that information. However, in the very next sentence of "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" where Mr, Carroll got Warren Garrick Nettles' and Frank Whyte's names it states, "Their closest ally was Bill Clark, an artist whose energy carried the movement through to its vindication by voters in the 1974 passage of Proposition J, the only successful street artist initiative." The very next paragraph in the article then tells how I met Warren and Frank on Beach Street. Only two paragraphs later it states that the SF Street Artist Guild was created after I and two other street artists were arrested on February 6, 1971.

That is proof it is impossible Mr. Carroll inadvertently left my name out as being one of the people who spearheaded the movement to establish the SF Street Artist Program and the SF Street Artist Guild. The fact is Mr. Carroll deliberately decided to leave my name out. I can't explain why Mr. Carroll decided to do that so you will have to ask him to explain why he deliberately left my name out. William J. Clark February 19, 2014

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please assume that I always assume good faith in the first place until I find evidence proving the contrary to me. Then I have the right to conclude the contrary. In this instance I found evidence proving to me that Mr. Carroll didn't act in good faith. As I said before, in the past I've had to deal with people deliberately ignoring my involvement in the movement to create the SF Street Artist Program. Even in Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's news article, "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" in City Miner Magazine they make a comment about it in the sentence preceding the sentence where they mention the names of Warren Garrick (Nettles) and Frank Whyte. They state, "THE FACTS: The roots of the San Francisco street artist movement reach into the political dynamism of the 60's and were nutured by the activism and love of a few individuals, some of whom are now either ignored or held in contempt by the community." I am one of those individuals the last part of the sentence is referring to and I just presented evidence to you that Mr. Carroll is one of those individuals who attempted to deliberately ignore my involvement in the early history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program. You and the other staff at Wikipedia can ignore that evidence and continue to assume Mr. Carroll is acting in good faith but don't expect me to assume he is acting in good faith when I found evidence which convinces me that he isn't. William J. Clark February 20, 2014

You keep deleting my name from the article where Warren Garrick Nettles and I met with Alioto and where I edited the article to say that I and Warren were the articulate spokespeople for the street artists. I cited a source for those changes and I will cite many more sources until you stop deleting those edits. William J. Clark February 25, 2014

If your name isn't in a source and you insert it in the article anyway, it's considered original research. I read the newspaper clipping you cited as a source for your participation in the meeting ("Street Artists Meet the Mayor") and didn't see your name in it anywhere, only Warren's.

BTW, please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~) (the key is located at the upper left corner of your keyboard, next to the number 1) so we can see the date and time that you post them. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to find a source where I am mentioned by name but the newspapers did not mention the names of everyone who attended the meeting with the Mayor. If I can't find one then I won't edit it again.

In the "Concrete Roots" article, they called you Bill Clark, not William J. Clark, so I edited that according to the source.

Use Bill Clark or William J. Clark. William J. Clark is my formal name but I also go by Bill Clark. I just want to make sure that the reader realizes Bill Clark and William J. Clark are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8 (talk) 22:49 25 February 2014

References

1971

Dear Mr. Clark, Thank you for trying to stick to the source in your recent edits. However, the article is written in a way to draw in the reader, and you're removing an important introductory sentence to the whole story by writing:

After the February 6, 1971 arrest of Bill Clark and two other street artists on the 700 block of Beach Street, the San Francisco Street Artist Guild was formed.

The reader won't understand what the connection is between the arrests and the formation of the guild. I would like to restore the original:

After the February 6, 1971 arrest of Bill Clark and two other street artists on the 700 block of Beach Street, a first attempt was made to organize the street artists.

Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I combined both your statement and my statement because I think it better explains the connection between the arrests and the reason why the Guild was formed at that time and the fact that the Guild was formed to organize the SF street artists.

2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But if I don't understand it, the casual reader won't, either. Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The way you stated it, the reader will not know the SF Street Artist Guild was the organization that was attempting to organize the SF street Artists at that time. It also corrects the misstatement in the next sentence that Warren Garrick Nettles was the person who decided to form the Guild and call it the San Francisco Street Artist Guild.

2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than discuss this ad infinitum, I tweaked those 2 sentences.

• I'll check it out and if I have no problems with it then you won't hear from me again about it.

As for your overlong and self-promoting description of the coffin protest, I would like to remind you that 1) Wikipedia articles are not meant to go over a certain character count, and therefore I edited this piece with brevity in mind;

• That's fine. I understand. However, it was not a self-promoting description of the coffin protest. It was taken practically verbatim from the source cited and it better explains who got arrested at that protest and why they got arrested.

and, 2) your additions are bordering on conflict of interest and I suggest you read the COI page closely before adding any more mentions of yourself to the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've read your COI page which states, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.[1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
• My edits did not promote my own interests, including my business or financial interests, or those of my external relationships, such as my family, friends or employers. My edits did not advance my outside interests as being more important to me than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Therefore, none of my edits are in violation of your COI rules.
• I merely edited the original article to make it a more accurate history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program. However, some of those edits included mentioning things that I was deeply involved in that were of importance in creating the SF Street Artist Program. Should I be forced by your COI rules not to mention them simply because Mr. Carroll failed to mention them?
• Contrary to what was written in the original article, I was heavily involved in the SF Street Artist Movement from its very beginning in 1971 as well as in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program And the SF Street Artist Guild. As a result of some of my arrests, we (the steering committee of the SFSAG of which Warren Garrick Nettles, Frank Whyte and I were founding members) were able to organize the SF street artists as well as publicize through the news media what was happening at the time. I do not see mentioning my name and my involvement in the 1971-1973 as a conflict of interest. I think not mentioning the names of the people who got arrested (myself included) in order to create the Street Artist Program does those people a disservice. Those people should be named in the article if their names are known because they were the ones who put their lives on the line in order to get a SF Street Program started.
• I also noticed on the Template talk page for Did You Know nominations/Street Artist Program of San Francisco that Mr. Carroll made a comment at 18:14 16 February 2014 about me. He said, "The many new entries of the name 'Bill Clark' are by Bill Clark himself, and his edits are obviously self aggrandizing, and almost always without sources. He is an obsessive individual with no experience with Wikipedia, no interest in sourcing his statements, and should really be banned from the article. Wikipedia should consider reverting the article back to its original state of 9 February 2014, and ban Bill Clark and other unregistered Wiki users from screwing up the piece any further. If Bill Clark is allowed to continue to anonymously make edits from various IP addresses, then this article will be a non-stop Edit War which will only fatigue the sincere contributors of Wikipedia, and enable the destruction of a historic record."
• Mr. Carroll characterized me as being "an obsessive individual" and that my edits are "obviously self aggrandizing". He then states therefore I should be banned from making any further edits to the article.
• If Mr. Carroll is going to do an article on the history of the San Francisco Street Artist Program then as one of the people who co-foundered the original SF Street Artist Guild my intention is not to frustrate or offend Mr. Carroll or self-aggrandize but simply to edit the article to make it more accurately reflect the actual history of the creation of the Street Artist Program including providing the names of some of the people who along with myself helped create the SF Street Artist Program.
• Mr. Carroll calls me "an obsessive individual". I assume by that he means it was my "obsessive" behavior that allowed myself to be arrested several times which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior to gather thousands of signatures on several petitions which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that found and hired the attorneys the street artists needed which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior to work with our attorneys and file the lawsuits which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me go to every Supervisors' office and spend many hours lobbying on behalf of the SF street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that raised money for the street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that organized the street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me attend all of the SF Board of Supervisors meetings and speak on behalf of the SF street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me go on the radio and talk about what was happening to the SF street artists which helped create the SF Street Artist Program. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me spend my personal money to pay for leaflets, legal fees and other out of pocket expenses which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created.
• Mr. Carroll is correct when he said I have no experience with writing for Wikipedia. However, I am a fast learner and in the future when I edit the article I will cite my sources and follow all of the other rules you want people to follow when they edit an article. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, Why do you have such a persistent personal interest in this matter? Would you please declare if you are being compensated for your time spent on this issue and if so, by whom? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquiringmindswanttoknow (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have been working on the Wikipedia project as an unpaid volunteer for nearly 9 years. I am a regular reviewer on the WP:DYK project, where I came across this article nominated for DYK. Generally I try to help writers improve their articles and their referencing so the articles will qualify for DYK and improve the encyclopedia as a whole, so I undertook to shorten and tighten up the prose. Since then, I am astonished that this article has since been hijacked by both Mr. Clark and yourself. Your addition of the Controversy section is totally out of left field and does not fit with the tone of the article at all. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I mistakenly thought Yoninah was asking me those two questions so I answered them. When I checked I realized someone else asked Yoninah those two questions but I'm going to leave my answers anyway because they explain why I have a persistent personal interest in the matter and that I have not been paid by anyone for my time spent on this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why do you have such a persistent personal interest in this matter?
  • I was a co-founder of the SF Street Artist Guild as well as a member of the Steering Committee of the SF Street Artist Guild and I was deeply involved and spent a lot of my time and money in 1971-1974 helping to create the SF Street Artist Program. Warren, Frank and I did most of the work organizing artists and craftspeople, speaking to the public and lobbying City Hall. The Street Artist Program wasn't created because of the benevolence of City Hall. It was created by the blood, sweat and tears of Warren, Frank, myself and the other members of the original SF Street Artist Guild and I want to make sure the SF Street Artist Guild get the credit it deserves. I've dedicated myself to make certain that any history written about the creation of the SF Street Artist Program is factually accurate. Newspaper articles aren't always factually accurate.
  • Would you please declare if you are being compensated for your time spent on this issue and if so, by whom?
  • I'm not being paid a cent by anyone to do this. In fact, I have lost thousands of dollars of my own personal money in the process of creating the SF Street Artist Program. I wasn't paid a cent by any of the street artists in the process of creating the SF Street Artist Program. I wasn't paid a cent by any of the street artists or the SF Arts Commission to be a member of the original Board of Artists and Craftsmen Examiners which screened hundreds of artists and craftspeople to be issued street artist certificates. I also didn't get paid a cent by any of the street artists or the SF Arts Commission for all of the investigative work I did over the years which resulted in over $130,000 of street artist certificate fee revenue being returned to the SF Street Artist Program. I am still in the process of trying to get over $200,000 of street artist certificate fee revenue which was defalcated by the City of San Francisco returned to the SF Street Artist Program so it can be used to pay for the expenses of the SF Street Artist Program and keep the street artist certificate fee from being unnecessarily raised. I am not being paid a cent by any of the street artists or the SF Arts Commission to do that.
  • The fact that I am dedicated to and passionate about a righteous cause does not mean I am an obsessive and self aggrandizing individual. William J. Clark

2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have been working on the Wikipedia project as an unpaid volunteer for nearly 9 years. I am a regular reviewer on the WP:DYK project, where I came across this article nominated for DYK. Generally I try to help writers improve their articles and their referencing so the articles will qualify for DYK and improve the encyclopedia as a whole, so I undertook to shorten and tighten up the prose. Since then, I am astonished that this article has since been hijacked by both Mr. Clark and yourself. Your addition of the Controversy section is totally out of left field and does not fit with the tone of the article at all. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am astonished that you are claiming I "hijacked" this article after I explained to you my involvement in the creation of the SF Street Artist Guild and the SF Street Artist Program as well as the reasons why I edited the original article. You enlightened me regarding the rules for editing and I told you that I will abide by those rules. I will not make any further edits without citing a source for those edits. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add to your reading list WP:Close paraphrasing. Since you are using offline sources, you are being trusted that nothing is being copied verbatim from the source, as you mentioned above that you did. Otherwise, that would be copyright infringement and would be subject to immediate deletion. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would just like to clarify that none of the deletions, reversions, or edits to this article is being performed by Wikipedia staff. Wikipedia is almost entirely run by volunteers. Administrators do not work for Wikipedia. Admins are volunteers as well. Nobody is paid to edit Wikipedia.

Mr. Clark, it's important that articles do not grow to an insurmountable size, to compensate for those with weaker computers, Internet connections, or on mobile. We understand that you're a fairly new editor, and thus we ask you to read our Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Any further questions should be directed to the Teahouse, where your question will be answered by friendly, welcoming, and experienced editors. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand.

However, I just edited the article by adding the following:

Clark researched initiatives and composed a Proposition. [5][38] which would require about 12,500 signatures of registered voters in order to qualify for placement on the ballot in an upcoming election.[37] 1974[edit] Clark and seven members of the Guild along with a few volunteers gathered 26,000 signatures for Proposition J, which was included on the ballot in the municipal election of June 4, 1974.[5] After Proposition J qualified for the municipal ballot, harassment of street artists by the SF Police Department took a new turn when two campaign workers, Dale Axlerod and Robert Clark were issued citations for putting up posters along Market Street. In addition, the two plain-clothesmen issuing the citations seized over 150 campaign posters and a staple gun from the pair. That was number twelve in a series of instances of deliberate political harassment against proposition J.[39]

I think it is important that the reader know who wrote Proposition J and also know that the SF police were harassing our campaign workers before and after Proposition J qualified for the municipal ballot.

I will try not to do any more edits because I now think the article more accurately states what actually occurred. William J. Clark 50.143.132.58 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I made one more minor edit. I edited the 1975 history to say the following:

At the same time, the Board would re-enact the so-called Kopp street artists ordinance to forbid occupancy of these spots between midnight and 6 a,m. Street artist Joy McCoskey spoke in favor of the no selling between midnight to 6 a.m. rule because sometimes people had permanently camped out on selling spots.

This corrects the misimpression that it was Joy McCoskey who came up with the no selling between midnight and 6 a.m. rule when it was the Board of Supervisors and more accurately states what the cited source actually said. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I had to make one more edit in the 1972 history so that it would say the SF Arts Commission would run the new Street Artist Program instead of incorrectly saying CAO Thomas Mellon would run it. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The San Francisco Street Artists Program Article is a History Piece, and not a News Release or a Promotional Advertisement

I can not fathom how anyone would see this as a "news piece", when the substance of the article is really historical in nature. The article is about the history of the invention of a new branch of San Francisco's government.

Please read the original release of the article of 9 February 2014 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=594692426 ]. That version is populated with an enormous amount of references to newspaper articles that span 40 years, which were researched at the San Francisco Public Library.

Once again, history is the substance of the topic and its original form of February 9th shows that it is tightly sourced to historic facts from newspaper articles. If it was really "promotional" in nature, then the majority of its text would be without referenced sources. The abundance of sourced references guarantees the essential neutrality of this history piece. The San Francisco Street Artists Program is an public municipal arts program, not unlike thepublic market in Seattle called Pike's Place.

The San Francisco Street Artists Program article is also about a part of San Francisco's government, in much the same way that the San Francisco Arts Commission article describes a branch of government. It would be a mistake to delete any article about a branch of government, or the history involved in the formation of a branch of government.

I created this article because I witnessed an extraordinary sequence of unlikely political events which shaped a new and innovative branch of municipal government, and not because I need to advertise or promote the San Francisco Street Artist Program itself.

Also, to condense the article would be a big mistake. When examining history, we need to see the complete sequencing of events in order to truly understand a phenomena and its causes. When it comes to history, more information is better than too little information. James Carroll (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I just edited the article to include language naming me, Bill Clark, as Warren Garrick Nettles' and Frank Whyte's closest ally in the movement to establish the SF Street Artist Program and state that it was my energy that carried the movement through to its vindication by voters in the 1974 passage of Proposition "J". The source for that information is Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's article "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore". City Miner Magazine. BTW, that information mentioning me by name was contained in the very next sentence of Concrete Roots immediately after Warren Garrick (Nettles) and Frank Whyte's names were first mentioned. This is where Mr. Carroll got both of their names for his Wikipedia article because he cited Concrete Roots as his source for saying that "Later in the early 1970s two gay artists, Warren Garrick and Frank Whyte, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks."

This is proof it is impossible that Mr. Carroll inadvertently left my name out of his article as being one of the people besides Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte who spearheaded the movement to get the SF Street Artist Program established. The fact is Mr. Carroll deliberately left my name out. I can't explain why he decided to do that so you will have to ask Mr. Carroll to explain why he deliberately left my name out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at the lede - it's pretty much a NPOV disaster and needs to be entirely rewritten. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I think the following paragraph should be deleted from the article because there is no mention of any of it in the source cited.

"The Street Artists Program of San Francisco is responsible for an ongoing political dialogue about what activities should, and should not, be allowed in public areas, in relation to protections granted by the First Amendment. The program's rules and procedures have also served as a template for other cities wishing to create their own street artists programs."

Since all of my edits for which I didn't cite a source were deleted, I think that paragraph should also be deleted since no source is cited for it.

I am not going to delete it but I would like Yoninah or one of the other volunteers to delete it. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I read through the source and couldn't find anything that backed up the paragraph so I've removed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional editing

I would like to edit these two sentences:

"Following the February 1971 arrest of several street artists, including William Clark, in the 700 block of Beach Street, a first attempt was made to organize the street artists.[6]Under the direction of Warren Garrick (Nettles), a sculptor-painter[7] who would become the group's "chief spokesman",[8] the Street Artists Guild was formed."

I would like to edit, "Following the February 1971 arrest..." to read "Following the February 6, 1971 arrest...". The source cited gives the exact date and I see no reason not to state the exact date since it is known.

I would also like to edit, "...the Street Artist Guild was formed." to read, "...the San Francisco Street Artist Guild was formed." The source cited incorrectly calls the organization, "the Street Artist Guild". The correct name was "the San Francisco Street Artist Guild". I will cite, "Street Artist Boom brings Greed Frenzy", "Berkeley Barb" (13-19 December 1974) P. ?. , as the source for the correct name because in the first sentence of the article the Berkeley Barb correctly states the name of the organization as "...the San Francisco Street Artist Guild...".

It may seem like I'm nit-picking but I would like the reader to know the correct name of the organization and the exact date of the arrest since they are known and mentioned in the source Mr. Carroll cited and the source I am going to cite.

However, I will not edit the article to include that information until I get the okay of Yoninah or some other volunteer to do so. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added in the date and also put "San Francisco" in front of "Street Artists Guild". The Berkeley Barb doesn't sound like a reliable source, and both the San Francisco Arts Commission website and the Street Artists Program Bluebook refer to it as the "Street Artists Program", so I would just leave it at "San Francisco Street Artists Guild". Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just asking if I could make those two edits nothing else. After you previously mentioned that the Arts Commission's website referred to the program as the "Street Artists Program" I had no problem with you leaving it that way and went on to more important things rather than argue about whether the Program's name should or shouldn't include the "s".

However, I just want to let you know that the "Berkeley Barb" was a very reliable newspaper at that time. Along with the San Francisco Guardian, it was the major alternative newspaper that printed the truth about the Vietnam war and San Francisco politics that the mainstream local newspapers refused to print. In the case of what was happening to the street artists in San Francisco, The San Francisco Street Artist Guild was in direct contact with the representatives of the newspaper and members of the San Francisco Street Artist Guild including myself wrote articles about what was really going on between the street artists, the police and the SF politicians which the Berkeley Barb published. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides, if you don't think the Berkeley Barb is a very reputable newspaper then I can also site several articles printed in the reputable newspapers, the San Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle which both mention the Guild's name is the "San Francisco Street Artist Guild" including the October, 3, 1971 Sunday combined edition of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner that has two pages of photographs of the July 1-July 4 San Francisco Street Artists Guild's Stonestown Shopping Center show including one photograph with our official sign that read "San Francisco Street Artist Guild will appear (undisturbed) Stonestown Mall July 1, 2, 3, 4". William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, those would be two good cites to add after the phrase "the San Francisco Street Artist Guild was formed". Please see WP:Citing sources for a fill-in template. Yoninah (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)