Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

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 Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Peace, MPS (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The nuetrality of this article needs checking

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

I have begun discussion at Wikipedia Noticeboards NPOV, here: [1]--Amadscientist (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have also begun a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, here: [2]--Amadscientist (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Not done: Please have a read over our guidelines for including music groups, which may clarify for you the reasons we have declined your request. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Progressive stack

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYT resource, regarding the United States presidential election, 2012

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

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^e——C_ritical 01:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Wikipedia policy say about attempting to 'Balance' an article?--Amadscientist (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Bauder, if there is something I know about Dualus.....it's that he DOESN"T give in. If he made a decision, it's because he was convinced by argument. Try convincing consensus against it in the same manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you? Dualus (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Actually, an article from Associated Press states: "It’s not known exactly what type of object struck Olsen or who might have thrown it, though Guy’s group said it was lodged by officers. Several small skirmishes had broken out in the night with police clearing the area by firing tear gas and protesters throwing rocks and bottles at them."

So, for all we known, he might have been injured by a rock or bottle that was thrown by a protestor, and not by a tear gas canister from a police officer.

Mk2z0h (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide movement

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

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

@ Pencil: Do you have a reference for the "15M movement in Spain"? --Bokajsen23 (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokajsen23 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"have used media such as mIRC"

The article is locked so I could't fix it, but mIRC clearly should be IRC (the protocol), mIRC only being one of the many IRC clients out there (and IRC or mIRC not necessarily represent a single "social network", an IRC client can connect to any private or public IRC server and/or network that allows them access)... 66.11.179.30 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

After finally reading the whole article and getting back to that sentence, it even makes less sense considering that IRC isn't a web technology, it's an internet TCP protocol independent from HTTP (the Web internet TCP protocol).

The current sentence reads: "Activists have used web technologies and social media like mIRC, Facebook, Twitter, and Meetup to coordinate the events".

I propose instead: "Activists have used internet technologies such as IRC and web social networks (such as Facebook, Twitter and Meetup) to communicate and coordinate events", or a similar variation.

66.11.179.30 (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you may very well be correct. The reference itself, however, says "Global protesters communicate using a programme called mIRC, a chat system for Windows, preferred by the Anonymous network of hackers." So to support a change in the article, you would need to find an alternate reliable secondary source that supports your point.--Nowa (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Could simply change the article text to track the source more closely, indicating that it's the mIRC program that's being used. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 30 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; [or the] 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.") [emphasis added] If you didn't meet the burden before, that doesn't mean you are not required to meet it now simply because there was a previous discussion. You actually have to meet the burden before adding the material. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the contrary, I admit that you and I have a difference of opinion on a topic where ordinary people would be expected to disagree. I believe that it is possible to convey the possibility of sarcasm without resorting to original research. Are there any reasons that it can not? Dualus (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What you seem to mean is that you haven't bothered to learn what OR is, were told this couldn't be done without committing OR because there won't be any sources analyzing it as sarcasm, and you went ahead and did the OR anyway and came back here trying to pretend that this was somehow suggested in previous discussion or otherwise a product of previous discussion, when in reality you were simply doing exactly what you were told we're not allowed to do. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I wrote. Are there any reasons that sarcasm can not be conveyed without original research? Why does simply pointing out that a statement may have been sarcastic fall short? Dualus (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

BECAUSE IT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE POINT? PLEASE READ WP:NOR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silent consensus from Dualus here. It appears it was an intentional uncivil post and clear manipulation of another's post for personal argument. Specific and clear.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Dualus (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Why? I have been trying to work with you. Dualus (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and bulls "try" to "work with" China shops. In other words, they smash everything and poop on the floor. "Trying to work with you" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How have you tried to work with me or others Dualus? Define exactly what you have done to "try" and exactly what you consider "Work with you" means. Be specific and give examples including "diffs" for us to view.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

By trying to reach compromises here. Where do you think I have not? Dualus (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. You have made zero effort at reaching any compromise with any editor on any subject. You don't even bother to familiarize yourself with policy. Even when an editor shows you, with quotes, that the plain text of a WP policy shows you're in the wrong, you ignore it. The only reason you haven't been blocked yet is because no one who has dealt with you wants to wade through and document 500+ man hours of your nonsensical filibustering and utter disregard for every last policy Wikipedia has. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources don't match claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• [6] This reference states:

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

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

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

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

The article goes further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will look for more sources saying that some protesters joined Lessig's call for a constitutional amendment. Dualus (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Curious. Why not just use these sources.....for what they are and what they say? I have to question the NEED to Find sources to fit your point of view. Good luck with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I might as well just change the text. Whether Lessig joined OWS or OWS joined Lessig or both, the important fact is that they joined, somewhat. Dualus (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The important point is accuracy Dualus, as well as neutrality in presenting facts. "Somewhat" seems to fall short of "Accurate". What are your thoughts on that?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems associated with Bayes theorem. Do you agree? Dualus (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that it's unclear what "it" refers to, and given that you neither explain what association you think there is between "it" and "Bayes Theorem", nor provide any source which would substantiate such a connection, nor any other guidepost of what the hell you're talking about, I'm going to go ahead and strongly disagree until you explain your comment in some basic way so that some sense can be made of it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, application of probability theory in math, science and engineering is not a Wikipedia, policy, guideline or rule. That is simply attempting to formulate a way around the latter. It also shows an inability to convince others and move consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not at all. The footnoted sentence reads:

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

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

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

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

A Goals Working Group may produce an alternative document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is very easy to find reliable sources for the 99 Percent Declaration. Does anyone have any objections to [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], or [13]? Dualus (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Could you link it or point to which one it is? I'd absolutely love to avoid reading six entire articles when only one is needed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This one is based on the International Monetary Fund's principal component analysis (Chart 4) in [14], as discussed in #Source for growth caused by income equality above. Dualus (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That article says nothing about any 99% Declaration, or any list of demands by any name, or any "working group", and in fact it doesn't even mention OWS.

The chart you link to also says nothing on any of these subjects.

What we're looking for is a source that substantiates the claim you're trying to put into the article. Is that clear? I ask because you really don't seem to get it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least we know more about Haack being part of the subject and not a reliable source. Could be wrong, but I'm not sure how many editors would see his involvment as far back as August as a nuetral point of view.[15] --Amadscientist (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are already more than a handful of reliable sources on the 99 Percent Declaration. Dualus (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the Mother Jones article was based on the 99 Percent Declaration, but it just seemed to be the only Mother Jones article being discussed on this talk page at the time. Dualus (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Gandy mentioned a Mother Jones article that supposedly substantiates something to do with some list or other "99% Declaration". My response asked her (or anyone) to point it out. You responded by posting a link to a Mother Jones article that has nothing to do with this "declaration" and in fact doesn't even mention OWS. It's unclear what your motivation could have been except to mislead another editor regarding the sourcing of a content dispute. Kudos. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. No, the source I am using does not use the term 99%. It speaks of the document published by the Demands Working Group. It is here [16]. What a hellish experience to find myself with Dualus for a partner in this tag-team match. I don't know why he is so adamant on getting this info in, but my reason is to make it clear that it is not a document that has been issued by the General Assembly. It seems important to me because most people still think it was issued by the GA - it's even on YouTube. Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You might wish to look at the article Dualus created on it, then. See 99 Percent Declaration. One thing is very clear to me: some of these protesters have some really off-the-wall ideas and suggestions, and it won't do anyone any good (neither the fringe people, nor the society the crazy ideas are aimed at) if the public thinks that these people speak for everyone. You can already see that the conservative have seized on the more way-out proposals in an effort to paint the whole movement as "crazy commies". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I did - I voted to have it deleted. Per usual behavior he wants me to spend the time going over my reasons one by one. He has added it to the Protest movement article as well. *sigh* Gandydancer (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about CoI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific issues include, but are certainly not limited to:

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

TLDR:

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

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

Thanks. I agree with almost everything you said, and your assessment will be very helpful...and I sure do wish you'd stick around and help. There are just a handful of editors that try to keep up on things and most of our time has been spent with disruptive editors. With so much disruption, I know that I, and I'd guess some of the others, have got to the point that we are just trying to keep our head above water rather than try to remove some of the fluff or make improvements. With any edit one can count on all hell breaking loose as likely as not. I will defend one problem you mentioned, the use of quotes rather than summaries of involved personalities. Considering the number of people involved and the importance in getting their positions correct in one or two sentences, we've had no choice but to use one or two of their comments. Keep in mind also, this thing has just ballooned almost overnight and it would be hard to keep up the changes to the article even if we were all working well as a group. Gandydancer (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful indeed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is...we needed (and still need) someone to look at the article who has not been down in the trenches with it. With his/her suggestions in mind I did some work with the Background section and I believe it's better. But I didn't see an "income" problem there that I can remember, and I also read our section on the 99% and I feel it's appropriate. Also, I looked at international reactions and I couldn't see any problems there. I certainly agree that "Casualties" is...well, it's silly - I never noticed it till it was pointed out. I tried to change it but I'm lost when it comes to figuring out some things... Well, that's enough for now... Gandydancer (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with the above comments. There is an ongoing problem characterized by editors who seem to view this page as one giant press release by OWS, and not only strive to put a positive spin on material that does come out of reliable sources, but also make an energetic search for positive material outside reliable sources, as well as exploring interesting possibilities for original research without apparently realizing (or caring) that this is inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your characterization of my attempt to research whether financial firms are planning to market to the protesters is flawed. If I asked which mutual fund companies were allowing people to invest in a 99 Percent Declaration-compatible credit union fund on Talk:Mutual fund that is trying to improve the article, just like asking how people can invest in wind power in developing countries on Talk:Wind power. If there is a specific reason you think such questions show bias, please state it. Dualus (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue should be directed from the other direction. If RS's start talking about how mutual fund companies are marketing towards whatever OWS wants then that is the correct direction. You seem to be looking for mutual funds that happen to match some of what OWS wants, which is original research. Arzel (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for secondary sources which characterize investment opportunities both in alignment with and opposed to the movement's goals. Do you think [17] is a reliable source? Dualus (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(inserted after outdent below was made) Hi, it would be OR to include anything based on your own analysis. Please don't. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the source you link does NOT characterize any investment opportunities as either "in alignment with" or "opposed to" the OWS movement's goals. In fact it was published a year and a half before the protests began. So it can't be presented for that purpose as if it does draw such a connection. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a reliable source if it's not a topic to be covered in the article. SDY (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For what specific reason do you suggest that financial firms will not attempt to market to the protesters? Dualus (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

When it happens, we can write about it. What "will" happen is not Wikipedia's domain. It's that simple. Speculation and clever ideas for investment products have no place in an encyclopedia article. SDY (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If it hasn't happened, how is it notable. Please explain in detail with full references to show this is not POV, or synthesis of information.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Using SDY's suggestions, I have done some work on the Demands and Goals section. Gandydancer (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look and from what I saw it seems to be concise and well-sourced. Thanks for a job well done. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and the 99% Declaration is still being used as a stand alone reference to make a claim. I have removed it again.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no objections to the sources[18][19][20][21][22][23] in #99% and its relation to OWS - and broader issues of wiki-behavior above, so please explain what you mean by consensus. Dualus (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been no discussion of those sources, so it's dishonest and misleading to say "there are no objections" to them. What do you think these sources prove? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Show precisely, one by one, how consensus stands to include each reference, how it is not undue weight to the article and is notable enough to the subject for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Never happen. Dualus thinks that it's the duty of editors opposing inclusion of material to convince him that he's in the wrong (even though WP policy has it the other way around). So in his mind, he can simply list a bunch of sources (without any discussion of what each source is supposed to show), or simply declare that a google search will prove him right, then declare that he's right (without it even being clear what he claims to be right about), and force the (still disputed, but as-yet undiscussed) material into the article via edit-war. This is what he thinks "consensus" is. And that's why every discussion with him has proceeded in exactly the same way.

If you look at his edit history, you can see he's been parading this obnoxious style all over the place, making acid comments and claims of bad faith in response to something as innocuous as the deletion of an article about some obscure roller derby team (when his comments also reveal he doesn't even like roller derby). He knows everything and can't be told anything. He's also pushed the same OR-laden Lessig paragraph that was rejected here into the "Occupy" protests article, as well as the article on Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, no doubt simply because there aren't as many editors paying attention to those articles, so he is able to get away with egregious policy violations. And just today, he created an article on the "99 Percent Declaration", in which that paragraph is practically the whole article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Do you have any issues with the sources? What happened to the Slate piece that said Lessig gave credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already told you my thoughts on that piece about five times: it's fine as a reference for what it actually says, and is not fine as a basis for you to go on an excursion committing all kinds of OR (drawing connections not made by sources themselves). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo for week 5

File:Caitlin sign.jpg

Caitlin Curran holding a sign with a quote from Conor Friedersdorf at Occupy Wall Street demonstration held at Times Square New York on October 15, 2011. Photo by Ben Furnas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps, but here is what Forbes Magazine had to say about the photo |"One could write at length about the semiotics of the already-famous photo, including the way in which Ms. Curran’s eyeballs have moved upward and to her right, an intriguing detail that reinforces our own attention to the words of her poster." So there certainly is a reliable source indicating that the image is more than merely a picture of words.--Nowa (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. Honestly, the "week by week coverage" is kind of dubious anyway, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and a couple of other policies. If we're going to have six weeks, OK, but if we go into twenty weeks, we're going to have to start condensing some of that so having an image gallery is problematic. SDY (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Link should work now. Not sure what the problem was. Regarding the week by week coverage, I agree, if too many weeks go by we will have to come up with a different structure and no doubt we will have to weed images at that time.--Nowa (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Why include this? Seems very much pushing the point of view of the protester and is in no way encyclopedic or neutral. Thoughts Dualus?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's better for the Timeline article. There should be some bit about the journalists being fired as a significant moment, along with the photo. --David Shankbone 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I posted a similar query on the Timeline talk page. And also good idea on the journalist firings. Let me draft something up and we can put below for vetting--Nowa (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the protester's English composition skills and focus notable. I think this should be in the main article. Dualus (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how her "English composition skills and focus" apply to Wikipedia guidelines for notability. It may be significant to her that she was fired and may be notable for the time line but would be undue weight to the article as being "sensational" and attempting to create more than an employee being terminated for cause. Since this deals with subjects of ethics, and a living person, this will probably be a BLP concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, she was quoting someone else. And I did put it in Timeline_of_Occupy_Wall_Street#October_2011 so there is no rush here.--Nowa (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"I find the protester's English composition skills and focus notable" is a comment which illustrates the very problematic editing, including the tendency to bog the Talk page down with utterly irrelevant considerations, that we're seeing at this page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the reasons to the contrary? It is easy to find stories about her, especially with image search. Dualus (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion. And generally speaking, notability never has anything to do with anyone's opinion about anybody else's "English composition skills and focus". In short, your previous comment is utterly irrelevant to this article and fairly nonsensical. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion. Several news outlets have found the person, sign, and events surrounding both notable. Have you tried searching? Dualus (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

All you've talked about here is your opinion, which once again is irrelevant. Bring up something relevant, and we can discuss that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this Washington Post blog entry? Dualus (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What about it? Do you think everyone who's had a blog entry written about them gets on Wikipedia? If there are arguments to be made in favor of inclusion, you need to actually make those arguments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this Felix Salmon piece? Worthy of inclusion with the photo? Dualus (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)