Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

USA Today resource

Vatican meets OWS: 'The economy needs ethics' Oct 24, 2011 by Cathy Lynn Grossman. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess that should go in the International reactions section. Dualus (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs frontpage WSJ resource

Goldman Sachs Sends Its Regrets to This Awkward Dinner Invitation; Bank Withdraws From Fund-Raiser After 'Occupy Wall Street' Gets Place at Table Ocotober 22, 2011 by Robert Frank in The Wall Street Journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Reactions? Chronology? I'm not sure where that should go. Dualus (talk) 22:50, 24 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.[1] 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]

2. Kathleen Wells radio show (Loma Linda, CA) where she interivews Ravi Batra about Occupy Wall Street.[3], [4]

3. CNN Ireporter (national)[5]

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.[6] 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 [7][8] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[9]

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 [10] 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".[11]. A 2009 story about Ravi Batra in Fort Worth Weekly cites this term.[12] 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.[13] 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 Wikipedia 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“.[175] 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.[176] 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”.[177][178]

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 Wikipedia--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. [14] and [15] 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."[16] 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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

It is generally considered unnecessary to reference the lede of Wikipedia 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:

[17]:

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)

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/wiki/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 [fraud]ulent [defamation]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [the] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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."[18] 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 [19] 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,[20] for HP. His bio is here [21]. 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

Someone made a free vectorized version, but it doesn't render very well yet.

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 Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Index headings

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

5 Reaction

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

5.1.1 The White House

5.1.2 Congress

5.1.3 2012 Presidential candidates

5.1.4 Other politicians

5.2 Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada

5.3 Unions (drop: reaction, add: s)

5.4 Business leaders

5.5 1% for the 99%

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

5.7 Artists (drop: participation, add: s)

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

5.9 Local residents

5.10 International reaction

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

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

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

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

What three side and what three disputes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. --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 Wikipedia. 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)

[22] Wikipedia: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.[3] 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)