Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:23, 30 October 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy Wall Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 3 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Occupy Wall Street. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Occupy Wall Street at the Reference desk.

To-do list for Occupy Wall Street: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-27 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Please add related link to Model Community Bill of Rights Template for Occupy communities http://envisionseattle.org/2011/12/model-community-bill-of-rights-template-for-occupy-communities.html Stubs : Finish and merge #Long term background (3⁄4 done). Or a separate article ? Update : SOURCES confirmed interesting to review. Mark the line {{done}} when inclusion is  Done.—Democracy Now! coverage index (to watch daily)—Twitter RSS flux with recent sources : on #Occupywallst (tweeter) (to watch daily)—Captain, Sean (Oct. 19). "The Demographics Of Occupy Wall Street". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) —The Class War Has Begun - an analysis connecting OWS with the Depression era Bonus Army —History frowns on violent response to protests follow up interview on Rachel Maddow show— Sharlet, Jeff (Nov. 10). "Inside Occupy Wall Street". Rollingstone.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) — very detailled article on OWS early stages.—Dickinson, Tim (Nov. 9). "How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich". RollingStone.com. p. 8. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) — very detailed article on recent US taxes/fiscal history and how the GOP led to fiscal unbalance, 8 pages.

Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 October 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Occupy Wall Street. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

A news item involving Occupy Wall Street was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 October 2011.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Dates are in MDY format, with the year being 2011 if unspecified.

Why is Kalle Lasn not credited as Founder of Occupation Wall Street?

The New York Times lists Kalle Lasn's plans for Operation Wall Street in June 2011 as well as contacting 90,000 fellow activists: "Mr. Halper said he first heard about the plan for protests in June when he visited Kalle Lasn, the editor in chief of Adbusters, a Canadian anticorporate magazine, in Vancouver. Over a steak dinner, the two longtime friends discussed Mr. Lasn’s project, a plan to fill Wall Street with protesters as a way to galvanize anger on the political left into a revolutionary movement resembling the Arab Spring."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/he-made-it-on-wall-st-and-used-it-to-help-start-the-protests/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.175.55 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Because wikipedia is dominated and owned by americans and Kalle Lasn is a Canadian, If he was an american he would be a household name. At least that's my answer to your question. 174.89.101.194 (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at Kalle Lasn's bio; doesn't even mention Occupy Wall Street. Misplaced Pages is american-ethno-centric; just like all american media; once you accept that reality, everything makes a lot more sense. 174.89.101.194 (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, select members of Anonymous started planning it back in April. After #A99 / #OESR (Operation Empire State Rebellion), communication #2, Project Icarus was launched. Playing around on youtube & watching A99 communication #1 & #2, then the couple "Operation Icarus" videos, you will easily come to the same conclusion. 67.253.8.103 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence from any legitimate publication that Anonymous planned OWS in April 2011? I searched extensively and found none. The NYT has significant resources to investigate this story and has clearly identified Kalle Lasn as the founder. In any other encyclopedia article here, that would be a sufficient source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.176.121 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Need Anti-Semitisim section with photo

Definitely need to start mentioning the anti-Semitic comments and signs coming out of this movement. A photo would be great. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We need a source saying that the protesters are more antisemetic than ordinary people, and given the proportions I've seen reported, it's alarming but uncertain whether there are more bigots than in an ordinary sample of the population. Dualus (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We discussed that above. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Antisemitism There are WP:RS such as Commentary claiming that they are anti-Semitic, and WP:RS such as the Anti-Defamation League saying that they are not. There's also an insightful article from a Jewish publication discussing how difficult it is to eliminate fringe ideas from consensus-based organizations. I haven't seen any objections to reverting that section, and unless anybody has an objection, I'm putting it back in. --Nbauman (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable if there was some reliable indication that there are more antisemites among the protesters than the population, proportionally. Can you find a source on that topic? Dualus (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(Posted before the two above posts, edit conflicted) There is virtually no credible secondary sourcing of that contention. There is only a very spurious opinionated piece by Weekly Standard and their ilk which is obviously a POV attack. No credibility this is just an attempt to push a POV agenda. The correct topic might be "Marginal Fringe Critics Attempt Antisemitism-baiting" but that is not WP:NOTABLE. Wikidgood (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Now reading and replying to the above: Commentary is not really WP:RS it is a highly opinionated on the fringe of even Jewish opinion. There was a person named Patricia McAllister who had absolutely no connection to OccupyWallStreet whatsoever who gave "Reason" another opinionated POV outfit an interview in Los Angelos and got fired for tainting her employer. She did not represent LAUSD anymore than she represents OccupyLosAngelos, which, BTW, has little business being talked about in an article on OWS NYC. But even in an article about OccupyLA, she would not be in point. Mr Bauman you are trying to put over a POV Original Synthesis or Original Research. If you really want to "help Israel" or "help the cause of the Jews" please cease and desist using Judaism as a prop; if you really want to degrade the reputation of OWS, pls do so based upon RS analysis of its actual flaws, not spurious and ulent . Wikidgood (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of pictures here of Jews celebrating Sukkot at Occupy LA. I've also seen (though I can't find them at the moment) photos of a Kol Nidre service at Occupy Wall Street. Also see this picture (and there are plenty more similar) of a spontaneous response to the antisemitic protester who has apparently been carryting round this placard since long before OWS started. RolandR (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no Misplaced Pages rule that demands that the protesters must be shown to be more anti-semitic than the general population. There is anti-Semitism in the Movement and it has been noted in well respected, reliable sources. If it's in reliable sources it can be included in the article. This is not a propaganda sheet for the Left Wing. It's an encyclopedia and the anti-Semitism is notable. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

And claiming that there are Jews in the Movement does not cancel out the anti-Semitism. There are blacks in the Tea Party---Herman Cain is their darling. But there is still some racism in the tea party movement. The fact that it exists and has been in numerous reliable sources makes it eligible to be in the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Patricia McAllister is definitely "connected" to the Occupy L.A. Movement. She came down there to be part of it and she made the ugly comments that have been reported around the world. Claiming that she is not "part of the Occupy Movement," is ridiculous. There's no membership. Anybody can participate. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If 'Anybody can participate' then everyone can be said to be "connected" to the movement. This is clearly nothing more than a smear campaign, and Misplaced Pages should have nothing to do with such muck-raking nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. This is from the Washington Post:

A growing number of Israelis and foreign Jewish groups are expressing concern over the anti-Semitic flavor of some of the “Occupy Wall St.” economic protests in the US. . . .

One of people reportedly responsible for organizing the “Occupy Wall St.” protests, Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn, has a history of perpetuating conspiracy theories that say the Jews control America’s foreign policies.

Back in New York, another protester insisted that “a small ethnic group constitutes almost all of the hedge fund managers and bankers on Wall St. They are all Jewish. There is a conspiracy in this country where Jews control the media, finances… They have pooled their money together in order to take control of America.”

Doesn't sound like a smear campaign. It's coming from the actual organizers. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't, it is coming from the Washington Post (at least, you claim it is - you cite no source). It is the alleged opinion of someone 'reportedly' organizing... (reported by whom?), and some alleged anonymous protestor. Frankly, as a personal opinion, I think that this bogus cry of 'antisemitism' itself reeks of actual antisemitism: misusing a past history of real prejudice to smear the less powerful, and in so doing reducing the crimes of the real antisemites to a mere propaganda tool. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, anybody who thinks the ADL is supportive, they're not: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/6138_12.htm Malke 2010 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - now read it: "we believe that these expressions are not representative of the larger views of the OWS movement... There is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants... these statements must not be left unchallenged". And, has been pointed out, the antisemitic ranting of isolated nutcases is being challenged - not least by a significant Jewish presence at the protests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To summarize:

I don't believe that there is significant anti-Semitism at OWS.

Writers have made the charge of anti-Semitism in WP:RS such as the New York Times (David Brooks), Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. According to WP:RS, opininon pieces are not WP:RS for facts, but they're WP:RS for opinion. The fact that opinion writers in major publications like the NYT, WP and WSJ are charging OWS with anti-Semitism has WP:WEIGHT, whether it's true or not.

Truth is not an issue on Misplaced Pages. The only issue is whether a claim is WP:VERIFIABLE. If it is, and someone thinks it's not true, he should get WP:RS to make the article WP:NPOV. Get convincing evidence and let the reader decide.

Many WP:RS, including the Anti-Defamation League, have examined the charges of anti-Semitism and concluded that there is not significant anti-Semitism. I think the evidence for that should convince anybody.

If there is a smear campaign, and there are lies and false accusations being spread, and they reach notable publications such as the NYT, WP and WSJ, we should give the charges and the rebuttals, under WP:NPOV. We shouldn't just ignore the whole thing, which would be WP:CENSOR.

I'd like to know what people think of this. But arguing over whether there is or is not anti-Semitism is not the issue. The issue is, do we have WP:RS that have (even falsely) claimed that there is anti-Semitism? Is David Brooks of the NYT a WP:RS for purposes of opinion? --Nbauman (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the definitive WP:RS http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-criticized-for-flashes-of-anti-semitism.html --Nbauman (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

How much weight we give a particular issue as this is a matter of consensus. We have a discussion going for the inclusion of the Nazi party endorsing OWS and whether it should be mentioned or not. This seems similar in nature. Please consider making a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard entry.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There is anti-semitisim in this movement and it is appropriate that it be included in this article. Kalle Lasn is well known for his anti-semitic writings and his infamous "Jew List." His Adbusters is behind Occupy Wall Street. Also the vandalism and the harassment of residents of lower Manhattan by OWS (they are apparently defecating on the steps of townhouses; screaming at the occupants as they go to and from their homes, playing drums at all hours of the night to disturb their sleep etc.) should also be mentioned. There was one guy with a sign that said, "Stalin was right!" Malke 2010 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a Washington Post reporter's take on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/occupy-wall-street-does-anyone-care-about-the-anti-semitism/2011/03/29/gIQA43p8rL_blog.html Malke 2010 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That rant is not by "a Washington Post reporter". It is a blog called "Right Turn", described by its author as " an opinionated blog on politics and policy." Definitely not a reliable source! RolandR (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been down to photograph the protest a total of 15 days, and I have seen no signs of Antisemitism. What I have seen are a couple of lone loons taking advantage of a public place that has a lot of media attention, and those lone loons being used online to discredit an international movement that many Jews are a part of. I have a photo of the 'Google Jews' guy, but he's not a part of the movement, he's using it for his own ends. --David Shankbone 21:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I see a double-standard here. If the Tea Party movement can be called racist because of some "lone loons" tweeting from protests, then this movement can be called antisemitic because of "lone loons" taking advantage of the cameras to publicize their points of view, and violent because of "lone loons" taking advantage of the chaos to commit violent acts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say I agree with Arthur here. I just read the Tea Party Protests wikipedia article and it has an entire section divided to racism with only a few specific incidents mentioned. I think to be fair to both movements, fringe elements have to be included. I have been down to Z Park and have seen the Orthodox Jews protesting with them, likewise however when I lived in DC I say lots of African-Americans at Tea Party protests. Both views are not indicative of the movements as a whole but they are obviously there. I think inclusion in this article is just as much justified as racism included in the Tea Party article.

--Andy0093 (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have question the wisdom of a section on this from the beginning, but FWIW, I just looked at the Tea Party article for the first time, and though I was not surprised to see the "Racial issues" section, I was surprised at its scope. In view of that, though it's clear that nothing like the national attention focused on these incidents viz. the Tea Party has yet come out of this similar phenomenon at OWS, I wonder whether the widespread attention and involvement of the ADL means it warrants inclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between isolated incidents and isolated individuals. Until something remotely notable comes of this, my 'vote' still goes to not include a section simply because it would be WP:UNDUE to a silly amount.--Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most the notes above made clear it has received a certain degree of notability. Being covered by the NY Times and WSJ, the two biggest newspapers in the country certainly would make it notable in a lot of peoples eyes. I will noted one Anti-Semitic protester interviewed by GBTV and a few others is NOT a OWS protester. I spend a decent amount of time in Midtown Manhattan and this one guy who I saw them interview was always on the corner of 47 and 6th with a sign that said "Google Zionist Media Conspiracy," so for what it is worth this guy is not a OWS, but the amount of coverage this has received I think it might be worth noting it. I don't think notability is reason not to include it, I mean it is clearly notable.

--Andy0093 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think while the issue of antisemitism itself is notable, it + OWS....is still very much undue weight. One nut on a corner gets his own section in this article AND a pic? I think, based on the sources I've seen so far, a sentence in the article mentioning this is sufficient - not an entire subsection.--Львівське (говорити) 04:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I think a photo is undue weight to the matter. A few sentence or two would really be enough to donate to these fringe views.

--Andy0093 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur, the Anti-Defamation League findings should be mentioned; and mentioning that open movements will have advocacy elements representative of the population. The presence of 9-11 truthers does not impact the point of the 99% protests, likewise with skinheads etc. - RoyBoy 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Improving the lede

How about this?

The movement has been criticized in the media, especially the Conservative media, for having no goals and or formal demands. However, others have seen the movement as a "democratic awakening", difficult to formulate into a few demands and that at the present time, the primary goal for the movement is simply growth. On October 15, a group member of the "The New York City General Assembly", the governing body of the group, said that demands have been brought up, but "they were shot down vociferously under the argument that demands are for terrorists and that is not who we are". Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd call that a good start on the valid lead topic of reception. Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges have explained explained the goals of OWS, and given their notability, and they would be useful if the lead was to also included their views. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the source that the demands were shot down? Dualus (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Replace the word "especially" with "including" and I can agree with this, however I also noticed something. Is that a direct quote? If so "Group Member" is an unidentified person who's weight in the artcle is questionable..--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote was in the article however someone deleted it saying that a news blog was not an acceptable source. My understanding is that a news blog is OK if the journalist and source are mentioned, as they were in the article entry. I would need to return the section before using it in the lede. Another thing, it is my understanding that lede entries do not need the source listed, rather the source is with the appropriate info in the article body. Any thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Many assume all blogs are unacceptable references but a major newspaper political blog etc is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the reference. Seems to be a journalist at a major media organization although not quite clear of his standing there, as Huffington Post uses a lot of "Journalist" that are not actually paid staff and therefore have no true editorial over site. But the quote from the unidentified Ageneral Assembly member is undue weight, for the lede at least. What do you think? Oh...and I forgot, yes...generally we don't add references to the lede as the information should be in the body of the article, however that is sometimes over looked in controversial articles as many editors feel that a majority of "readers" only read the ledes and like to see claims that might be disputed referenced up front.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about the source and would not have used it if I had a choice. The name of the GA member is available and could be used either in the lede or later in the article section is that would be better. If it wasn't that I believe the information very significant I would not be attempting to get it in. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my logic on the use of the member quote at this time. If you are being careful not to mention his name and it is in the reference then you already have a slight misgiving to begin with. Best not to use the quote if you think it may be contentious material of a living person. Or use the name as presented and any position within the movement that they may hold if that is available as well for quoting a public figure.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a summary defense of OWS goals would help balance the lead with a little more detail. When time allows I'll post something here. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been a straw man set up. I haven't objected to including a blog: In this case the problem is that the source is a self published blog written by someone with no journalism track record as far as I can tell. One thing Google is good for is producing the work of journalists and I'n getting zilch on this guy. Unless someone can show the author to be notable to allow for the publication of their own blog, RS standards say it can't be used. As I said above, better sources are available for the reception lead paragraph. We just have to do the work.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This may actually be true. I am looking a little deeper.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see stuff on a google search...but I am not clicking on them. Everything I find that looks like it might be a legitimate description of him as a Huffington post writer has a warning that content may harm your computer..... I feel at this time there is not enough evidence to claim this as anything but a personal blog until someone can prove otherwise. His own description under his image (where credit is given for huff positions) is nothing but goof stuff for fun and does not add credence to him being any more legit than my own membership there. I feel it may be best to lose the prose as well as the reference for now, but would like Gandydancer to weigh in first before I make any further changes to the contribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Actually I do not share your concerns. I would have preferred the event mentioned in several sources rather than only Huff Post and I would have preferred a more well-known journalist, however he certainly is legit and has written dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of articles, mostly political, for HP. His bio is here . About not using the name of the person from the GA, I was not hesitant, I just decided not to use it. From reading Kingkade's piece at HP, it sounds to me like HP is using this journalist as their contact with the GA. I see no reason that it should not be included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is only a self published blogger who is not edited. Also, Huffpo is notorious for not paying for content. We can't go by "it seems" at all. Either he is a journalist or not. I say he is a pretender who has to go. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. I spent a good deal of time and could see it but couldn't touch it...sorta thing!LOL! Agreed, he is a well established jouranlist for these purposes.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually it is not surprising that one would make a mistake when one has little time to spend on constructive conversation on this page when so much edit-time is taken up with disrustive arguments by one or two editors. I will put the info back since it seems there is no objection. Gandydancer (talk)

Can we refer to the GA member by his name? Or would that even really be undue weight. This is in the body of the article right? Maybe add the shorter version for the lead and the longer more detailed information where it is within the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This change is terrible! You have completely removed all mention of the Demands Working Group document, even though it has been cited in several news reports. I am reverting this inclusion of the lead. Should you wish to replace it, please agree to compromise by including a {{POV}} tag. Dualus (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not removed anything. That information is still in the body of the article with the link to the source. The lede is not a place to include every last detail. Please try to be a little more informed rather that just instantly reacting, as it is causing me and some other editors a great deal of frustration. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please summarize the protestors consensus process instead of trying to make it seem like they aren't making any proposals? Once you have convinced people of a well supported paragraph in the body, then you should consider whether it is important enough to summarize in the lead. What makes you think discussions of goals and demands is more important than polling summaries or the calls for a constitutional amendment? Dualus (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus has deleted the paragraph in the lede that was proposed 2 days ago and entered with small changes per group discussion with this edit summary: delete biased summary per talk: others have complained about HuffPo sources, and this version doesn't properly characterize this statement or provide a link to the Demands Working Group proposal). I am just about at the end of my rope with this editor. I don't care if somebody complained about Huff Post - they are perfectly acceptable to use. If you insist on the ref to the document even though it is not mentioned in the lede, you are free to add it, though some other editor may (rightly) complain. Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted again, this time Dualus made substantial changes to the lede without consensus. Plese get consensus before you again change the wording. Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again you have deleted mention of the 99 Percent Declaration from the intro, even though WP:LEAD specifically says to make sure that the lead summarizes the most controversial aspects of the topic. People can compare the quality of prose. Yours is not written very well. What is your source for "Other commentators see it as a 'democratic awakening,' whose motives are difficult to formulate into a few demands, saying that the current primary goal for the movement is simply growth." -- I can not find that in the single Huffington Post source you have cited. Therefore I am reverting because you have unsupported material in the lead. Dualus (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have returned the copy that has been discussed and agreed on to the article and I have included the references and mention of the working group that you have demanded. In the future please discuss before you change the copy. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The info in the third paragraph is already outdated. I don't have a good source for how many Occupy protests are going on now, and I actually doubt the ability of anyone to provide a good number since there are now so many, and the movement is amorphous to begin with. Regardless, there have been more since 9 Oct, so I think that in the next update done, someone should change the wording to be more general and less specific. Even if you are still just using the same references. —Zujine|talk 05:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add the following to the paragraph (in bold): A member of the New York City General Assembly, the governing body of the New York City OWS, said..., because I believe that a person reading the article for the first time would not have a clue as to what the NYCGA is - it sounds more like a government agency than anything else. Any objections? Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Forget it - an editor has gone ahead and deleted the entire section without bothering to discuss it first. This is rudest, most frustrating article I've ever worked on. Gandydancer (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This should be uploaded to enwiki for the time being. I'm not convinced it's the best possible graph on the subject. For example this one is far superior. Dualus (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It will be kept so enwiki upload isn't necessary. Your suggestion is superior to illustrating recent inequality, but loses the historic context; which is important to seeing the consequence of inequality. - RoyBoy 02:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

American Nazis

Per the sources which have been presented at this NPOV board thread I am of the opinion that the ANP offering support needs one line at a minimum in this article. It certainly meets notability requirements and the only argument against is "guilt by association" which is a policy I am unable to find anywhere. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't promote fringe groups who choose to endorse the latest fad. WP:UNDUE. If you can find a source saying that the ANP's endorsement is indicative of anything other the ANP's attempt to obtain publicity, I might feel differently. Dualus (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not undue when there are 44 news hits for it. It is notable given the coverage it has received and this discussion has already been resolved on the NPOV board, this section is to discuss were to add the line "The American Nazi Party has also offered support" one line from thirty sources is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is totally undue, as the NPOV discussion illustrates - there is no consensus whatsoever in that thread for inclusion. ] (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my smear campaign, please redact your personal attack. The NPOV discussion illustrates that it ought be included, per all the sources which mention it. One line is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV discussion illustrates nothing of the sort AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am promoting nothing, per all policy's this deserves a line, it has 44 hits on google news, and a few million on the web, it is notable which means in gets included in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been argued to death. The opinions of fringe groups on current events are unimportant to articles about those events. TFD (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note TLAM attempted to insert this material while this discussion is taking place. I have reverted. And BTW, a good proporting of the '44 news hits' are blogs, or reader response. So much for 'proof by Google'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of this content is an issue, I have tagged the article for neutrality. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of content while it was being discussed on the talk page, with no support for inclusion, is an issue. And you are seriously suggesting that there is a 'neutrality' issue in not mentioning fringe material sourced from blogs you found on Google? That has to be the most ridiculous 'justification' for tagging that I've seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Was it sourced to a blog? Or to one of the most widely viewed news networks in America? Sorry but undue will not fly here, given the news hits + google hits this is notable, it does not matter if you do not like it, policy dictates it ought be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. There is no policy that says Misplaced Pages content is determined by Google hits, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy is correct, a few google hits does not mean that a small issue must be included. That is not how NPOV works - 44 google hits should be weighed against the millions of google hits of the topic as a whole.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Which of these is a personal blog? Fox newsMedia Matters for AmericaHuffington PostNew York PostSunshine State News Plenty of reliable sources mention it, so should we. I have taken the liberty of removing your personal attack. @Maunus that is just news hits, there are several million hits on google for it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your 'sources':

Fox News - a mention in passing, along with The Socialist Party U.S.A, Communist Party U.S.A, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mediamatters: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them."

Huff post - a blog

New York Post - as WP:RS? ROFL!

Sunshine State News - a blog

Now stop wasting peoples time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS blogs hosted by news agencies are reliable. It is not a mention in passing on fox, it was part of their news segment. All those sources are reliable and you know it, this fact is notable and it needs be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such necessity. As I said you have to weigh it against the entire coverage of the protest. The Nazi support is not in any way a significant part of that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually per WP:NPOV there is means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, plenty of reliable sources have mentioned this, however I look forward to the list of celebrities being substantially trimmed.

The key part is "proportionately".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

...and "significant". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand the hesitancy to add information about a notable argument. Stepping back from simply the American Nazi Party, the OWS has come under fire (justifiably or not) for anti-semitism among protestors. These are some notable sources on both sides of the issue: , , , , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegitaU (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2011

Most of the sources presented have been opinion pieces and just repeating these opinions would violate WP:WEIGHT. However your last source is a news report which says, "The Occupy Wall Street protests, now in their second month, have increasingly been criticized by a variety of groups, most of them politically conservative, for flashes of anti-Semitism." It also provides balance to those views. We could use that source, but it is far from what a number of editors have been suggesting. TFD (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

47 results on G News now for this, around 40k on the web, still of the opinion this is not notable people? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The source used was from Bret Baier's "Political Grapevine", which covers political trivia. Whether or not it is rs, it is no indication of noteworthiness, more likely the opposite. And saying that the American Nazis also support OW after saying that it is supported by Russ Feingold is a smear against him. Also his article is about fringe groups that support OW, so picking out the one is injecting a POV that Baier did not intend. TFD (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is wonderful that you know what Baier intended, however do you do it? We can of course mention all three groups he mentions, but the ANP have had more coverage, 66 google news hits now btw & 50,200 on the web, still not notable? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• 68 hits for the ANP on G news now 48500 on the web. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• G News hits remain stable, About 111,000 results on google search Bing gives 62 News hits. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So what? You've already been told that Google hits don't determine Misplaced Pages content. Drop the stick, and leave the carcass to rot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all your personal attacks, any more will result in a request for administrative action to be taken against you. Policy dictates content, not you ATG. Policy is quite clear, this is notable as it has received widespread reporting. Your assertion that it has not is wrong, and if you do not actually have a reason other than you don't like it then I shall return the content to the correct place. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You are pushing an agenda. You have no support for your attempts to link the 'occupy' movements with fringe racist political groups. And finally, it is you that doesn't understand policy (or pretends not to) - you are clearly attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a propaganda tool. Keep this up, and I'm sure that administrative action will follow soon enough... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy. The ANP is an insignificant fringe group, and their opinion should not be give any weight at all in this article. Their "endorsement" is peripheral and irrelevant to the subject of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I support Andy as well. And I'll go one step further and say that anyone that removes another editor's copy is a ******* ****. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If this were just from the ANP website then yes, however this is not reporting on the ANP opinion, it is reporting on what a great many reliable sources have reported. Which is that the ANP has endorsed this protest. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Some sources to show how widely reported this is. Israel today MagazineFox NationThe BlazeDaily CallerTown HallSunshine State NewsDrudgeThis one is amuseing, Occupy ResistenceCharleston Daily MailThe GazetteWAPOIB TimesFox NewsMichigan MessengerNew York PostDelaware County Daily TimesBoston HeraldLA TimesJacksonville CourierA Belgian paperTehran timesSF GateThe HoyaNewsmaxFuse TV I Know not all meet RS criteria (IE Drudge) These are used to show how widespread this has become. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But you tried to delete all mention of anti-semitism from the article, even though it was backed up by reliable sources. -- Veggy (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read through this, I disagree with everyone (except Veggy) currently. While it may not require a sentence, though that would help clarify (NYPost): "“Thus far, however, anti-Semitism has not gained traction more broadly with the protesters, nor is it representative of the larger movement at this time.” At a minimum they should be listed in Occupy_Wall_Street#Demographics with a catch-all term anti-semites. To not list this is not proportional; yes it's significance is overblown by those opposed to OWS; this does not remove it from reality. To do so is over sensitive censorship. - RoyBoy 16:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Index headings

The present sub-headings in section 5 feel a bit labored. How about the following changes.

5 Reaction

5.1 Political establishment (drop: reaction, add: establishment)

5.1.1 The White House

5.1.2 Congress

5.1.3 2012 Presidential candidates

5.1.4 Other politicians

5.2 Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada

5.3 Unions (drop: reaction, add: s)

5.4 Business leaders

5.5 1% for the 99%

5.6 Writers (separate notable writers from artists and drop: celebrity support)

5.7 Artists (drop: participation, add: s)

5.8 Critics (drop: conservative -- as critics need not be conservatices)

5.9 Local residents

5.10 International reaction

Does that fly?Plankto (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - This is a much more logical way to organize this. The current order is a mess. Krishyanity (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Take care to avoid terminology like "political establishment" that carries revolutionary undertones. Also, given the scope of this overhaul you might want to wait for a pretty broad consensus before breaking ground. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that editors have enough to deal with right now, what with enough controversy going on that we need a POV tag. This is not the time to introduce even more controversy.Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What three side and what three disputes?

This will need to be spelled out. (replace POV tag: it is now abundantly clear from talk that there are multiple parties on both sides of at least three disputes.. Otherwise it's a groundless fabrication. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I see three sections regarding POV issues, one says New pov tag, the other is directly below that and the other directly above American Nazis. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The POV tag can't be counted. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you can agree with asking for specific objections. These subjects are in dispute:

1. connection to the Arab Spring mentioned in intro
2. recent polls summarized in intro
3. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the intro
4. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the body
5. description of 99 Percent Declaration in intro (I believe we may have reached a compromise on this one)
6. description of the Goals Working Group (currently only one person on each side of this one)

I count at least two other active editors on my side of 1-4, and two or three editors opposed to my position on those first four at present. Dualus (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am against #2 as undue weight for the lede with ever changing information. Same for # 1 but not strong enough to revert (Edit: however...if it's not in the body of the article, how is it not undue weight for the lede?). Against #3 as possible POV pushing. I think number 4 is contentious enough to be a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Can live with whatever consensus is of the contributing editors on 5 and 6.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please clarify whether you intend #3 and #4 to refer to well-sourced content regarding calls for constitutional amendments by OWS protesters and organizers, or whether you instead want to again insert an extensive discussion of Larry Lessig's conference, book, and other activities on that subject that OWS had nothing to do with, as part of an absurd POV-pushing OR section that also tells readers that OWS has been collaborating with the Tea Party, etc.?

I ask because, the former is something that could be appropriate for a WP article on OWS, while the latter is what you have been aggressively and quite rudely pushing for over the last week or so while repeatedly making obviously false claims about the sources allegedly supporting your research. So as you might imagine, I'm concerned by what exactly you take "description of calls for constitutional amendments" to mean. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If that question is for me, please see #Sources saying the protesters want a constitutional amendment above. Dualus (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the question was for you. I will take your response to mean that you only want the article to mention that OWS protesters have called for constitutional amendments. Do let me know if I'm wrong. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please hold off making changes. As you can see people will want to weigh in and discuss these.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless Dualus can show that any others disagree with the consensus on any of his alleged disputes, the tag can't stand. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Huffington is not considered reliable for facts

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_the_Huffington_Post_a_reliable_source.3F

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That information was not from a blogger. It was from a journalist employed by Huff Post and it used a direct quote. Do you understand it differently? Gandydancer (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your specific use was done with the use of the actual writer and seems to be used correctly to this formed consensus!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is right. Huffington Post is not considered reliable.

--Andy0093 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not reliable according to whom? It would be nice to back-up the claim with an objective source on the reliability of HuffPost. Instead of blanket-banning a new source, let's just exercise caution and try to avoid non-objective new sources (including conservative/liberal/libertarian blogs, Fox News, etc), and try to reference credible hard news sources if possible, and only reference non-objective news sources if there is no alternative or if the purpose of the reference is suited to the news source. Krishyanity (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally you'll seem while editing Misplaced Pages that citing Huffington Post is frowned upon. It would be the same if someone cited Breitbart.com, DailyCaller, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs or any others. HP is frowned upon greatly in the Misplaced Pages community when cited. It is not generally a reliable source. Most of there stuff if ripped off may stream news sources the CNN, WSJ, NBC, CBS', ABC, NYT's of the world, so it shouldn't be that hard to find a good source. To cite the HP is newspaper equivalent of citing the NY Post.

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To all wikipedia editors, especially the newest ones: FACT: FOX NEWS is considered a reliable source on wikipedia WP:RS - despite the extremely desperate efforts by some on wikipedia who perpetually fail to have FOX NEWS removed as a reliable source. All of the cable news networks have news report shows, which are considered unbiased reliable sources on Misplaced Pages, and opinion shows, which are just that - opinion which may be biased. All cable news networks (and print media) make mistakes in their news reports or have a rouge journalist or editor from time-to-time. It's the human condition. So go forth boldy with truth in your arsenal against those who would deceive you for their own personal political satisfaction on Misplaced Pages. --172.162.201.37 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW I am A giving this opinion to you with years of experience editing Misplaced Pages. I have seen time and again HP rejected as a reliable source and B he does give a link to a notice board where it is ruled a unreliable source. FYI.

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I could link the other discussions but the point is to simply state the general consensus of the overall community to form consensus here if needed. It's not a claim I am making but simply repeating the nut shell resolution (how it was resolved) made by that specific notice board discussion. That full consensus over several notice board discussions actually backs up two different editors for both their own arguments. 1) that Huffington Posts is generally not considered a RS for facts and that 2) it is still acceptable when quoting the specific journalist writing the piece (generally opinion). Naming the journalist allows others to verify the source for consensus discussion if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

News stories published in the Huffington Post are reliable, blogs and commentary are not. The same applies to the British Medical Journal, the New York Times, Fox News Channel, etc. TFD (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct per consensus in general, and the last part is not per MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability:

Newspaper and magazine blogs

WP:NEWSBLOG

Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, in a ruling, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK commented that it expected journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines to be subject to the standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use posts left by readers as sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, blogs are sometimes reliable sources, when they are subject to editorial discretion by news organizations with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The Guardian publishes the occasional retraction. Huffington Post doesn't edit its bloggers except in some circumstances. Dualus (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is not much better a source than Huffington for the same reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How about a request for uninvolved third party editor to do copyedit to lede?

In this way we can start fresh from a lede that is as neutral as we can get it and go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How is copyediting going to affect neutrality? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thought someone not involved would be neutral to the disputed information?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We could just let everyone posts their own version of what they want and hash it all out directly.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that "copyediting" generally refers to editing something for spelling, grammar, syntax, style, formatting, etc.. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I should have said good general editing. (and I would have relied to this sooner had I seen it)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we all come with a POV, which includes "uninvolved editors". I believe that we have enough sincere, involved editors with various points of view to come to an agreement. I see our problem more as a few maverick editors who make major changes without previous discussion (anything in the lede would be considered "major"). Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone does. The suggestion didn't gain traction anyway. The page seems to be stabilizing now as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Must we hide the 99 Percent Declaration from readers?

This edit doesn't make sense. It deleted this from the second paragraph in the introduction:

On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published a declaration of demands, goals, and solutions.ref name=99percentdeclaration>New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group (October 15, 2011) "The 99 Percent Declaration." Retrieved 20 October 2011.</ref>ref name=duda>Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange</ref>ref name=kingkade>Kingkade, T. (October 18, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 October 2011</ref>ref name=lopez>Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider</ref>

Who's opposed and who's for? Dualus (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit or the information? Or does that even matter to you?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it matters to me. You've been trying to get rid of the part that I've been complaining about people trying to get rid of. Why do you want it out? Dualus (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want it in?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it's the 99 Percent Declaration. Someone should make that article. Dualus (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice there isn't a single mainstream newspaper or magazine among those many sources ... just a bunch of blogs. If it's covered in the MSM, why are we using blogs as refs? And if it's not, why was it in the article? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are 1-3 from #Sources saying the Demands Working Group published demands above. Which of those three in particular are you saying are not reliable? Dualus (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying none of them are from the mainstream media. And it's worthy of note that of the other sources you listed (the Haack blog piece and the WaPo opinion piece) neither of them seems to say anything about any list of demands by this group, whoever they are. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, how is the 99 Percent Declaration relevant to the overall article about the New York protest specifically and how is it not undue weight in the lede?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Because WP:LEAD says we have to summarize the biggest controversies. Do you know of a bigger controversy on the topic? Dualus (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely you would want some RS's showing it's the "biggest controversy" or one of them before embarking on this line of argument? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the people apparently opposed to the mention of the 99 Percent Declaration have already included such sources. The group rejected the issuance of demands, and has apparently decided to refer to them as goals. It's our job as sleuths to discover whether the demands and goals turn out to be the same document, but I wouldn't put it past them. On second thought, was there anything in the demands about instant runoff voting? I would sure like one person, one vote. Dualus (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see these sources in the removed article text, and I don't see them in your list above. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't even established that it is a controversy, let alone that it is a prominent controversy.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to new topic header: Yes, we must hide the 99% Declaration from the People, otherwise our oppressive empire will crumble. is that sort of rhetoric really necessary? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have established that it's the largest controversy, as far as I can tell. How do you read the sources? I think I see the problem. Dualus (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"As far as Dualus can tell" is not a content guideline on WP. As for "how I read the sources", I read two of them as not supporting the claim, and the rest as being a bunch of non-mainstream-media blogs. If this is "the largest controversy" regarding OWS, I'm sure you'll find something saying that in a mainstream newspaper or magazine. Why don't you look for one instead of trying to push this forward without adequate sourcing?

I'll repeat my statement from above: "Surely you would want some RS's showing it's the "biggest controversy" or one of them before embarking on this line of argument?" Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the sources as falling a little short actually. You have not established this is even relevent to the NY protests but it certainly can be mentioned with a line or two, but is not a controversy from the sources. In fact all of those sources are talking about something that has not traspired or come to actually happen and are proposals for a possible future and come across a promotional to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I trust you agree that a Guardian blog should come before a Huffington Post blog, but after current events are over, we usually try to get the stories which broke the news, although they are optional to include if they aren't usually reliable. It depends on what of several other categories they're in. Dualus (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are not reliable, we don't include. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for above

References

Parodies

A CNBC correspondent reported that Occupy Wall Street movement sparked parodies which aim to expand the movement to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. An image of Luke Skywalker holding a protest sign was published: "It wasn't glamorous but I had a steady living working on my uncle's moisture farm. My aunt and uncle were unjustly murdered and the farm destroyed. I was forced to leave my home and join an extinct cult just to survive. I am now a member of an upstart movement to take down a greedy corrupt establishment. I AM THE 99%." Skywalker's enemies, the Imperial Storm Troopers joined the protest on another image circulating on the Internet holding signs: "End Galactic Corporate Greed", "Get Our Troops Off Tantooine" and "Keep Your Empirical Hands Off My Healthcare". Parodies relating to the Middle Earth include a woman which had written her complaint in Elvish, allegedly translated: "I spend every waking hour fighting orcs while Elrond and Galadriel eat lembas bread all day. I am the 99%". Guy Fawkes masks from the film V for Vendetta are used as symbols against corporate greed.

References

1. Wells, Jane (24 Oct 2011). "Occupy Movement Is Out of This World". CNBC. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
2. V for Vendetta masks: Who's behind them?

The section citing CNBC and BBC sources above on parodies was removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The material was removed without explanation, maybe because of its location as a sub-section of Reactions which is bloated as-is. I'll restore it as top-level section, right after Media coverage if there are no further objections. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Celeb section feedback please

Somebody added this:

Over one thousand authors have announced their support for the movement via “Occupy Writers”, an online petition that states “We, the undersigned writers and all who will join us, support Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy Movement around the world.” Signatories to the petition include Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Michael Cunningham, Jennifer Egan, Neil Gaiman, Naomi Klein, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jonathan Lethem, Ann Patchett, Salman Rushdie, Lemony Snicket, Alice Walker, and Naomi Wolf.

At the very least I believe the names should not be included, but I'm wondering if it should be included at all. The ref does not work... Gandydancer (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, very long and no reference - I'm going to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be me. Thought I'd got the ref correct. I've reinserted an edited graf that cuts down on the names (leaving a handful to demonstrate the range of genres represented) and imcludes a working link to OccupyWriters.com. Eventually, I'll get the hang of this. OldSkoolGeek (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just find some discussion of it in a reputable news or other secondary source, and it will stay in (or at least have a good chance) (; Best. B——C_ritical 06:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, if a second ref is found it will include the names so they do not need to be listed - that section already has a fairly long list of names of supporters. Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. :) I've included refs from the Guardian, the New York Observer, Slate magazine, and the Christian Science Monitor.OldSkoolGeek (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Well, perhaps too much of a good thing... I believe that it should be pared down a tad - not that it isn't perfectly good information, but we have just so much room in each article and everything must be weighed as to importance. I will wait and see what other editors think. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Accept the current tags: POV + current event.

At first I thought, why can't they make the wiki process work and redact whatever, but then I realized better to just accept the tags as part of the site culture and move on as far as the article quality is concerned. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a consensus thing not a culture thing. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Judging by current state it's more of a vigour of youth thing. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Participants" section reads like a travel brochure

Section headings are competing with actual text for the actual space consumed; even after I removed a one-sentence section, there are still several more that are only one or two lines long. Everything is presented in the most positive light possible. One section, discussing a community board meeting at which widely reported complaints about protesters urinating and defecating on residential property were raised, instead cherry-picks only the most solicitous and encouraging quote from one of the residents, while euphemizing the complaints about urinating and defecating as complaints of "inadequate sanitation".

Besides perhaps closely inspecting the content for NPOV, I suggest we cut this section down to three subsections: Leadership and Demographics; a section called "Zucotti Park Camp" or "Conditions at protest camp" or something like that; and a section called "Impact on city". This would reduce clutter and eliminate the "this is an advertisement" feel, without diminishing organizational clarity. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I like that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Gandydancer (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See discussion below about economists. I made the suggestion that Sections follow MOS more closely so the smaller amounts of referenced information can be included into the relevant subsection until such time as they grow naturally to a size consensus agrees on.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Red Army!

Red Army! Internet Kill Switch! 71.33.169.3 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See Aaron Klein and FoxNews.com. 99.109.126.95 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly reliable, per WP:RSN. Dualus (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Non reporters - Haack and Kingkade are amatuers

There is no way to use Haack or Kingkade, both are self-published bloggers. I could start blogs at their respective current blog hosts, the Guardian and the Huffpo, not have any editorial oversite like Haack and Kingkade, and it seems some editors would think my stuff was hunky dory. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

At one time I would have argued this, however considering that we now have a lot of controversy re his report, which was not picked up in any major news service, I agree with you - we should not use his work. (This is re Kingkade - I have not been following the Haack posts.) Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not saying that either author is fit for citation, but are you sure it's that easy to publish on the Guardian blog space? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can start a blog post at Huff. Are you sure about that? I looked and didn't see a way to do that. Could be wrong though.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I wouldn't be surprised if there's just some minimal set of hoops to jump through to get started (else I'm not sure how Haack would have made the cut). But I don't think it's as simple as registering on a web forum. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe blogger is not what Haack is, he is ,though, an amateur comical source. His Guardian bio reads David Haack is an underemployed artist an anticorporate activist who lives in New York City. He has a degree in history from Suny Purchase. He is one of the 99% The full extent of his contributions to the Guardian is one article. Same for Kingkade, another crummy source nowhere near RS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Now, how do you get to be a Huffpo blogger. Well, you get asked to be one because you made a lot of comments on the Huffpo. Arianna calls them "opinion journalists", saying "we only invite people who have interesting points of view and the ability to express themselves in a compelling way. It's a fantasy to think they deserve to be regaded as journalist whose reporting has passed the rigors of a factchecking editorial oversight. Kingkad simply has no bonas fides for a RS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Read more: <

Why don't you two ask what WP:RSN thinks of Guardian bloggers? Dualus (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why, Haack isn't a blogger, is he? But he is, we know from he one and only piece published at the Guardian, as noted above, an underemployed artist an anticorporate activist who lives in New York City. He has a degree in history from Suny Purchase. He is one of the 99%. Not what you call first team RS by any stretch of the imagination. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has a point about Huffington post. I am not sure if we have established that Kingkade is just a blogger though as Gandydancer has at least provided the fact the Kingkade has multiple articles and not just one. Perhaps he is just more prolfic than others. At any case, Kingkade's article is being treated as opinion to Wiki policy in that regard and not as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not inclined to revert over any of this however. It seems a good consensus is forming.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was interesting... I went over to Huff Post to "prove" that Kingkade was a step above Haack, but that was not what I seemed to find at all. While it's true that he calls himself a HP writer, and while it's true that he's written 50 articles since June, I now believe that The Artist is correct - they are both unpaid bloggers, though I'm guessing they may pay him something if they like what he's written. So I did learn something. It does lower my opinion of Huff Post, and I now understand why their stuff is questionable. Which is not to say that mainstream press is accurate and non-biased either - but that's another story... Gandydancer (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist, at this point I think I would not accept Kingkade and would revert him. I wish I would have known what I know now a few days ago. Live and Learn. Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made reverts and changes in order to better attribute the sources used by another in keeping with Misplaced Pages standards. I wanted to add that I wasn't inclined to do that again as consensus has become VERY clear on this now. I don't like the use of Huff for the same reasons as the consensus of the general community.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Huff has some great reporters who would be great RSs if relevant. But Kingcade is not even a reporter, and I think the issue is as narrow as that, and take it to the broader level of yay or nay on the Huff is beyond the scope of whether Kingcade is a RS or not. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but lets not forget that the general consensus of editors was established through a series of ANI discussion and is very much relevant to the discussion here. Like finding out IMDB is not a RS on Misplaced Pages for the same reasons. Yeah...that surprises the heck out of people but it is a membership site that allows anyone to post information and has no editorial oversite. I have seen information I have placed on Misplaced Pages before it could be referenced with published secondary sources become fact on IMDB within a few moths of it's posting. That's called Wikiality and is a real danger I have seen first hand.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If a Huffpo reporter has a good rep, then there is no need to exclude them. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between a Huffpo reporter and blogger; the former gets paid and is edited. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I no longer like adding information without a reference of any kind for that reason. I felt lucky as a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor at that time to find the information in a published book. It was true... and was in other places....but they could all be traced to my original remark on a message board when I attempted to research it online. Before it was referenced with a relaible source... it was just OR and didn't understand that.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Have either of you bothered to ask WP:RSN about Guardian bloggers (even new ones)? They are always under Guardian editorial standards and control, even when they are unpaid. The Guardian often uses unpaid reporters and bloggers for their first stories. Dualus (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, we know they have good judgement too. But what an impertinent question. I detect a misplaced feeling of entitlement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Adbusters given too much credit for initiating the protests

The line in the summary that says "The protests were initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters." seems like unwarranted self promotion by Adbusters. Only two sources, one is Adbusters themselves and the other is very sensationalist. I would like to see this line removed or at least get much better citation.

89.160.135.47 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing numerous sources talking about their central involvement. This doesn't seem a point that is especially likely to be challenged, notwithstanding the fact that you're actually challenging it, so I'm not sure we need extensive sourcing for this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been covered by major sources enough to satisfy the fact. We can check the current references to be sure they are not simply primary sources but the accusation that Adbusters themselves is self promoting is ridiculous and is an accusation of Conflict of Interest that has no basis that I can see and self promotion, even if proved is indeed a matter of consensus as to whether to include or not. Trust me on this one...I discovered an editor who had clearly linked himself to his edits with his real name on his article and with his contributions. The consensus of the ANI he brought was that he had a right to edit like anyone else, even editing or creating his own article and promoting himself. That alone is not against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. It's what the promotion involves and what each edit or contribution is. If an editor enters false information or attempts to remove facts that are referenced and fully support claims...then you have a problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm pretty sure that the expected use of this tag and its associated editorial processes contemplates that the editor or editors placing the tag will actively work towards a consensus that will resolve the dispute that the placing editor felt justified the tag in the first place. Dualus seems now to have gone on vacation from this article.

Is there any reason the tag should not be removed pending some resumption of the discussion of whatever neutrality problems are perceived to exist here? Previously, I saw no point in debating the tag itself, at least while Dualus was still pleading his case, but I don't think it should remain if there's not even an active dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I strenuously object to the removal of the POV tag. I will return to the article soon to replace the deletions of which I complained of above less than two days ago. Dualus (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a willingness to edit-war is enough to keep the tag. What's expected is that you discuss the problems you think the article has. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is becoming clear. It will not be there forever. Things are wrapping up over his disputes.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? We're fresh off 20,000 words of one-man disputes, and now that one man is coming back. Fasten seatbelt. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

His disputes are indeed running out of time and will eventually be resolved one way or another. One does not have to get their way for a dispute to end.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor is helping to build a case that he is just edit warring and nothing more. I truly believe we have been very patient with him...far more than he has been with others. Above you see a comment that shows his intent to go against consensus and remarks like that are all over this page. Let him dig as deep a hole as he wishes.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is completely unethical to insinuate that I am the only person opposed to either you or Centrify's position when we have recently established that there are at least two people, and often three, who have spoken in favor of my preferred changes, on at least five separate issues. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably even more unethical to assume that's what I said or meant or that I have a position other than what is formed from the contribution of editors here. Consensus is not a vote. My position is clear. If consensus is against addition of any content...it's out. Making a lot of posts and edits is not consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was certainly saying (not implying or insinuating) that not a single other editor supported your proposals on the issues that I was discussing with you. Which five separate issues are you claiming 2-3 editors supported you on? Above, you posted a list of 6 issues: "1. connection to the Arab Spring mentioned in intro; 2. recent polls summarized in intro; 3. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the intro; 4. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the body; 5. description of 99 Percent Declaration in intro (I believe we may have reached a compromise on this one); 6. description of the Goals Working Group (currently only one person on each side of this one)"

I wasn't paying much attention to two of the issues (1 - 2), but regarding the other four issues (3 - 6), I don't recall a single editor who agreed with your edits or proposed edits. A little explanation of what you mean here would be much appreciated. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

How many editors equal consensus...all of them contributing to the article and what they discuss and decide to live with. But if you revert without supporting it...it's just edit warring. I see no reason to keep the POV tag without at least explaining the reason for the revert on the talk page with civility. My revert was that consensus still holds without discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're overstating the inclusiveness of "consensus". Consensus can and often does utterly reject the suggestions of one or more editors, and it does not require that every involved editor be able to "live with" the result. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I should probably say...all those contributing editors who are contributing to the consensus. Just reverting is not consensus. If a revert is made without discussion that is not consensus. A revert has to be defended or explained, as it is up to the editor making the revert to justify it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And "Living with", "accepting" or "allowing" is a part of forming that consensus. It requires discussion but it doesn't mean everyone agrees. Am I incorrect about that?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Really I just wanted to clarify this for Dualus's benefit so he doesn't get the idea—or perhaps become further entrenched in the idea—that consensus means the article content has to be made acceptable to him. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah...sorry. I was also explaining my revert of The Last Angry Man's revert...who just reverted again. Let's see if he is just edit warring or intends to discuss his revert.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that he wishes to discuss but his new placement of the tag is on the "other politicians" sub-subsection.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeating my above question so Dualus is sure to notice it:

I was certainly saying (not implying or insinuating) that not a single other editor supported your proposals on the issues that I was discussing with you. Which five separate issues are you claiming 2-3 editors supported you on? Above, you posted a list of 6 issues: "1. connection to the Arab Spring mentioned in intro; 2. recent polls summarized in intro; 3. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the intro; 4. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the body; 5. description of 99 Percent Declaration in intro (I believe we may have reached a compromise on this one); 6. description of the Goals Working Group (currently only one person on each side of this one)"

I wasn't paying much attention to two of the issues (1 - 2), but regarding the other four issues (3 - 6), I don't recall a single editor who agreed with your edits or proposed edits. A little explanation of what you mean here would be much appreciated. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this comment below. Search down from here for "connection to the Arab Spring" to find my response. Dualus (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times articles

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/nyregion/as-data-show-theres-a-reason-the-wall-street-protesters-chose-new-york.html Protesters Said, the Data Show It: Much Wealth Resides in New York; As the Data Show, There's a Reason the Wall Street Protesters Chose New York by SAM ROBERTS, published October 25, 2011, A23 in print.
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation's Income, C.B.O. Says ... disparities in income between rich and poor. ... (It's Official: The Rich Get Richer; page A20 in print) October 26, 2011 by ROBERT PEAR

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wealthiest Americans' Income Nearly Triples Wall Street Journal

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/25/income-growth-of-top-1-over-30-years-outpaced-rest-of-u-s/ Income Growth of Top 1% Over 30 Years Outpaced Rest of U.S. by Corey Boles October 25, 2011, 3:29 PM ET 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Economist resource

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america Income inequality in America; The 99 percent ..."Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution. Oct 26th 2011, 15:34 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Chef Eric Smith resources?

• http://bites.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/26/8484204-feeding-the-movement-how-occupy-protesters-are-eating MSNBC Feeding the movement: How Occupy protesters are eating
• http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Occupy-Wall-Street-Protest-Food-Meals-Prepared-Organic-Chef-Soup-Kitchen-Donated-Items-Volunteer-132130853.html Chef Prepares Protesters Organic Meals From Donated Ingredients in Donated Soup Kitchen Wednesday, Oct 19, 2011 Updated 8:50 AM EDT

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a reference by Rebecca Rosenberg, New York Post, October 19, 2011 99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reaction by economists?

Shouldn't we have a section on the reactions of economists? B——C_ritical 00:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so. Jesanj (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need yet another section. Is there any way to incorporate that somehow?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's true there are probably too many sections, but what do you suggest? B——C_ritical 01:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that economists would not really deserve a section as they are not any more or less important than any other academic reaction. I wonder if all reaction should be condensed into a few sections, Academic, Political, Public opinion, Private enterprise and International. Everthing else to be subsections within these, such as celebrity reaction within the subsection for public opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This would require the section of "Reaction" itself to replaced with individual "sections". It just seems more encyclopedic to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You could do the main Reaction section (per MOS) and then subsections with their on sub subsections as shown below.

== Section ==
===Subsection===
====Sub-subsection====

--Amadscientist (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In this way we stick to the Manuel of Style Guidelines, allow for all relevant sections and inclusion of information and when weight is acceptable once an area is expanded enough for it's own subsection the article can grow naturally with less instability.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now the only section following this is Political reaction.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

resource The top fifth of households collected half of U.S. income in 2010. (from graphic)

Middle class' share of the nation's income is shrinking by Marisol Bello and Paul Overberg, USA Today 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please close quote by Slavoj Žižek with "

Please close quote by Slavoj Žižek with " ... Žižek talking at OWS cited on the Charlie Rose (talk show) (on now). 99.19.44.40 (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. B——C_ritical 04:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravi Batra's support for OWS is notable

Two editors have made an assessment in the edit summaries that an entry on Ravi Batra does not merit inclusion in the "Celebrity reaction and involvement" section of the OWS article as Batra is not a "celebrity". This is a problem as the normal WP guidelines on notability are being suspended in this case. It has been shown that in terms of notability, the following entry merits inclusion in an article for a number of reasons.

On October 11, Ravi Batra wrote an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism“. He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal. Batra is being linked to the OWS movement due to his long standing prediction that “monopoly capitalism would create the worst-ever concentration of wealth in its history, so much so that a social revolution would start its demise around 2010.”

Ravi Batra is clearly notable as per general notability guidelines. While the coverage on him is clearly more in the 1980s and 1990s -- in the pre-internet era -- there is also recent coverage. The WP article on Batra testifies to this, as does the media coverage, as well as discussion of his ideas all over the net, including on the unofficial OWS web site. This has all been shown with reliable sources. Batra's life's work is also closely related to the OWS movement as brought out with RS above. In order to side step a subjective popularity contest among editors about Batra, it is therefore proposed that his entry be included in the article, but that a new place be found for it. Alternatively, it is proposed that the current celebrity heading be divided it into separate Writers and Artists sections.Plankto (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Being notable for the article or notable as an person of interest is not the same as Celebrity. It requires at least some form of secondary published reference to make the claim wouldn't it? Let's look at what Harvard says about academic celebrity: . Now lets see what we find if we search for Batra under the search term: . Immediately we see an LA Times article at the top of the search: . Then just down from there is a reference to him speaking of the term: . So there is what I can find. I am having a hard time with this to be honest. I find the term to be somewhat shallow and yet there are those that do find him to have celebrity status but is that really enough. There are other academics listed and quoted and they too have some small celebrity for their appearances, interviews and books but are those "fans" enough to qualify the person under the definition of celebrity for our purposes here? I am still trying to get a grasp on it to be honest and can't make an informed decision as yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I see all "celebrity" reaction being under a section: "Public Opinion" as a subsection and artist and musician as sub-subsections.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information, Amadscientist, which establishes that Batra has been considered a "celebrity", as Gandydancer demanded be shown in his entry above on 18:20, 23 October 2011 and Andy0093 claimed Batra was not in his edit summary in the main article on 23:43, 26 October 2011. As these editors choose not to discuss the issue here, I suggest the entry be reinserted. It is the responsibility of the opposing editors to defend their actions on talk page, and not just revert with baseless claims in the edit summaries. In addition, and as shown in an irrefutable manner above, Batra is a notable in terms of this article. So, while his 15 minutes of fame may have come and gone, the notability remains. Personally, I'd like this discussion to end with a consensus, but that is not possible if those opposing the entry do not participate and just hop in and revert. Plankto (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My vote: he's not notable. There's is no entitlement that consensus defend itself to a lone dissenter. After a point, consensus is set and should be respected. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're pushing your luck Plankto. As anyone here knows, I've discussed this issue extensively with you through the numerous threads you've started (what is it now, six?). But just for the record, I'll say it one more time: One Truthout article and two mentions in the Fort Worth Weekly do not make Batra notable. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dropping the stick and walking away from the dead horse carcus applies to winners of disputes. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I give up on this for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

One clear benefit of this debate for the article so far is the creation of a sub-heading for Authors and academics. It makes goos sense to separate the intellectuals from the entertainers - although these sections are still populated by a number of people less notable than Batra. But this is understandable in terms of the strong bias still felt against Batra. In June 2010, Gayle Reaves summed it up quite well in the third recent Fort Worth article about him titled "The U.S. Economy: Still a House of Cards":

"Almost no one likes his ideas –– excepts thousands of regular folks, business leaders, and admirers across a spectrum of professional disciplines, who may not agree with Batra on every point or on the depth of the doom he foresees but who believe that his theories ought to be included in the global debate now going on over how to fix the economy...“He’s brilliant. He should be on TV more. But he’s been excommunicated” by the economist community, Dimare said.""]

It should be brought out that the Fort Worth Weekly is a local newspaper for SMU where Batra teaches, and such continued interest is yet more indication of his still thriving local celebrity.

Batra's notability and relevance to this article is certainly not a dead horse issue, even if the zeitgeist in the US has yet to catch up with him, despite the recent developments. The national media, like the economics establishment, has still not forgiven his major wrong prediction for The Great Depression of 1990. However, his notability for this article arises from his continued promotion of concepts like the "share of wealth held by the richest 1 percent" and ideas about "Crony capitalism" and his foresightful predictions that the system would at some point crash -- no matter how wrong he had been earlier on the timing. Indeed, the US banking system has now experienced a major failure, just as he predicted it would. The Occupy Wall Street movement, like Batra, is protesting the unfairness of the fact that the adjustment to the financial crisis is yet again being borne by the increasing number of poor. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, one in every six Americans is now classified as being poor! However, as none have come forward to offer explicit support for the inclusion of an entry on Batra here, in the face of opposition by a few editors, I leave this issue for now but will revert if relevant national developments warrant. Please note that according to WP guidelines, the requested time for settling edit disputes is three months Plankto (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

http://vimeo.com/30778727

CrackerJackWorks (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are we citing student newspapers?

Does anybody really think that there is such scant coverage on OWS that we need to dig deep down in the barrel? If something can't be sourced to an ordinary newspaper, why are we discussing it in the article at all? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Given the coverage of OWS it is unlikely that much is missing within ordinary newspapers. Arzel (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I cited a student newspaper, but it was one with, if I remember, a circulation of 10,000 statewide. B——C_ritical 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

But do you agree that with such a very widely covered movement, there shouldn't be any need to cite to sources that seem to be marginally reliable at best? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Which source(s) are you asking about? Dualus (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternet

Alternet is liberal, but is it an unreliable source for Misplaced Pages? B——C_ritical 19:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good writers write for Alternet, so I would look at the writer as well. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't seem to be a mainstream source, and as an informal point of reference, our WP article describes it as a "progressive/liberal activist news service" which would seem to imply that it is not. And in the specific case of the first reference I removed, a source with a sensationalist headline reading "Occupy Wall Street arrests approach 1,000, while police rake in millions in overtime" was being tagged to a sentence that it didn't support and that already had numerous ref—and in a separate place, for an otherwise innocuous figure of number of arrests; I removed that ref on the rationale that the citation was completely unnecessary and didn't match the article text in the one case, and was easily replaceable by a more NPOV mainstream source in the other.

I suppose, though, that the ref for the Immortal Technique interview might not be objectionable and perhaps I should not have removed it.

At the same time, I have to wonder, for general citations, if certain material can only be found in a less-than-mainstream source, some suspicion is warranted and I wonder if we should reconsider including it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to your removal but Alternet is not necessarily not mainstream because it is liberal. Liberalism isn't necessarily non-mainstream, and is often more mainstream than other sources because it often is based more on expert opinion than other sources, as academics tend to be liberal. B——C_ritical 01:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring mainly to the word "activist", not "liberal". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2; launching a nationwide general strike, some resources

• Occupy Oakland seeks strike after Scott Olsen injury 27 October 2011 Last updated at 14:35 ET BBC
• Occupy Wall Street Launching First Nationwide General Strike In America Since 1946 posted on October 27, 2011 on washingtonsblog.com
  • Despite Iraq Vet’s Cracked Skull, DoJ Sees No Evil in Occupy Crackdown by Ryan Singel October 27, 2011 Wired.com
  • http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2011/10/27/jon-stewart-derides-occupy-oakland-raids/ VIDEO) Jon Stewart (of The Daily Show) derides Occupy Oakland raids
  • Iraq vet hurt in police clash becomes face of Occupy by Jason Dearen and Terry Collins October 27, 2011 6:18PM Sun Times
  • http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/occupy-protests-cost-cities-millions/ ‘Occupy’ Protests Cost Cities Millions] Oct 27, 2011 4:37pm ABC News
  • Condition of Marine injured in protest upgraded to fair by Meg Jones of the Journal Sentinel Oct. 27, 2011 3:34 p.m.
  • NYC protesters march to support Oakland brethren October 27, 2011 8:37 AM CBS News
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/us-usa-wallstreet-protests-oakland-idUSTRE79Q01F20111027 by Peter Henderson Oakland, California Oct 27, 2011 3:04pm EDT
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20126760-245/hackers-target-oakland-police-after-occupy-protest/ Cnet.com by Elinor Mills October 27, 2011 4:19 PM PDT
• Following Police Violence, Occupy Wall Street Tests General Strike Idea 10/27/2011 @ 8:15PM on Forbes.com

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:"22Occupy" protests # potential resource 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhm.. "progressive stack" POV?

I'm done reverting for the day, but I don't see how this passage can remain in the article:

In an effort to ensure the fullest possible participation by women and persons of color the progressive stack is employed with respect to speakers at the General Assembly. The progressive stack advances women and persons of color to the front of the queue waiting to speak. This procedure resulted in women being able to provide critical input.

(ref name=Stack)Allison Burtch (October 4, 2011). "Guest post: My hope for #occupy wall street By Lori" (blog post). Feministing.com. Retrieved October 27, 2011. Occupy Wall Street's General Assembly operates under a revolutionary "progressive stack." A normal "stack" means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important. "Step up, step back" was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking. This progressive stack has been inspiring and mind-boggling in its effectiveness. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)(/ref)

Including highly POV material and citing it to a guest blog post on an activist blog site? Really? I also wonder what the author means by saying the technique is "mind-boggling in its effectiveness", unless she just means to say it is effective in getting white men to shut up. It does seem to put claims that "anyone can speak" at the General Assembly in perspective, albeit a perspective we can't reflect in the article unless some RS acknowledges it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If true there's nothing POV about the material except the last sentence, but I'm sure it could be sourced better. Certainly it should be included with a bit of criticism, which I'm sure we could find. B——C_ritical 01:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Reworded and replaced with a source from a mainstream news organization (anyone care to guess which one??). Still have not seen any criticism other than the title of the cited post, "Occupy Wall Street’s Racist Speech Rule: White Men Last". I'm not sure it would be appropriate to reference that rather than actual article text, though. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This was reverted by an editor who apparently objects to the fact that the source of the quote being reprinted at FoxNews.com is a non-reliable outlet. He perhaps didn't notice that the citation he replaced it with is to an even more unreliable feminist activist website. I re-reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is not to a 'mainstream news organization'. It's a Fox Nation blog direct to a comment in a forum talking about a post on BigGovernment.com by someone named "Publius". Definitely not a reliable source. I would suggest either removing the section or finding a neutral RS. Dave Dial (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The post does not appear to be user-generated in any way, or made by an outside contributor, unless there's something I am missing. If the post is made by the editorial staff of FoxNews.com, how is it not attributable to Fox News? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not user generated? It's just a copy and paste job on the Fox Nation page. It has no editorial control. It's a copy and paste from another site, which has a copy and paste from another website, citing a "Occupy Wall Street supporter/observer “Lori“". Which links to the original cite that you removed. So if you think the opinion of "Publius" from the Big Government blog is stronger sourcing that the original, I don't know what to say. Except I would urge you to either find a neutral source, remove the section, or put it back to where it was. Dave Dial (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an effort to find better sourcing for the material. Why do you say there is "no editorial control"? Am I allowed to post something there? Is there something I am missing? Obviously the primary sources of the comment are not reliable in any way, but when a mainstream outlet reprints them, that would seem to be a different story. If the space is not under the control of the foxnews.com editorial staff, please point that out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to include both points of view per WP:NPOV. Dualus (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

By simply having two paragraphs, each discussing the same quote and topic, mashed together into a pile of repetitiveness. Bravo. It couldn't have been done better if you bothered to ask anyone else what they thought! /sarcasm Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Again: no one is making any effort to further any debate about, or otherwise justify, any POV tag on this article. Leaving it in place during a dispute is one thing, but the purpose of the tag is not to just slap it on an article whose tone or content you disagree with and then walk away. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no POV tag. B——C_ritical 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

See the "other politicians" section. An editor tagged this without ever explaining why, if I recall, and I haven't seen any discussion of it at all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This shows very poor understanding of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policy. As the tag says, it should remain until disputes are resolved. Dualus (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This comment is so absurd that it doesn't even merit a response, but here goes. The policy doesn't say (or mean) that one editor can simply place a tag and require it to remain in place until he is personally satisfied that the article is neutral. There may not be any explicit timeframe for resolving the dispute, but if you spend some time reading noticeboards you'll see that there has to be an actual dispute that editors work towards resolving in good faith. If the editor placing the tag makes no effort to resolve the dispute, and particularly if he is the only editor arguing that there are POV problems, the tag needn't remain. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing of the intro

Why was this line "The movement has been criticized as having no formal demands or goals. Princeton professor Cornel West has called it a democratic awakening, suggesting that it would be difficult to reduce to a few demands. Washington Post opinion writer Katrina vanden Heuvel has said that at this time, the primary goal of the movement is to grow in size. A member of the New York City General Assembly said OWS will not issue demands, because "demands are for terrorists and that is not who we are."" Which has been in the intro for over a week removed unilaterally? No census was reached on the talkpage about the decision to remove it.

--Andy0093 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's true but it seems like that has now been overtaken by events. It's an artifact from the very early days of the movement, isn't it? B——C_ritical 01:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The removal was actually discussed a good deal in discussions above. West comments are notable for article but undue weight to lede. How do you wish to argue for it's inclusion in this manner? The same is true of reference attribution to any particular writer or author in lede. Per MOS "emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject"--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, it's because we don't work with consensus here or even a mention on the talk page. We use the willy nilly method. That's what I use in my raspberry patch, and it doesn't work very well there, either. Critical, I generally think you make excellent posts, but I don't agree with you on this one. Although time moves on, I believe that certain foundations do or should remain intact, and West is a good example. He spoke within the first few days and continues to demonstrate - in fact he has been arrested at least twice already. Although this is a revolt initiated and led by the fresh instincts of the young, we need the grandfather's wisdom to offer their insights as well. West certainly is not an artifact of the past and I'm surprised that anyone would suggest that. Gandydancer (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with the actual statement or statements, but the need to quote any person in this manner is giving them far too much weight in the lede. Maybe we can use it without the need to attribute the personalities if the are attributed in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And Gandydancer...that was unnecessary. I came to the talk page and gave my reasons for the revert just as Andy did. Please assume good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My own POV is that West works very well in the lead, but at the same time I have to agree that he isn't notable enough for the lead relative to the body of the article as it's currently written. Nor the rest of the paragraph, which is just distracting. B——C_ritical 02:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The statements might have a place in the article... but the lede? Sounds like undue weight to me. Bowmerang (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant no offense Scientist. I actually agree that your line of thought may be correct once I consider it, but it seems to me that you made the decision on your own to delete the paragraph. I try to follow the discussion, but perhaps I missed your post. Gandydancer (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Careful... You know how Amadscientist feels about not being addressed by his full username. :P Bowmerang (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably the same as using the talk page to disparage other editors Bowmerang. If that's going to be your contribution here please refrain from further comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When it was removed there was no discussion from the editor who did so, but no one objected. There has been discussion on the lede and undue weight of presenting information not in proportion to the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. It does actually look like there is some consensus here. Sorry to ramble rouse. --Andy0093 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No rabble roused at all Andy. Consensus can change. You did everything right here. You were bold and used the talk page. You also didn't fight the consensus...which can always (and most often does) change in time....but not always. Anyway...thanks for the civil posts!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stats in the lead

The statistics

The participants' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to income inequality in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% which controls about 40% of the total wealth of the country, and the rest of the population.

Keep getting edited out. I've inserted the information in the body of the article now, and I think this statistic is absolutely central to the movement. So I'm not sure why others don't think it should go in the lead. B——C_ritical

I think it was removed unintentionally the last time; I restored it.--~TPW 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, you did? Oh, you did once, then it was taken out here. B——C_ritical 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That was fast. I support keeping it in.--~TPW 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The forty percent is TMI - read too wonkish - for the lead, and without a link showing OWS working the 40% ratio as much as 99%, this is WP:OR. Which is probably the case, when I googled "occupy wall street 40%" I found how "absolutely central" the statistic is not to the movement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The 40% isn't original research - it's how much the 1% owns. All that number does is clarify what "the 99%" is referring to, in a way that the lead doesn't now.--~TPW 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Until you have refs showing a high profile connection for OWS and that stat, like them really using it a lot and vocally, it doesn't matter that it is true, it's not that connected to OWS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's connected in the same way that fruit is connected to a banana. If you mention that X likes bananas, and people might not know that bananas are fruit, you might mention the fact. The 40% is just as high profile as the 99% and 1%. Now, that's the logic, but the refs also fully support it, for example: "As 2.6 million Americans fell under the poverty line last year, the top 1 percent continued to control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth." and "In comparison, the 60 percent of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their incomes increase by just 40 percent during the same time period, according to the study, which was based on a combination of IRS and Census data." It's basic background which should be mentioned the first time we mention the "99%," in order that people can understand what they're reading. B——C_ritical 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is too good to let it slide on by, especially since it demolishes any idea of 40% being notable for the lead: " It's basic background". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be a classic case of OR through synthesis. Can you show that OWS is aware of this fact and has made a big deal of it? If no, then we can't either. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I just did show that. However, it's the share of growth that may be more emphasized. If you prefer that statistic it can be inserted. B——C_ritical 04:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We'll keep "basic backround" out of the lead, all the same. That's why it's called the lead. Now, when you can show not OWS putting the 40% figure out there - you know, in the foreground - then we can talk. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop the officious tone. You and I both know that this is a basic statistic. Now, it may be that sources favor income growth inequality, over percentage of wealth, but that's a tweak. I'll get to the sources tomorrow when I have more time. And we will include it in the lead, since the lead summarizes the most important points of the article, and this is in fact the most important point as it's the motivation for the movement. B——C_ritical 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're done barking orders... I indeed know it's a basic statistic - of the background variety, as it were and as you pointed out. Good luck with finding the sources, the one you've come up with so far just didn't cut it. 05:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (: B——C_ritical 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the background section, I propose text something like this for the lead:

The participants' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to the difference in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% whose incomes have increased by 275% since 1979, and the bottom 90% whose incomes have shrunk.

Any objections or suggestions? B——C_ritical 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer:

The protesters' slogan "We are the 99%," refers to income inequality in the United States between the wealthiest 1%, who control about 40% of the total wealth of the country and whose incomes have increased by 275% since 1979, and the bottom 90% whose inflation-adjusted incomes have declined.

How is that? Dualus (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Better, thanks. B——C_ritical 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this is true, but without secondary sources showing that these facts are very well known and play a large part in OWS's interior dialogues, it's TMI for the lead and the background section. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

The naming style and placement of references in the article is a mess. I'm going to read up on the manual of style recommendations; any help fixing the broken references is appreciated as well.--~TPW 02:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all I've confirmed is that named references should be kept simple - these names are not that. I'm going to try to help.--~TPW 02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

May the Wiki gods feed you cookies. I have been endeavoring to make fixes and work on this very issue for about a week now a little at a time.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• A ref naming style I have used on long articles with many (contentious) edits, with the danger that ref / cites get deranged by innocent other editors, is <ref name= "Journal-AuthorLast-YYYY-MM-DD">.
  This style has the particular advantage that if the original cite is deleted, the orphan refs can be, without much agony be fixed, and the source easily found, even many months later, should that be necessary, without having to play peekaboo in the history.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

True..but I wonder if Just using a more basic citation format wouldn't be easier.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think with the list style being used here, such complex names won't be necessary. Let's see if I can get a few done today, and thank you to whoever fixed the broken ones!--~TPW 12:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, although at least one other was helping last night.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed info from the "criticism" section for being "editorialising/POV."

In this edit, an editor removed content from the "criticism" section, and commented, "editorialising/POV."

I don't think that that comment is accurate, because it is a fact, not an opinion, that those criticisms were made.

Here is the text that the editor removed. I think it should be put back in. What do other editors think? Is it really "editorialising/POV" to point out, in the "criticism" section, that these criticisms were made? Or, it is appropriate content for a section that is titled "criticism"?

In an editorial in Commentary magazine, Abe Greenwald referred to celebrities who supported the protests as "self-demonizing millionaires."

Conservative opinion columnist Ann Coulter wrote, "They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate 'Wall Street.' You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government." In comparing them with the tea party protestors, Coulter wrote, "Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public... Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning."

In an editorial titled "The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street," celebritynetworth.com wrote, "Occupy Wall Street's slogan 'We are the 99%' is derived from the idea that they represent the difference in wealth that separates the top 1% and every other American citizen... So why are multi-millionaire celebrities showing up to offer their support and grab attention? And why is Occupy Wall Street taking them seriously?"

Remy Munasifi wrote and sang a song, in the style of Bob Dylan, called "Occupy Wall Street Protest Song," which criticized the protestors for not understanding how well off they are.

Mk2z0h (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

At a glance that doesn't look very notable or well sourced, with the possible exception of Ann Coulter. B——C_ritical 03:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'someone' who removed it was me. A random selection of comments, selected by the contributor, and justified by an edit summary stating that "Multiple reliable sources have pointed out the hypocrisy of wealthy celebrities who protest against the richest 1%, plus other hypocrisies" is clearly intended to make a point, and as such a breach of WP:NPOV. Of course it is appropriate to refer to criticism, but it has to be done in a way that provides context, and the opportunity for counter-arguments. Actually, as much as anything else, this illustrates why 'criticism' sections in articles are problematic, and generally best avoided, and critical commentary interspersed instead with other content. Misplaced Pages is supposed to report events, rather than act as a forum for debating them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the examples were "selected by the contributor" (your words) they cannot be "random" (your word). The reliably sourced criticism of the protestors' hypocrisies is notable. The fact that celebrities in the richest 1% support a protest against the richest 1% is notable. The fact that people protesting against Wall St. support reelection of the candidate who got the most contributions from Wall St. from any candidate, ever, is also notable. These things should be included. Mk2z0h (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well sourced information of this kind could go in the reaction section. It doesn't have to be positive reaction to be included...just properly referenced. If it grows in accordance to MOS it can be re-added. Problematic or not criticism is a reaction. I am unclear what is meant by: "..it has to be done in a way that provides context, and the opportunity for counter-arguments". Can you clarify?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what AndyTheGrump is referring to is context to prose. Misplaced Pages is not a place for random facts. Counter argument might also simply be a reference to the way it is written but not sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Those facts are not "random." Since the protest is against Wall St. and the richest 1%, it is notable that celebrities in the richest 1% support the protest, and that protestors support the reelection of the person who got more donations from Wall St. than any candidate. These facts are not "random." On the contrary, they are relevant and notable. Mk2z0h (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Placement may have everything to do with "Random".--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

resource?

How OccupySF thwarted a police raid 10.27.11 11:15 am San Francisco Bay Guardian by Yael Chanoff 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not for this article. There is an Occupy San Francisco Misplaced Pages article.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important enough to include. If you get enough protesters, the police can't afford to do anything about it. That's important to know. It seems to be related to about 1m00s of the http://vimeo.com/30778727 video someone else wanted to include. How do people feel about the both of them together, as co-sources? Dualus (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Not related to the article subject. User submitted video contains copyright material and cannot be used on Misplaced Pages.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Defining this article. Is it a current event or a movement?

This needs to be discussed before the tag for "Current event" is returned. Let's form a consensus of editors on this. It's a legit question. What are the thoughts of editors?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

co false dichotomy 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; both. Dualus (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems like minutia. But, FWIW, Template:Current indicates: "Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days." In other words, not here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will remove the current event tag. Dualus (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That worked out well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Giving in and making an inappropriate decision does "settle it". It is obviously a current event and the tag is appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Washington Examiner quote under "reactions"

This is introduced as a direct refutation to facts stated earlier in the paragraph. The polls are skewing the questions to get a more positive response. Don't remove it simply because you disagree with it SeanNovack (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

the Washington Examiner expressly has a declared conservative bias, it can't function for that reason as a neutral source, but declared as such, since unlike say Fox readers may not know, shouldn't be a problem. "Refutation" however presumes the truth of such a perspective should instead be rebuttal. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we should cite, or need to cite, a "free daily newspaper" of any kind. If the material is of mainstream interest, it will also be found in mainstream press. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You believe an opinion piece in a free outlet, with a stated editorial biased, with no expertise or claim thereof is enough weight and is neutral? Come on. I definitely support removing that. Dave Dial (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, reliable sources don't have to be completely neutral. Statements made by non-neutral sources are not necessarily questionable. In my opinion, if someone thinks a source is too biased, we can always treat it like any POV, with any opinions/statements being attributed to it, so that people know where the statement came from and can judge for themselves what point of view to believe. As the WP:POV guideline states "opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Peace, MPS (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that content sourced to RS's need not be neutral. But how is this an RS? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to your ardent refusal to allow Media Matters for America using this argument. The source is stated and linked. Are you stating that the facts cited are false? SeanNovack (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If this comment is directed at me, I don't understand what you're saying. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Replaced POV and current event tags, and added deleted material

I replaced the POV and current event tags, and added about 9 kilobytes of deleted material. Dualus (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The material is already reverted as no one but you agreed with its inclusion and you have made no attempt to achieve consensus.

You should plan on actually discussing what NPOV problems you feel the article has if you plan on keeping that tag on the article. This does not mean insert material, tag, walk away for a few days, insert material, tag, repeat. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'm not going to sit here and play reversion-tag with you. I suppose I'll check back later to see if you have made any attempt to justify inclusion or even discuss disputed material with anyone. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussions above and in the archives, and I believe that each restoration is justified. Which of them do you think are not? Dualus (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that's not an attempt to justify inclusion or otherwise work towards consensus. It is, however, what you seem to say every time anyone asks you why material is justified. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you suppose there is a reason that I believe trying to find out which parts you object to is actually a discussion? Dualus (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not when you ignore every objection that is raised, disengage from the discussion and re-insert disputed material, then come back and ask people to repeat the objections. That's simply not how it is done. And, though I have already pointed this out to you, you just keep doing it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And, while you're busy "reviewing the discussions above", why don't you take a crack at answering this question which, much like every other comment made by another user, you ignored? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your universal quantifiers, "every", are incorrect in both instances. Regarding your link to your question, you will note that I have not replaced, "1. connection to the Arab Spring mentioned in intro; 2. recent polls summarized in intro; 3. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the intro; 6. description of the Goals Working Group." I have replaced "4. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the body" and "5. description of 99 Percent Declaration in intro (I believe we may have reached a compromise on this one)" -- what is your objection to them? Dualus (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you identify a single instance in which a single editor engaging in previous discussion expressed agreement with a single piece of the content you just re-inserted in the last half-hour? That would be a tiny, tiny step in the right direction. Do you think it was an accident that all of this material was absent from the article until you resumed your edit-warring? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from the past week, not the past half hour. Dualus (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh — so the answer is "Yes". Well, that certainly settles it! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have I convinced you that it is proper to ask for specifics? Dualus (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What is not specific enough about asking you to show any support whatsoever for any material you have added?? What is not specific enough about asking you to identify source text showing support for material you've included? Has it occurred to you that it's YOUR BURDEN to show the specifics of how a source allegedly supports material you add, especially when it is challenged and extra especially when other editors have read entire sources and found zero support? Has it occurred to you that it's YOUR BURDEN to show that consensus supports the material you add?

It seems that among other things you can't even provide a single example of another editor supporting the material you're inserting. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I can and you know it because you've read them too. Why are your demands for specifics better than mine? Dualus (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it's YOUR BURDEN to demonstrate fitness for inclusion. It's YOUR BURDEN to attempt to garner consensus for material you wish to add. It's YOUR BURDEN to show how sources support the material you want to add. And note that simply saying "i'm right, you're wrong" does not count as showing how a source substantiates the material.

When I start adding material that you dispute and I refuse to offer any justification whatsoever for any of it, you can then demand specifics. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it's my burden to show fitness for material which has already been discussed here on talk and in the archives? Dualus (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it is. See WP:BURDEN. (Never mind, I can't trust you to do that, so I'll quote it here. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.") If you didn't meet the burden before, that doesn't mean you are not required to meet it now simply because there was a previous discussion. You actually have to meet the burden before adding the material. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Right; I met that burden when I discussed the inclusions and responded to the objections to them here on this talk page. You have the burden to say which particular, specific inclusions you think I did not address sufficiently, or which you think are not supported by a consensus. It is not my responsibility to go over each specific part when they are all discussed here on talk already. Dualus (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the very short excerpt of WP:BURDEN that I just posted? Hint: it doesn't say "The burden of typing some stuff at the talk page lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You actually have to show that your edits are supported by sources. Simply linking a source and saying it supports your edit (when it doesn't) does not count, and when other editors read entire sources and find they do not support the material you add, it is not acceptable to simply disengage from the discussion and declare victory; you actually need to make a showing that the source does provide direct support. Nor does "addressing an objection" simply mean "ignoring, rejecting, or simply typing some words in response to an objection and then going ahead and inserting the material anyway". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The sources for each statement were included when they were replaced, after reading and addressing the comments here on the talk page. Unless you make some specific objections, I'm going to move on to other sections. Dualus (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is utter hogwash. You have never "addressed" any objection that was raised. You simply declared that everyone else was wrong—just like you're doing now—and then just inserted whatever text you wanted. And this has already been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you simply keep saying 'I addressed, I addressed, I addressed all the objections'. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You say sources support material, even when they don't. When an editor notices the lack of support, you simply tell them they can't read because the source really does support the material you added. If someone actulaly asks you to show any article text that shows the support you insist exists, you refuse. When objections are raised, you ignore them and then re-insert the same material that is obviously disputed. When someone objects to the re-insertion, you ask what the objections are (again). If anyone points out an objection, you say you "already addressed" it. Long story short, you do whatever you want—because, in your own view and your own words, you are right about everything. Hence no need for input from anyone else.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, it would really help me look for sources or whatever it is you need if you would point to some specific problems. Dualus (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean to say I should rehash every objection you've ignored in every discussion you've disengaged from? That sounds both reasonable and fun. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I knew what to do with disruptive editors such as Dualus. It makes those of us that are sane want to throw in the towel. He has now gone to the "Occupy" protests article, and who knows what others, to spread his BS. He and Plankto have used the same tactic of endless new threads with the same ****, and then complaining that others have not addressed their idiotic rationale point by point. Is there nothing we can do? We all work hard with our edits, but it should be a little fun, too. This crap sure does take all the fun out of it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal: You start telling me what you think is wrong with my edits, and I'll try to do something about it, okay? Dualus (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You aren't in any position to be making "deals". How about, instead, you start abiding by WP policy and don't add things that you know are rejected by everyone else who has discussed the issue?

So, go ahead and do this: remove every bit of material you just added without discussion, and then start a discussion here for each piece of material you wish to add. Then, if there is clear consensus for adding any of it, you can go ahead and add it to the article.

Alternatively, if you think some items of material are already supported by consensus, simply link to the discussion that shows that consensus, and once every can see that you are correct that there was consensus, go ahead and add that material. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not going to pull quotes from sources or above or the talk page archives for you. If you think a statement is unsupported by its sources or there are insufficient editors supporting its inclusion, then it is your responsibility to bring that to our attention here in this section. I haven't made any previous substantial edits to this article for days. Dualus (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is not my responsibility to do any of that, nor would it be practical to do so. How do I prove that the sentence "The moon is made of green cheese" does not appear in War and Peace? I can't, even though it doesn't. How can I prove that there is no needle in a haystack? I can't, even though there isn't. How can I prove that there is NOT a 24-karat gold sculpture of a penis hovering one mile from the surface of the sun? I can't, even though there isn't. These considerations illustrate one of the many reasons why, for example, it's YOUR burden to show how the sources support material, citing specific text if necessary.

By contrast, anyone who wants to make positive proof of any of the above could easily do so, by photocopying the page of War and Peace that contains the sentence "the moon is made of green cheese"; or by digging into the haystack and showing everyone the needle; or by posting a Hubble photograph of the golden-sun-penis. (I already explained this phenomenon to you ... but of course, you ignored it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As above, I met my WP:BURDEN by discussing the included sections here on talk and reviewing those sections when I decided what to include after a few days. If you want me to do anything more than that, you have to start with something, or a list, that you think is actually wrong. I've met my burden; now you meet yours. Dualus (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Good post Centrify! Yes, it is good to have a little fun considering the crap going on here. Whenever an editor says, "Let's make a deal" you know they are coming from an ego level, not a place of finding neutrality. Gandydancer (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If I do say so myself, "24-karat gold sculpture of a penis hovering one mile from the surface of the sun" provided an excellent metaphor for pedagogical purposes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I really want you to tell me where you think the problems are, because every time anyone does, it makes it easier for me to look for sources. Does that make sense? Dualus (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I really want you to show how any of your edits are supported by sources, and unlike what you suggest, that's actually required by WP policy. Why don't you remove them all and then we'll talk about them one by one? You weren't supposed to insert them without discussion or consensus, anyway, so you're already in the wrong. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no reason to do so. Again, specific issues or I'm moving on. This section is absurd and you have raised so few actual objections I would feel completely justified to remove the POV tag. Dualus (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me a list of the Misplaced Pages policies that you feel are applicable to you, so I know not to trouble you with the ones you reject or ignore? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be easier if you tried to use less emotional language. Dualus (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about emotion or use "emotional language" that made it somehow difficult for you to understand what I was saying? Oh, that's right; I didn't. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You think your language here is not emotional? You are using italic, bold, all caps, and penis references. Dualus (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Which parts specifically are problematic? One problem might be "George Will may have been being sarcastic when he said the movement would lead to Republican gains if it advances, so conservatives should rejoice and wish it a long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates." which seems to be WP:OR. B——C_ritical 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I added "may have been being sarcastic when he" to address the previous objections to that inclusion. Dualus (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus is being dishonest here. It was specifically pointed out to him at least 3-4 times by me and another user, in comments that he definitely read, that this material could not be reflected faithfully without committing OR —exactly the OR that Becritical just pointed out. So pretending that this was simply a measure taken "to address the previous objections" is disingenuous at best, but really looks to me more like an outright lie. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You want to take a guess as to whether you convinced me? Dualus (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cough. So you admit you just lied in an effort to mislead another editor regarding a content dispute, giving a supposedly innocent (but knowingly false) excuse for committing exactly the policy violation you were warned about repeatedly in the prior discussion regarding this source written by George Will? Speak into the microphone, please. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if a community sanction ANI would be a good idea at this point? Thoughts please?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Against whom? I would support a very stern reprimand against Centrify for demanding that others pull out quotes from sources and talk pages for him. Dualus (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is unreal. You want me sanctioned for requesting that you live up to a basic duty prescribed to you by core WP policy? You are irrational. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can prove that, perhaps you have a stronger case than a community sanction. If not...just more uncivil accusations from you, building the case that...maybe we need to begin discussing your actions in the proper place.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Above you wrote: "the consensus...which can always (and most often does) change in time....but not always. Anyway...thanks for the civil posts!" Do you think I have not been civil to you? Dualus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't directed at you. Why post it here? Seems extremely dishonest. Why are you manipulating replies to others for your own posts? Clarification is required here or I have no choice but to see this further dishonesty and incivility.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have been uncivil to many here, edit war, accuse editors of anything you can grasp onto and continue to disrupt the article and the talk page. With that said, if others don't feel it is time to take such action then there is no reason as yet to take that route.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources don't match claim

The partial claim "Some protesters have joined..." is not enough to have references, let alone have those references be used to support anything further. However if you add it to the full sentence (which seems less than encyclopedic): "Some protesters have joined Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig's call for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution made at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC." Then we have a problem with references simply not supporting the claim.

• This reference is the "99 Percent Declaration". In reference to this subject, this is what is written:

2. Rejection of the Citizens United Case. The immediate abrogation, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic holding in the "Citizens United" case proclaimed by the United States Supreme Court. This heinous decision equates the payment of money by corporations, wealthy individuals and unions to politicians with the exercise of protected free speech. We, the People, demand that this institutional bribery and corruption never again be deemed protected free speech.

Nowhere in the document does state that "Some protesters have joined Lessig in anything. Reference does not support the claim.

• The article is about Congressman Stephen Lynch at a 'Congress On Your Corner' session. Here is the only mention of the subject:

“I firmly believe that the Citizens United decision—I would support a Constitutional amendment to overturn that decision. Granting citizenships to corporations, which are state-created entities that are immortal—they live forever—greatly diminishes the rights of ordinary citizens. I think it was wrong-headed. I think it was probably the worst decision of my lifetime of the Supreme Court.”

This is a quote from the congressman, not a protester. Reference does not support claim.

• This is a tertiary source and not the actual source which is CNN. The actual information is this:

Hip Hop mogul and progressive activist Russell Simmons told CNN that Occupy Wall Street protestors will remain at Zuccotti Park possibly until Congress passes a constitutional amendment that says “money is going to leave Washington.” “We want the people to control the government, not the corporations and not the special interests,” said Simmons.

It does not say anything of joining Lessig. In fact the article actually states that supporters were yelling at Simmons that he was not one of them. Reference does not support the claim.

• This reference states:

lthough the general anti-corporatism theme of the protest has been reported widely, a more detailed policy aim that seemed to frequently come up in conversation has not. That policy aim is very specific: a constitutional amendment addressing corporate personhood and redefining the role of corporations. I'm baffled that, having come away from one day at OWS with a clear understanding that this policy objective is important to the protestors, it seems to be unnoticed by journalists much more experienced than myself. A constitutional amendment surely is not the only thing the demonstrators want, but there can be no doubt that it is an important part of the early conversation.

Again, no mention of Lessig or the protesters joining his cause. Reference does not support the claim.

• This reference makes something clear. The Amend movement itself came before Lessig's call.

But OWS and its supporters would be wise to take notice of a separate but allied movement that predates them but is also growing: "Move to Amend" which specifically addresses one of OWS's main concerns, "Corporate Personhood."

The article goes further:

Addressing that very demand, "Move to Amend" www.movetoamend.org was formed by a coalition of nonpartisan citizens and organizations in January 2010 in response to the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the FEC, which affirmed corporations as "legal persons" with first and 14th Amendment protections including speech, due process and equal protection.

This article states that protesters joined a different call and not Lessig's.

Original Research and synthesis of information to push Point of View.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Further references were removed. The book reference had no reason to be there. The prose does not mention it by title and the inclusion of the link seemed to simply promote it. The last reference in the sentence from Politico had no mention of any claim being stated.

I want to mention one other thing. In good faith I decided to attempt to reference "Occupy protesters join Lessig call for Constitutional amendment" the top three results were all Misplaced Pages and you can guess from where the information came.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What I am finding is that the Occupy movement has attracted the attention of others including Lessig. This seems like a purposeful attempt to link Lessig in a way that is false and goes against Misplaced Pages policy on claims about living persons. specifically, it claims Lessig as "Ground zero" for the call to amend and the Occupy protest has joined him. Nowhere is this documented and appears to promote Lessig as the center of all of this. False claim of a living person.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Further deletion of material not supported by references and far too much undue weight to this personality synthesized to push POV, or worse simply promote Lessig, his book, his ideals and his website. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this has already been explained to Dualus repeatedly. It's a bit pointless -- he doesn't seem to recognize "No Original Research" as a valid WP policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a source from Slate (or was it Salon?) saying Lessig gives intellectual credibility to the movement. Why is that not adequate support for the quoted passage? Dualus (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You'd think that by now, after starting a half a dozen new threads, you'd be an expert on this, and you can't even remember? Obviously you are only attempting to wear us all down with endless reading, re-reading, posting, and re-posting on the same issue for which you have had no support. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well what are other people's opinions then? It looks good to me. Dualus (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've said quite a few times now, I don't see a problem with using the source which says Lessig lends credibility to OWS to substantiate article material saying Lessig lends credibility to OWS—since, after all, the source actually says that. Using that as a springboard for inclusions based on OR, however, remains unacceptable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

501(c)3

I deleted this from the intro. Can anyone verify it?

In late October, Occupy Wall Street registered for 501(c)(3) status, with the Alliance for Global Justice, a D.C.-based grassroots organization, serving as the movement's fiscal sponsor."(ref>"Money Donated To Occupy Wall Street Brings Much Needed Supplies And Tension" by Lila Shapiro. The Huffington Post. October 24, 2011.</ref>

It's a real HuffPo story but per the reliable source criteria, we would need corroboration if something like that goes in the intro. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything else about it. B——C_ritical 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's probably a prank; just something some smart-ass said to a reporter. We have reliable sources saying the protesters are encouraging that sort of thing, which doesn't make it any easier to edit this article. Dualus (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Source for growth caused by income equality

The International Monetary Fund recently published a timely report showing that income equality causes economic growth. The principal component analysis in its Chart 4 is particularly instructive. Someone should add that to the article. In the "Background" section? Dualus (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we get to add IMF graphics per copyright? B——C_ritical 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I'll check on that. We certainly get to include their images per fair use/WP:NFCC and WP:OI.

This is related to , , and which others have asked be included above. Dualus (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This too. 67.6.179.27 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaand it looks like we get to put this info in the article, since this article links the IMF to OWS] B——C_ritical 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Dualus (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The article does not. Kristoff's opinion piece, already a mark against making it a RS, argues that OWS's feeling of inequality is justified. He then uses the IMF report to show why he agrees with OWS. That's it, folks. There is no reporting - a rare thing in opinion pieces anyhow - of OWS acknowledging the IMF report in any way. Hence no real connection. The editors are trying to use synthesis in this case, and really need to get with the program: we are not a soapbox. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You may think we doubt the truth of that; I don't, but it's synthesis to rely on these sources. Where are the secondary sources that connect the facts to OWS? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The ones posted above -or at least the one I posted- are secondary sources linking the IMF article to OWS. B——C_ritical 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And I would draw attention to this change which others including myself do not agree with. There may be portions of that revert which took out questionable material, but it's not appropriate to revert wholesale when some of the changes were well-sourced. B——C_ritical 01:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note this. B——C_ritical 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reinserted it. Blanking entire well-sourced sections is not appropriate, especially when it's derectly pertinent to the topic. Night Ranger (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I reported it. Thanks (: B——C_ritical 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Be Critical did some forum shopping to settle a content dispute. Besides being slapped down for using the wrong forum, he didn't get all that |much love: You're relying on primary sources outside the topic. Start with the OWS secondary sources you are using first and then show how the secondary sources tie directly into the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Sourced material only goes into the article if there is a consensus that it is relevant and correctly weighted. The fact that it is sourced is a necessary criteria for inclusion, but not a sufficient one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that someone needs to create 99 Percent Declaration and New York City General Assembly if they have not been created already, or at least have them redirect to an appropriate section of an existing article. Dualus (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous has a misunderstanding of OR and SYNTH. I'll explain it once, but I'm not sure that will be enough: When reliable secondary source 1 makes it clear that certain information in reliable source 2 is relevant to the subject of the article, one can use the second source. At any rate, the sources used in the removed text discuss the subject of this article and directly related issues, and they are RS for this article. In addition, if multiple sources support the same text, and you feel one is RS and one is not, that's not reason to remove the text. Please stop taking out this extremely well sourced material. B——C_ritical 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That is oblique. Is "reliable secondary source 12" the Kristoff article? (An opinion piece, not a RS in any case expect to say something like "Kristoff agrees with OWS because...") That stool is on two legs. If not, then what the hell is it number 1? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be specific about your objections? This is one source . B——C_ritical 04:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Geez, would "you please be specific" and throw a dog a bone? What is behind the door labeled "reliable secondary source 1"? And what is it supposed to make clear, beyond the ever so vague "certain information"? I'm done guessing. I imagine I'll then need to repeat a well explained objection. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I just told you one of the sources. Read post above. B——C_ritical 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you could be so helpful so I could know what you were talking about, you would get an answer. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's Kristofff, boy is that lame. Read my above trouncing of that one and pick it up from there. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputed graph of # of news stories: Tea Party vs. OWS

This graph is sourced directly from this blog . At this point, I'm not contesting the number of news stories or his methodology.

I do, however, take issue with labeling 4/15/2009 as "Day 1" of the Tea Party Protests. There were at least 25 protests associated with the Tea Party before Tax Day, the first one starting in January 2009. The blogger, Nate Silver, also writes the following: ::"Unlike the Wall Street protests, however, the Tea Party rallies were a one-day event, and coverage declined thereafter, to an average of 215 media hits per day over the three-week period from April 15 to May 5, 2009." I'm not sure his article was meant to be a in-depth expose', or just posting on some new information quickly for his readers, but even a cursory glance at our very own Misplaced Pages article here -- List of Tea Party protests, 2009 -- would have revealed that there were hundreds of protests in 2009, most of them after Tax Day.

Even if we're allowed to copy Nate Silver's graph essentially verbatim, there's no reason that we Wikipediers can't add some needed context. If the graph is similar when "Day 1" is set to 1/24/2009 or 2/16/2009, then maybe let's keep. Otherwise, I think the graph is trying to tell a story which isn't there.

Oh yeah, a labeled y-axis would be helpful too if someone could generate that. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly what you think the caption(s) should say and I will try to update it. Dualus (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Vet with skull cracked open by tear gas canister turns out to be problem for Oakland police

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/occupy-victory/ Dualus (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The nuetrality of this article needs checking

I am placing this tag today: {{POV-check}} after seeing far too much that can be addressed on my own. There is much that requires checking. My major concern is the use of academics, authors, activists, celebrities and other living persons in a way that may violate Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policies and guidelines. Even as a strong supporter of the Occupy movement I am disturbed by the promotional tone that is near pamphlet like in its prose and references. The use of user submitted video with copyright problems seems to push a point of view without reason in many cases, or very weak explanation and argument to include. Heavy use of images without context to article and only decorative, many from the same photographer/editor that could be seen as POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have begun discussion at Misplaced Pages Noticeboards NPOV, here: --Amadscientist (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have also begun a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, here: --Amadscientist (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article desperately needs to be taken in hand. I don't have time to keep up with the speed and volume of the editing here. Edits made yesterday are buried under pages of future edits, mostly many in a row by the same editor. On a topic this contentious we need to slow it down and remember that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and not a podium for promoting a particular point of view. SeanNovack (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Elliot picture

Hey- I've just received a very nice portrait of Chelsea Elliot, who I am told is "one of the women who was maced early on by Anthony Balogna." I don't know enough about the subject to be able to find a use for the picture, and we do not have an article on her, so I'm throwing it out here. If you can find a use for it, then great; if not, then it's not the end of the world. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice pic but I don't see how we could possibly use it... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I also can't see how we could use it here, but it can be used in the WikiCommons page on OWS. It could also be used in other articles, such as the article on protest art. Get creative. --Cast (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 October 2011: Add to end of first paragraph of 'Occupy Wall Street' section.

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Occupy Wall Street. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

'The 99%' is also the name of a Los Angeles rock group that has released the theme of the 'Occupy' movements: Anthem of the Working Man, which can be seen on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c3qPNcswSQ

Nuggitz (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No chance. Not remotely worthy of inclusion unless given widespread comment in mainstream reliable sources - and it wouldn't be suitable for the lede even then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Progressive stack

This edit replaces a more or less reliable blog post with a Fox News report obviously copied from the Misplaced Pages article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. What exactly do you mean by saying the blog post is "more or less reliable", and why do you say the Fox piece is "obviously copied from the Misplaced Pages article"? And are you suggesting that the blog post is somehow a more reliable source than the Fox piece that quotes it?

Perhaps also take a look at other discussion thread on this topic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have images of the hand gestures used in the General Assembly, from the pdf file at The General Assembly Guide. No copyright information on them, but fair use I think. Any thoughts? User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be especially interested in seeing a piece discussing the methods used to "count" all the jazz hands, if in fact an effort is made to do this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have to be doing the talking to appreciate the effect of The no/disagree hand gesture used at the New York City General Assembly. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

99% and its relation to OWS - and broader issues of wiki-behavior

I've reinserted, and sourced, info about the genesis (within OWS) of the 99 percent declaration and it's lack of official status as an OWS statement. I think it strikes the proper balance, and includes important, encyclopedic sourced info. It could no doubt read better, and I invite thoughtful editing. However, I object to wholesale deleteion and with the degree to which OWS partisans are turning this article into an internecine OWS WP:BATTLEGROUND. We have policies about that here, friends. Unless it's a WP:BLP isue, wholesale reversion of sourced material is out-of-bounds. Please discuss changes that are apt to be controversial on this talk page first and try to achieve, dare I say it in this context, WP:CONSENSUS, which is slightly different from the wiggly finger consensus employed by OWS. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND carefully, so we can turn this page into a first-rate wikipedia article, instead of one more place for a continuing cycle of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If necessary, have a cup of tea. David in DC (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting punch-drunk, but I don't remember you contributing in the lengthy discussion in which we decided to delete this material. Am I wrong? Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

David, I notice you were careful to restore material that is OR and unsupported by any source, as well as material that is based exclusively off of self-published sources other than the article subject. I also notice that the only source that comes remotely close to being a mainstream news outlet ("Business Insider"), is a website founded in 2009 by the CEO of DoubleClick which seems to have a fairly limited reputation— and even that doesn't appear to support the sentence that cites it.

Is it your contention that the only requirement for inserting material into a non-BLP is that at least one footnote appear in the material, irrespective of whether the footnote actually points to a source that is reliable and that supports the material? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's supported by the Business Insider and Juvenile Justice Information Network stories. Both are reliable sources. So is the Guardian blogger, and Kingkade should be quoted because he apparently broke the news about lack of consensus. Dualus (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The footnoted sentence reads:

On October 15, a New York City OWS Demands Working Group published a declaration of demands, goals, and solutions they called the 99 Percent Declaration.

The Business Insider piece mentions absolutely nothing about any "99 Percent Declaration", or that any such document was published by the OWS DWG, or that this publication was on 10/15. In other words, none of the factual content is supported by the source.

The "Juvenile Justice Information Network" piece, meanwhile, is a self-published source.

The Haack source, as I pointed out to you before, does not substantiate the sentence that cites to it:

A Goals Working Group may produce an alternative document.

The source says nothing about any document, let alone some other document that the first document is supposed to be an "alternative" to, or that such a document, if published, might be published by a "Goals Working Group". You also don't suggest why a self-described "underemployed artist and anticorporate activist" who has published a single blog post should be considered a reliable source.

But then, all of this has been said before, and ignored by Dualus, who apparently does not feel he is required to entertain troublesome arguments put forth by others before simply inserting whatever material he'd like. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I followed, but did not participate in, the lengthy discussion Gandy refers to. Subsequent edits by others have made it clear that this discussion DID NOT achieve consensus. Not by a long shot.

I have nothing better to offer than Dualus' evaluation of the WP:RS issue and associate myself fully with that analysis.

Now, for a moment, please back away from this specific bit of business and consider my broader point, about WP:BATTLEGROUNDs and cups of teas. Looking up above, I see my initial post. I see Gandy's reply and query, put both civilly and with a wee bit of conciliatory self-deprecation. I see Dualus practicing that most rare of skills: focusing on the edit rather than the editor. None of his concise analysis can be seen as hostile to ANYONE, nor even to be directed to any single editor. It analyzes the edit and applies WP:RS, in one editor's opinion. The only other contribution above sheds more heat than light. It is conclusory, directed straight at me, and snarky. It also ends with a question of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" nature. Thank you for being at my service, FC. You've made my point, by example, far better than I ever could hope to. David in DC (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The comments you refer to as "concise analysis" contain zero analysis whatsoever and in fact offer nothing in the way of explanation of how those sources supposedly "support" the statements they're appended to (an explanation which has already been requested of Dualus repeatedly, which he has declined to offer, as apparently "not his responsibility".) As I've actually bothered to explain in detail above, those sources don't provide the expected support.

The gist of what you are telling me is that tell me that edits which are based on OR and SPS and highly POV blog stuff and which are even unsupported by those flimsy and possibly inappropriate sources may be made freely, without discussion, or even contrary to objections clearly raised in discussion — yet if any editor wants to remove any such material, he apparently needs to convince the adding editor that there are serious defects in the material. You then proceed to (apparently) accuse those around you of inappropriate behavior for contesting such deplorable editing in the first place. You then complain that my incredulous response is "snark" when it simply points out the problems with the content as well as the absurd consequences of the policy interpretation you put forth? Pardon me if I have trouble making sense of this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, User:Factchecker_atyourservice, who, for some reason edits here under the Nom de Plume Centrify, posts two minutes after me, puts the post ABOVE mine, and proceeds to amplify my point with attacks on Dualus, all in one swell foop. Then I get the same treatment in a post BELOW my own. I'm an FC/Centifical sandwich. Talk about "atyourservice". Thanks, colleague. David in DC (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the gist of what I'm saying is please stop hyperventilating and have a cup of tea. David in DC (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, ever hear of an edit conflict? My comment was a direct response to Dualus's comment that "It's supported by the Business Insider and Juvenile Justice Information Network stories." Your own comment was in response to me, not Dualus, and so i don't see any reason why it needs to appear immediately below his comment. I didn't see how any confusion or pain would result if my own comment, which I was apparently typing at the same time as yours judging by the edit conflict, was placed immediately under the comment it was responding to. Is there really some problem that this re-threading created? I also fail to see how detailing problems with Dualus's edits constitutes a personal attack. Your last comment, meanwhile, seems to have zero to do with resolving this dispute, or anything to do with the article really. Just calling me a dick (for thinking articles should track sources and avoid OR, apparently) and quibbling about seemingly innocuous comment re-threading, my username, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we've passed the "cup of tea" stage long ago and are at the "need a good stiff drink" stage. If you actually read the discussion you know that it was decided that Kingkade is not an acceptable ref for our article. Period. Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Back on the subject of actually resolving this dispute, is there some reason this material cannot be sourced to actual mainstream news sources and written without any OR? And if it can't, why are we including it? I mean, this seems to be the most widely covered subject in the news since the weeks after Bin Laden was killed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Believe me I tried! I wanted to include it but it never made it beyond a Huff Post blogger. Gandydancer (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very easy to find reliable sources for the 99 Percent Declaration. Does anyone have any objections to , , , , , or ? Dualus (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear why you've insisted on keeping the marginal and self-published sources if mainstream ones are available. Regardless, since you provide no text or summaries I'll have read the entirety of each source to discover what each supports. I guess I'll do that tomorrow? But I'll say that if the sources are mainstream and actually directly support the material that cites them, I will have no objection. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was not aware of the Mother Jones article _- I should think that it would be acceptable to use with a mention of the list. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource, regarding the United States presidential election, 2012

Presidential Candidates? Few Are the 99 Percent ... "As Occupy Wall Street turns a spotlight on income disparity in America, most of the presidential candidates find themselves on the wealthy side ..." October 29, 2011 by SHAILA DEWAN on page A10 and A13 of The New York Times 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about CoI

I know there's been a bit of a hoopla in the past about Congressional aides "improving" articles for PR purposes. I have no doubt that the exact same problem exists with this article, where some of the content has been written by people involved in the movement. Fairly recently, there was a topic-specific CoI addendum written for medical articles (WP:MEDCOI). Would it be worthwhile to have a similar sort of essay for political movements? Misplaced Pages's coverage of politics has always been dubious because of the types of people who edit Misplaced Pages, and while it's not as bad as a certain other politically motivated encyclopedia project I won't name, this is a serious issue that undermines our ability to claim that we are a neutral source. This article (well, topic) in particular concerns me since it openly involves internet activism, and Misplaced Pages, by nature, is susceptible to internet activism. SDY (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's a basic and inescapable fact of Misplaced Pages that many articles are edited mostly by people involved in, or with a sympathetic bias towards, the article subject. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Given my history with a few articles (e.g. HIV/AIDS, Bill O'Reilly), I wouldn't say it's necessarily a sympathetic bias, but I know what you mean. The MEDCOI essay tries to encourage various types of biases towards their expertise so that we can make use of the knowledge and experience of these editors who are connected to the topic, but it also identifies what not to do. Given the Congressional precedent, where there's a concern that Misplaced Pages is being used as a political tool, we should really set out some ground rules, even if we don't religiously follow them, on what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. I for one came to this article hoping for a neutral summary that would give me a better understanding (i.e. trying to figure out if the portrayal by the media was accurate), and instead found a puff piece that looks more like a political pamphlet than an encyclopedia article. SDY (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint. Could you make some suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is the article sometimes gets into proving a point, rather than simply stating the point that others are trying to make. This is an example of content that I would strongly urge people actively involved in the protest to leave to other users who are a little less passionate about the topic, because it can rapidly go to WP:OR. It's especially hard here, since it's not a clear cut "we want this one thing and then we'll be happy." The people actively involved, however, will be knowledgeable about things like how the camps work, what locations are active or inactive, etc... The thing that WP:MEDCOI has going for it is there are naturally a lot of people interested, but interested from different areas of expertise (e.g. practicing doctors have part of the answer, researchers another, people with illnesses another, etc...) and it may be a challenge splitting out the groups in the same way. SDY (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is possible that those of us with high edit counts have lost perspective and become unaware of flaws, however all things considered such as finding acceptable sources, fast moving topic, length of article, disruptive editors, and of course the usual political bias, it seems a reasonably good article to me. It has not been my impression that any of us are actually at the park, as well. So it would really be helpful if you could be more specific and point out what you see as problems with the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Specific issues include, but are certainly not limited to:

• Arrests counted as "casualties." The template is more suited to a civil war, not a protest movement, and the movement is intended to be non-violent. This kind of absolutism is typical for activists overstating the intensity of the conflict. I can only think of one casualty off the top of my head, and that was in Oakland and very recent.
• "Background" section appears to be more interested in justifying the protests than documenting the protests. We have an article on income inequality in the US, and this is not it.
• Extensive quotations are out of place in an encyclopedia article. Misplaced Pages has always been loose on this, but part of the job of an editor is to summarize, not sensationalize.
• Statements like "first anti-authoritarian populist movement in the United States" as claimed by one person imply that the movement is new or, ahem, revolutionary on the historical stage and comes across as self-important puffery. These kinds of protests have been common throughout US history, the veterans march during the Great Depression an obvious parallel and the recent WTO protests painfully obvious as a related phenomenon. Cited, sure, but verifiability is necessary but not sufficient.
• The "We are the 99%" section in the background does not include the very common complaint that some who are in the 99% as described strongly disagree with the protests for a variety of reasons. It also immediately falls down into more WP:SYN of trying to prove the worthiness of the cause.
• The "demands and goals" section is controversial, as above, and while I haven't read through the sources, it should be quite obvious to the reader that a majority of secondary sources have substantial difficulty identifying demands or goals from the protests. The claim that it has a "coherent message" is dubious, as the only coherent message I've seen, as with the Tea Party before it, is anger and frustration, but I've mostly been reading CNN and BBC and they're more "it bleeds it leads" when it comes to these stories. It states that Adbusters is trying to give a coherent aim, but is there any secondary source on how successful they've been? I haven't seen the coherence in any of the external sources I've read, and I was hoping to get a better sense of it here. The linked sources are very, very brief (e.g. one-page interviews), and there's no sense of a manifesto or documented complaint. That the "stakes are much higher" is another quote that struck me as puffery, of course she thinks it's important.

TLDR:

• Overstates intensity of conflict and the novelty of the movement.
• Argues points instead of documenting positions.
• Makes statements about coherence of movement that are not consistent with any other coverage I've seen.

I started skimming after reading the first two sections, because I didn't think the article was going to provide the kind of information I was looking for, but the "international responses" which are 100% positive and supportive also struck me as... dubious. SDY (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide movement

The last line in the second paragraph is totally wrong, as the Occupy protest haven't modeled in 900 cities worldwide, most of those 900 cities were influenced after the 15M movement in Spain, not Occupy Wall Street. - Pencil (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Per http://inquiringminds.cc/15oct-events-all-over-the-world-how-it-was-done-1-039-events-in-87-countries we are over a thousand now. Can someone please verify that with traditional news sources? Dualus (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo for week 5

I thought this photo might be suitable for Occupy_Wall_Street#Week_5_.28October_15.E2.80.9321.29. The photo itself, subject, and quote have all become notable. See Conor Friedersdorf. Here's a link to the reference in the photo. Adam Clark Estes and Dino Grandoni, “Another Public Radio Freelancer Gets the Ax Over Occupy Wall Street”, The Atlantic, October 28, 2011

Any seconds for including it?--Nowa (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd oppose it, too much of a WP:COATRACK for the quote. The article is a record of the protest, not publicity for the protests or their messages. SDY (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Better?--Nowa (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The photo is the problem, not the caption. SDY (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the concern the message that is visible in the sign or something else?--Nowa (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The photo is the sign. Basically, if we want to include text, we should include text. Photos of text are just silly. SDY (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please include per WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Which mutual funds invest most and least closely in the protesters' goals?

I was looking through http://www.afscme.org/news/press-room/press-releases/2010/barclays-northern-state-street-and-vanguard-top-list-of-mutual-funds-enabling-excessive-ceo-pay and it occurred to me that I have no idea where to find a list of mutual funds targeting investments from the protesters. It's the financial district. Do any of the financial conglomerate offer a mixed and balanced socially responsible credit union fund to try to get customers off the rebound from http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/? Is anyone else offering socially responsible investments specifically tailored to the 99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference truth-out was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference peoples-contract was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference uprising was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference prophet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Occupy Wall Street Could be Disaster for Democrats, Commentary magazine, October 4, 2011
6. This Is What a Mob Looks Like, by Ann Coulter, Human Events, October 5, 2011
7. The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street, celebritynetworth.com, October 11, 2011
8. Remy's Occupy Wall Street Protest Song, Reason magazine, October 10, 2011
9. Occupy Wall Street gets a theme song ... sort of, AFP, October 11, 2011
10. Will, G.F. "George Will: ‘Occupy' is good news for conservatives" Orange County Register
11. Adam Clark Estes and Dino Grandoni, “Another Public Radio Freelancer Gets the Ax Over Occupy Wall Street”, The Atlantic, October 28, 2011

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Mid-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates