Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Becritical (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 29 October 2011 (→501(c)3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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. You 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)

100,000 protest figure

I removed the 100,000 protest number. It only seems to be liked to a Nate Silver article on the protests. I have found no other Main Stream Media organization reporting on this number. The other cited source, which was The Nation magazine, did not list the number at 100,000. The article even says the number is most likely 100,000. He more or less says that he is guessing and that is unscientific. I do not thing the facts support the number enough to be included. If any other organization had reported than yes, but a simple google search does not show this number listed anywhere else except a few blogs which link to Nate Silvers Times article.

Best,

--Andy0093 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If a WP:RS says it, we can include it. The NYT is a WP:RS. He describes his methods, estimates 70,000, and then says it's probably an underestimate, and ups it to 100,000. He doesn't call it a guess. He doesn't say it's unscientific. He calls it an estimate. That's what we should say -- the total was probably 100,000, according to an estimate by Silver. --Nbauman (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This was already objected to, discussed, and decided. The decision was to include the 100,000 figure. I intend to replace it. Dualus (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussed? Please, you discussed with one editor and then declared yourself the winner over their objections. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is baloney. This is only one source. Not one other person in the media has reported it as 100,000. NOT ONE OTHER SOURCE. Find me other sources saying this is 100,000 people. No it is not scientific, and no it shouldn't be included. This is the estimate of one man, who is a blogger for the NYT politics blog. Not one other source has put this at 100,000. To include it would be incredibly inappropriate. --Andy0093 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the estimate that Silver made was 70,000 with the opinion that it may have been as high as 100,000 and a confirmed (from news report estimates) of 38,000. The 100,000 number is by no means a scientific estimate. It is a guess, possibly an educated guess, but a guess nontheless. Arzel (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You can question the statistical acumen of Nate Silver all you want, but New York Times blogs almost always pass the reliable source criteria. Ask on WP:RSN if you don't believe me. Dualus (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat this. Silver did NOT make a statistical estimate of 100,000. He made an estimate of 70,000. He guessed that the total may have been as high as 100,000. There is a clear difference between the two. You will need more than this one source to make that statement. Furthermore, if every negative story about OWS needs a magnitude of multiple RS's for inclusion than fluffery needs more than 1. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I was fixing to say the same about the "discussion" that went on on the other page. The NYT's source may well be reliable but it is still 1 source. Like I said most about the media reported it in 30,000-50,000 range and no 1 else said 100,000. In the article he even says it may be as high as 100,000. There shouldn't even be a debate here. Common sense says not to include it. C'mon guy, you know this isn't credible.

--Andy0093 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RS source linking Ravi Batra to OWS movement

Finally, a RS that meets the criteria demanded to explicitly link Ravi Batra to the Occupy Wall Street movement:

1. Fort Worth Weekly, ""Rising Up: A lost generation finds its place in North Texas protests — and in the fast-spreading Occupy movement". Oct. 19, 2011:

"The uprising comes as no surprise to Southern Methodist University professor Ravi Batra. In his 1978 book The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism, the economist predicted that Soviet communism would die out by the turn of the century and 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.” People may have laughed then, but they aren’t laughing now".

2. Kathleen Wells radio show (Loma Linda, CA) where she interivews Ravi Batra about Occupy Wall Street.,

3. CNN Ireporter (national)

This is in line with my gut feeling that as it is only "early days for the OWS movement" Batra's contribution is bound to eventually to emerge. It now has. Of course, this means the entry is going in. Here is the proposed quote:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written 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. In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".

The question now remains where the entry on Batra should be placed in the article. So far, it has been proposed that it can go in the Background section or Celebrity support section.Plankto (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not been able to establish that Batra would be considered a celebrity. You also have not established that he has such a close relationship to the background of the movement that he rates being included in an article which must include only the most outstanding elements/people/ etc. Due to the necessity to keep the length of the article within bounds we simply can not list every person that has predicted that we are headed for hell in a hand basket, so as to speak, if we don't change some basic ideas about how to manage the problems we now face. Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not a fair assessment by Gandydancer. As someone remarked above, 'to be or not to be' a celebrity inovles a subjective assessment and is thus hard to establish. It is however clear that within the ambit of this article, Ravi Batra is a celebrity, even a historical figure. Presently the article mentions the likes of Cornel West, Slavoj Žižek, Tom Chapin, David Amram, John Carlos, David Graeber, Chris Hedges, Stéphane Hessel, Jeff Madrick, Jimmy Wales and Richard D. Wolff. It is doubtful that they should be considerdd more notable than Batra when it comes to the subject matter of this article. Aside from that, let's not lose sight of the fact that the main objection to the entry, to establish a RS for the link has now been resolved. In view of the fact that Gandydancer continues to stonewall the placement of the entry in the article despite all the demands put up now having been met, other editors are asked to comment.Plankto (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Plankto's attempt to answer valid objections. Because such a good faith attempt to reshape consensus should be taken seriously, when I have a moment in a day or two, I will look at the links and chime in. I hope other do the same. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion that I have stonewalled the placement of this information is absurd. I have repeatedly posted on this subject - that is not stonewalling, rather it is trying again and again to try to discuss the inclusion in the article. However discussion with Plankto by both myself and other editors has amounted to going over the same ground over and over again. For instance, Plankto continues to suggest that some of the "celebs" that are listed are no more notable than Batra. I'd agree with him there, however he has refused to accept the possibility of adding Batra to the list of those mentioned but have no copy, such as Wales and others. As for West, his presentation at the protest was covered by dozens of major news outlets. And as already mentioned, Žižek, who appeared very early to speak at the protest, is not widely known in the U.S., but is well-known world-wide. But I've said all this before, perhaps several times, but Plankto does not comment on it, he only continues to bring it up at a further date as though it's a new argument. After all this discussion Plankto is not willing to include his name in the list of those without copy but insists that he have copy even though he has gained mention only on the Thom Hartman Show, Truthout, and a few other minor outlets. In fact, he insists that he have more copy than any of the other celebs we have included. Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer has now conceded the point that Batra is no less notable than the people covered. However, it is not enough for him that I've established with RS that Batra has a) written national and international best sellers about how growing wealth disparity produces financial crises, b) been covered in national and international newspapers for his achievement, c) been awarded both medals of foreign legislatures and the IgNoble price for his predictions, d) predicted there would be an uprising against crony capitalism, or the influence of the rich over politics, following a financial crisis, e) popularised the concept of the "share of wealth held by the richest 1%" in the 1980s, f) written a letter on Truthout aimed at the OWS movement to support and guide it, g) had his ideas disseminated on the unoffical OWS web site, h) recently been interviewed on radio nationally syndicated radio shows (Thom Hartman and Kathleen Wells) about his relation to the OWS movement, and i) recently been featured in Fort Worth Weekly for his relevance to the OWS movement. And for this Batra should receive mention without copy along with e.g. singers and actors supporting the movement?Plankto (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to urge caution in being combative while trying to change a settled consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Patience is being tested as your vomiting comment above also reveals. I suggest a bold solution.

• 1) In background section, at the end.

  The theory that growing ecomomic inequality may cause depressions has been described in the works of Ravi Batra (1985) and Robert Reich (2010). Batra popularised the use of the term "share of wealth held by richest 1%" in this regard.

• 2) In the celebrity section, after the entry for Slavoj Žižek.

  Ravi Batra, who predicted "a coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos" in a 2007 book, has written 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.

Hope you see the logic in this solution. Plankto (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What is a celebrity? Is that question.......or is the real question whether the header is simply...badly worded. How about that as a starting point towards agreement. Is celebrity the right term for this or should it be more appropriately titled as simply..."Notable personalities"? What's the thoughts on this?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to insert the proposed changes, to see them in the context of the article. Now, if there are valid objections, please state them and revert.Plankto (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't revert, but I still feel that Batra does not belong in the Background section because he has not played an active role in creating the OWS movement. However, I will remove this sentence:

"Batra popularised the use of the term "share of wealth held by richest 1%" in the 1980s."

because the reference used does not say anything of the sort. Bowmerang (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bowmerang, your lack of knowledge of the subject matter is impelling me to dig ever deeper. If only all this evidence had any effect on your view. For instance, on page 32 in the book The Future of Value Inquiry by Tuija Takala in 2001 it says: "Ravi Batra has verified this empirically by pointing out, that during the post World War II years, the 'share of wealth possessed by the richest 1 percent of the population of the United States has increased steadily from 20.8 in 1949 to a high of 34.3 percent in 1983".. A 2009 story about Ravi Batra in Fort Worth Weekly cites this term. On a blog, the unequal distribution of wealth, as measured by this concept, is stated in reference to the active suppression of major news outlets of this information in the past - citing Batra's #1 best seller. As mentioned above, Batra's 1985 and subsequent books have focused heavily on this concept. The important fact here is that one of the books was a national #1 best seller, another reached the #5 spot. On Misplaced Pages RS and other rules are intended as guides to verify facts. However, an emphasis is also placed on common sense representation, or sound judgement, of the verifiable facts. To say that Batra popularised this concept is such a verifiable statement. Plankto (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The long debate about the merits of the Ravi Batra entry has been successfully concluded based on a demonstration of the facts - and despite considerable objections by a number of editors who simply didn't know about or like his work. It has been shown that his life's work, to argue that growing wealth inequality, measured as the wealth held by the richest 1 percent, produces speculative manias and depressions, which in turn results in a revolution against the influence of the wealthy in politics, so-called crony capitalism, is closely allied with the raison d'etre of the OWS movement. This has been demonstrated through reference to his writings and coverage in the media or in other books, convincingly satisfying WP:RS. Batra not only has significant relevance to the existence and language of the movement, but he has also written an article aimed at the movement. This message, it has been shown, is now being discussed within the movement. These facts unambiguously qualify an entry about this writer in the article, alongside other notable voices being mentioned and described.Plankto (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That is absurd. Any editor with two brain cells can see that there has never been consensus for including such a lengthy and self-serving paragraph about Ravi Batra. Bowmerang (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, some other editors will get involved to assess the legitimacy of the arguments for and against the following entry.

Ravi Batra, who predicted "a coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos" in a 2007 book, has written 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.

Is it really lengthy or self-serving? It is all factual.Plankto (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The reference to Batra in the Background section has been deleted due to a lack of direct link to OWS. I therefore propose the following rewrite such that the entry is based on RS establishing three separate direct links of the subject to the OWS movement, for the Celebrity section.

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”.

That's pretty much it.Plankto (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity and artist involvement

We should have a separate section from 'Celebrity reaction' called 'Artist support' for artists such as musicians, actors/actresses, and writers who are supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Let's start a list:

• Wilco, Bun B, Die Antwoord, David Banner, Jeff Tweedy, and more support Occupy Wall Street.
• Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk Hotel played a small unannounced solo acoustic best-of set.
• Regina Spektor, Jack Dishel, and Tennessee Thomas were at the Times Square protest, along with some other Brooklyn-based indie anti-folk musicians attended or are supporting OWS.

Please add to this list. Krishyanity (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Pete Seeger, grandson Tao Rodriguez Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, composer David Amram, and bluesman Guy Davis performed at OWS. Krishyanity (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but this kinda violates WP:UNDUE and you're better off creating a WP:LIST or maybe a private blog or something? I think your ambition is admirable, but such a proposal might be shunned by other editors of this article. We'll see what other editors recommend? 완젬스 (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It could be in prose or list. I think a list with references that clarify involvement would be the way to go. I'm taking cues from the Barack Obama endorsements page. Maybe we should split off the participants section into its own page? Krishyanity (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, if you can make it in prose, then I think the article will be more fully developed. Don't just "name names" but try to say what the person did, specifically if they donated money or gave a speech or drew positive attention. Give an account of each celebrity, with what they did, and yes! I'll help you out any way I can after you get started, especialy make sure everything has a reference so it doesn't get deleted without discussion. 완젬스 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How about an article List of famous Occupy Wall Street supporters? Some of my references are wall posts and photos from artists on facebook. I don't have the ability to edit this article and I'd like others to contribute as well. Krishyanity (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Trust me you're about to learn "bandwagon effect" which means once you begin doing the work, others will volunteer more eagerly because their work is on top of someone else's work. That way nobody stands around waiting for someone to take the first step! Bystander effect I suggest start with both, but leaning slightly in favor of keeping only the "best newsworthy" events from celebrities into the article (but avoid WP:NOTNEWS) while facebook posts, and twitter, should go onto list first, but try to cite reliable sources which can back up the fact celebrities, generally speaking, are supportive through the social media outlets. (if this sounds confusing, it is, wikipedia has so many policies to memorize, but that's where i'll help answer any/all questions you have). Get started and I'll help offer guidance in any way that i can. 완젬스 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's your advice? Should I start the List of notable Occupy Wall Street supporters page? How exactly should I "get started" when I don't have the authority to edit this article? Krishyanity (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it for you. ;-) I look forward to growing OWS and increasing its presence on Misplaced Pages--it's a shame so much merging is going on--makes me doubt people know how big this thing really is. Anyways, no more chit chat, it's time to let it begin! 완젬스 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit-power and the star. =) Okay, I added an "Artist reaction" section and moved the musicians out of the "Celebrity reaction". I think we may need to re-organize the article and rename the reaction to support, maybe even split the famous supporters and participants into its own article as I proposed earlier. The list of "Other celebrities/artists supporting the OWS movement are" at the end of both sections needs to be expanded and broken up into their own sentences if possible. It's a start. Krishyanity (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the artist section and agree it is needed however I changed the section header to Artist Participation for now. "Reaction" would assume an either direction sort of thing and right now it looks to be strictly about support at the moment. Doesn't mean it isn't the intention of the editor who created it to go that direction, simply that it isn't there yet. For reaction, I would LOVE to see someone find a reliable source stating Arturo Di Modica's reaction to the protests.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I liked it too, however an editor that does not believe in discussion first has reverted the section. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm disappointed about that. There are so many musicians who are supporting this movement. It would be a pity and a shame not to document the musical side of this movement, as with every generation's protest. But let's not lose heart or hope. I'll start List of notable Occupy Wall Street supporters (as per 완젬스's suggestion) soon (and if I haven't already, feel free to start it - but I wanna make sure that it has a good start so it's not auto-deleted) and we can focus our efforts on that list. Krishyanity (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Was anything deleted by this? Or was it just rearranged? Dualus (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just rearranged. More and more musicians are participating and getting involved, so I think we would benefit from having different sections for writers, musicians, intellectuals, etc, instead of using "celebrities" or famous people of the catch-all term to group them all together. Krishyanity (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources saying the protesters want a constitutional amendment

Here are some sources which I have sorted roughly by those appearing most to least reliable to me based on the WP:RS criteria. Where would you personally draw the line on inclusion?

1. Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) "What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want — Constitutional amendment on corporations is a starting point" Psychology Today
2. Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) "Lynch Shares Views on 'Occupy' Movement" Needham, Mass. Patch
3. Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) "Russell Simmons: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want Constitutional Amendment" Mediaite
4. McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" NewsTimes.com
5. Tankersley, J. (October 23, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street's Marketing Crisis: What Would an OWS Brand Look Like?" The Atlantic
6. and are likely not suitable for inclusion, except as primary sources in support or as examples of secondaries

In light of these sources, are there any remaining objections to including the calls for a constitutional amendment in the article? Dualus (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The first source cited is a self-described blog which says, "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." IOW a source that fails rs and weight, and says that an issue has been ignored by rs is being used as a reason to include something. TFD (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "IOW" mean? A blog by an established writer working for an organization with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy still counts as a reliable source, but I would be happy to include other sources first, as more reliable, and this one merely for background material and the reporting it includes. Are there any objections to any of the other sources? Dualus (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IOW means in other words. See WP:RS - blogs are only reliable sources for the opinions of their authors. But the main issue is WP:WEIGHT. You have a source that says an issue has been ignored by the mainstream, which means we should also ignore it. It is not our role to correct the weight that mainstream sources provide to aspects of topics, but to reflect the weight they provide. TFD (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think this bears repeating: "It is not our role to correct the weight that mainstream sources provide to aspects of topics." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is that from? Dualus (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly obvious implication of WP:V and WP:NPOV. We don't second-guess mainstream thought on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 25 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)

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)

twitter as a source?

In the October 1st Chronology section, a twitter message from a protester is used as a source. How is a message on twitter a reliable source for an encyclopedia. I went to the footnote (#239) given for that quote and clicked the link that goes to an article in the Guardian. Nowhere in the article did I find that quote. This is not reliable or verifiable and shouldn't be in a Misplaced Pages article. DaffyBridge (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw that last night as well but didn't have a chance to read the reference. The unsupported claim and false reference should be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from this diff, the claim was perfectly well-sourced when I added it. Not sure how or why this was changed to a different Guardian ref that didn't support it. Perhaps it was an accident. I restored the statement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 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)

Deletion of description and source of the Goals Working Group

Is the deletion of:

The Goals Working Group may produce an alternative document.ref name=haack>Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian</ref>

justified? Unless someone can come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be in the article, I intend to put it back in. Our readers deserve to know that the Goals Working Group is still working on an alternative to demands. Dualus (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you bring this up, what was the reason it was deleted so we can judge?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer said it didn't support the statement. I am sure it does. Dualus (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we hold off on this a bit to allow editors the chance to read the reference in full. I for one need dinner. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, when you say "you're sure" the source supports the text that was in the article, what exactly do you mean? The footnoted text read, "The Goals Working Group may produce an alternative document." I just read the entire source and I didn't see anything about any document, let alone a document that is an alternative to some other document.. it sounds like some guy went to some meetings with a group and stopped going to meetings after some people wanted to invite other people to come in and vote on some unspecified ideas and he didn't think it was sufficiently egalitarian to invite specific people in for a vote. I know you think it's some kind of insult to ask for a quotation, but I am getting sick of reading entire articles you can't even bother to summarize and still coming away from it without knowing what the hell you mean.

Also, FWIW, this being a factual claim, I'm not entirely sure we should rely on an apparent blog piece by an "unemployed artist and anticorporate activist" which, though it is hosted on a media project run by The Guardian, doesn't seem like it is subjected to the full editorial and fact-checking process of the source—nor does it seem the author actually speaks for OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Which Guardian bloggers have failed the reliable source criteria? Dualus (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer my question? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think I had not? Dualus (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You obviously did not answer my question since I just told you I read the entire source, and saw nothing whatsoever supporting the text you inserted, and asked you to explain why you feel it does support the text... and you made no effort to answer that question. Hence why I asked you again to answer the question. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It did not support the claim at all. I have changed the information to reflect what the author says and nothing more.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not go far enough. The closest thing the entire section has to a reliable source is a 75-word piece by Business Insider, an online-only source founded in 2009, which only substantiates that OWS has a "Demands Working Group" that has proposed a list of demands which that group claims has been "ratified" by OWS, whatever that means, and that there may be other "working groups". The rest is all blogs and self-published stuff.

From the beginning, OWS has been almost universally described in the MSM as being leaderless and having no official set of demands. Thus this material, which implies both an organized leadership and demands that have some sort of "official" capacity, is one of those extraordinary claims that require extraordinary sources... yet it's being presented here without even ordinary sources.

I deleted this subsection as failing WP:V. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be best. I did what I could to use the references in the manner specified by MOS for opinion pieces and in doing so, feel it illustrated the over use of blogs and the attribution of each author is undue weight to that particular subject. Consensus appears to be for it's exclusion at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 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)

Proposed replacement

I propose to revert these two edits and replace the following information 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>xref name=lopez>Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider</ref>ref>ref name=haack>Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian</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>

The proposed revert would also restore the mention of 100,000 US protesters on October 15, which has been discussed twice above with an apparent consensus to include. Specific objections? Dualus (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight, possible POV pushing and promotional.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And no consensus from editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it's undue weight? It's the only working draft put forth. And, as your own sources have established, it's the most controversial aspect of the movement, so it belongs in the introduction per WP:LEAD. Dualus (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You can continue to state your case in the exact same manner and I will simply state over and over that you have established nearly nothing with all that but a few facts about a possible event from a single document that has not transpired as yet. Undue weight, POV pushing and promotional.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, why is it POV pushing, then? I didn't come up with the document. It's not my perspective. The movement is going to publish stuff and editors are going to have to deal with that in this article. Saying it's POV pushing doesn't make it true. According to WP:NPOV we need to include both sides, including the protesters and their detractors. Dualus (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are writing that from the single point of view of the writer and not quoting the authors of Opinion pieces per MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Dualus (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are also attempting to PUSH the 99 Percent Declaration to the front of references for what apear to be promotional reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you attempting to hide it? You've removed it from the intro without discussion again, too. Per WP:PRIMARY we are allowed and encouraged to use a primary source to support the fact that it exists and is published. If you try to hide the movement's publications, then you are the one who is violating WP:NPOV by trying to hide the most significant viewpoint. Dualus (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! That's exactly why a primary source can and should be cited to show that it exists and is published. To try to exclude it violates NPOV because you exclude the most significant viewpoint. Dualus (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(Edit:It doesn't say that) Again you add more weight to the argument that you are POV pushing by referring to your information as "the most significant viewpoint".--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not my phrase, it's from "all significant viewpoints" in WP:NPOV. Dualus (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Suuuuure and you are using it to push your point of view that it is the most significant viewpoint and have not established it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a publication from the article's subject. What viewpoint could be more significant in the article? Dualus (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's basicly a self published Google webpage and not really a site. It could also be seen as a "fringe" group with no true affiliation or a document that is not part of the main group. Is there a source that can show this as being published by the OWS official site. Why isn't it on their website?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not even a google "webpage". It's a google doc. Anyone can upload anything start a group purporting to be anything. I could upload my own "99% declaration" and link it here and say it's from OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

More deletion without discussion

I am certain that these deletions do not have any semblance of consensus. Whether or not they do, I am also certain that the specific objections concerning them have all been addressed. Are there any reasons to the contrary? Dualus (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons that there may be specific objections about those passages which have not yet been addressed, or any reasons that there are multiple people supporting the deletions taken as a whole? Dualus (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

All been covered before.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and nobody had any remaining specific objections before, either. I ask so I can figure out what sources I need to find to address outstanding issues. It's easy when the goal is to improve the encyclopedia. People trying to push viewpoints run in to trouble that I don't have. Dualus (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't even addressed the way you are manipulating blogs and opinion pieces against MOS and made no attempt to correct it.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to get the most reliable sources, along with the less reliable sources which have broken news. I don't understand what that would have to do with the Manual of Style. Can you please be more specific? Dualus (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Started too many discussions on this page that you now don't seem to remember all of what has been discussed. See previous discussions.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the items you claim were "deleted without discussion", i.e. the supposed "alternative document" by the "demands working group", had an entire section devoted to it above. Looking at the other deletions, it appears every single one was a disputed matter under discussion on the talk page. It would probably help if you participate in those discussions instead starting a new one that inexplicably complains about lack of discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You honestly think that the Business Insider is the most reliable of all the sources you deleted? How long have you been familiar with the WP:RS reliable source criteria? Dualus (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice this doesn't respond to my comment. And why does it matter how long I've been familiar with WP:RS? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Second inequality graph inserted without discussion in inexplicable location; removed

We now have a second graph on income inequality, which seems to have been inserted without any discussion (and its removal reverted by Dualus); and for no apparent reason, it seems to be listed in the "celebrity reactions" section. What gives? I removed this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see #File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion above. Dualus (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comments above. They don't seem to explain why we need two inequality graphs, one of them in a bizarre location. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for above

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Regular economic cycles : money, inflation, regulation and depressions, Venus Books, 1985 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
3. http://www.truth-out.org/occupy-wall-street-movement-and-coming-demise-crony-capitalism/1318341474. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
4. Cite error: The named reference bullnotbull was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference truth-out was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Pitchfork article http://www.pitchfork.com/news/44353-wilco-bun-b-die-antwoord-david-banner-more-support-occupy-wall-street/
7. captured on LiveStream http://www.youaintnopicasso.com/2011/10/04/jeff-mangum-playing-at-occupy-wall-st-watch-it-live/
8. Facebook wall post http://www.facebook.com/reginaspektor/posts/10150317672311389
9. NPR - Pete Seeger Joins NYC Protests http://www.npr.org/2011/10/22/141615823/pete-seeger-joins-nyc-protests

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)

resource

In Zuccotti Park by Michael Greenberg in the The New York Review of Books November 10, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal resource

rotests Present Dilemma for Democrats; Views of Some Occupy Wall Street Demonstrators May Turn Off Moderates Party Seeks to Attract 25.October.2011 by Douglas Belkin in Chicago, Tamara Audi in Los Angeles and Danny Yadron in Washington, D.C. in the WSJ. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 25 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)

Information in lede and perhaps references must be in body of article

It is generally considered unnecessary to reference the lede of Misplaced Pages articles, however consensus of editors is that controversial articles may need references upfront where claims are likely to be disputed by readers not prone to read lengthy material. Per MOS, ledes are a summary of the article NOT the subject. Information not found in the body should be removed as not relevant to the article itself. If the reference is only seen in the lede there could be questions of undue weight to the source just like the information not being found in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? A lead should summarize a subject and the rest of the article should explain the subject. TFD (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not actually correct:

:

Relative emphasis

In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body.

So, you are not entirely wrong but also not entirely correct either. So I can strike out my over emphasis above. My Point...to discuss improvements to the article. Why?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 26 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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