Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about Occupy Wall Street. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Another image continuously removed that likely passes Fair use guidelines

Latest comment: 12 years ago45 comments9 people in discussion

This image has been continuously removed from the article. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[[:File:Nytimes occupywallstreet.jpg|thumb|center|250px|The New York Times had changed its media coverage of the event on October 6th, 2011 ]]

This image has consensus to remove regardless of it's fair use tag. The image has been manipulated for a purposeful attempt to create a point of view. Absolutely not a usable image for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove Agree. Clearly not allowed. It has WP:OR written all over it. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree with the term "manipulation" used above to describe this image, and just about everything people do is "purposeful." The image simply demonstrates a difference in reporting on the New York Times (NYT) website about an Occupy Wall Street protest event. The image only uses part of the articles from the NYT website, likely to maintain copyright integrity. The only point-of-view matter here is the NYT's point-of-view in their reporting. There isn't a particular point-of-view in the image caption, which simply states that NYT had changed its media coverage, and the image simply shows two versions of an article from the NYT website. I disagree that this image is "absolutely" not usable. It is appropriate to include and demonstrates how media has covered Occupy Wall Street events. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Also, simply adding a reference to the NYT website to the image caption would eliminate any claims of original research. The content is all from the NYT website, a reliable source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Utterly wrong. Read WP:SYNTH and stop adding the image because it (and its caption) are plainly original research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree, whoever is buggin' to say there's something there between the two edits, let alone that it's noteworthy in a hornets nest of opinion such as rages here. The outrage here is there's nothing outrageous . 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This image is not worthwhile as it does not show anything of import. It is a violation of synthesis and it is trivial noise. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Here's a version with a reference to the NYT: Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[[:File:Nytimes occupywallstreet.jpg|thumb|center|250px|The New York Times had changed its media coverage of the event on October 6th, 2011^[1]]]

Simply adding a link to the main page of the New York Times website doesn't make the image referenced. The image is unreferenced. You've been adding it for weeks in defiance of both content policy and consensus. Do not add it again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Sure it does, these are just screen captures from the NYT website. Technically, this type of reference is a primary source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The link you provide doesn't even link to the allegedly changed version of the text, nor is there any way to verify that the "previous" text from the image actually appeared on the NYT website. And even if you had links to both, the image and its caption would still be OR and unusable in any WP article. Your refusal to get this point is disruptive and tendentious. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The assessment directly above this comment that there isn't "any way to verify that the "previous" text from the image actually appeared on the NYT website." is incorrect. Web pages are often archived. Refer to: Internet Archive - Wayback Machine, as a reference. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if you're right about that, as I already said, it doesn't matter because you can't perform your own analysis of events or coverage and insert that into the article. The material cannot be used — period. Do not add it again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – I didn't create the image. Rather than stating orders about what I can or cannot do, perhaps consider waiting for other Wikipedia users and contributors to respond to this discussion, to obtain consensus. Your order above is inappropriate, and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who created the image if it was not discussed in any source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – The source of the content is the source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant to anything? Using your rationale, I could photoshop some image of a NYT page to say "Barack Obama is a member of Al Qaeda" and insert it into an article on Barack Obama, add a link to the New York Times website, and call it "sourced". But that's not how it works. Please recognize that every other user commenting on this subject has pointed out that this is inappropriate. There is already a consensus not to include this image, to say nothing of the policies that forbid original research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – You could do that, but it's not my rationale, it's your rationale, in the context of your statement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point, which is that I can't do that, because WP policy forbids it, just as it also forbids you to advance an unpublished claim using an image and its caption. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – The image simply portrays differences in media presentation from the same media source (The New York Times). Images in Wikipedia are not required to be referenced with reliable sources or otherwise be deleted or removed from Wikipedia articles per an argument of not being referenced in another source. This would set a very poor precedent, in which only images that have been covered in reliable sources could be used in Wikipedia articles. Images are used to enhance Wikipedia articles and provide context. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - Per Factchecker's WP:BARACKOBAMAISNOTAMEMBEROFALQUEDA rationale. Pure WP:OR and useless on this or any other page. Has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

NorthAmerica, you seem to have ignored my comment above on the same subject. Images do not provide a way to bypass the rule of No Original Research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please allow time for other users to respond to this discussion. This is a discussion about use of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. A request for community comment has been placed for this discussion (see above). If two images of New York Times (NYT) articles from the NYT website placed next to one-another are deemed as original research, then discuss the matter on the discussion page for the image, which has already been proposed for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Outsiders questions

Question - What is tiring to demonstrate here anyways? - I now have looked at the two reports (articles) being used here for this image - I take it all are aware they are 2 different headlines by two different reports at two different times, one was not changed out for the other - they are both still there to be looked at. In fact I can find 5 reports from that day that saying this in 5 different ways. Moxy (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume this is supposed to demonstrate some shadowy media conspiracy to mislead the public about the protests. Or something like that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The above assessment (by User:Factchecker_atyourservice) is original research, whereas the image caption is not. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The page defining WP:NOR reads "This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." The image and caption advance a claim (that NYT changed its content blah blah blah) that is not advanced at all, let alone "clearly" by any published source. Hence they are OR. QED. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Factchecker statement is OR (as hes guessing your motives) but hes not tiring to add it to the article is he? Would have to explain why this is odd - As news papers write many many articles on the same topic in the same paper all the time (nothing odd here). There was no retraction nor a change to any of the articles - they are simply 2 different articles by two different people reporting about the same thing in a different manner.Moxy (talk)

Comment – Here is the only "motive", the title of this section: "Another image continuously removed that likely passes Fair use guidelines", and "This image has been continuously removed from the article. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed." Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Silly comment. I was talking about your (supposed) motive for adding it to the article (or whatever connection to the article topic you think it has), not your motive for posting it on the talk page. You can't seriously suggest that you added it to the article because you wanted to provoke a discussion about why it was being removed from the article; that doesn't even make sense. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – This discussion is about inclusion of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. Nothing else. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The image is pure synthesis, and its notional point is trivial. A useless image in this or any other article. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - How is the image synthesis? Did the New York Times create a synthesis of its own content? How is the image "trivial"? The image is just a representation of varying coverage from the same reliable source. How is this image entirely "useless"? Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeez -- once again, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You, or the author of the image and its caption, created synthesis of two different NYT articles (or two different revisions of one article). What's the substance of the synthesis? The substance of the synthesis is that "the NYT changed its article content from [PREVIOUS VERSION] to [CURRENT VERSION]." This is a claim not advanced (or even discussed) in any source. That's original research. The particular type of original research that this represents is synthesis. Now that that has been explained for the 10th time to you (or maybe twentieth?) -- will you finally accept that WP policy prohibits this, and recognize that there is an overwhelming consensus against using this image (as there has been for weeks).. and stop adding the image, and stop asking the same question repeatedly when that question has been given a clear and straightforward answer? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS), please slow down with comments about your opinion about my edits, and allow time for other users to respond to this discussion. This is a discussion about use of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. A request for community comment has been placed for this discussion (see above). Thank you in advance for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you make incorrect and misleading statements about policy, I will respond immediately. And you have been pushing this for WEEKS. "Other editors" have had plenty of time to consider this, and they have repeatedly, and without exception, rejected this content for multiple policy violations. There has been a consensus not to include this for weeks. "Consensus can change", as they say, but that's irrelevant if consensus doesn't actually change, and WP:CCC doesn't mean you can just ignore consensus and keep beating the dead horse in the hopes that someone will finally agree with you. I once again strongly urge you to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS), please allow time for other users to respond to this discussion. This is a discussion about use of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. A request for community comment has been placed for this discussion (see above). Thank you in advance for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) Nothing I am doing is stopping other users from commenting; (2) Users have already had weeks to comment on this; (3) during those weeks, users have already previously pointed out that this image and caption are inappropriate; (4) even in this discussion that you have taken it upon yourself to rehash, numerous users have again responded and they have all repeated the same objections which have previously been stated to make this image and caption inappropriate; (5) you ignore all of the above and keep demanding that the image go in -- this is not discussion -- it is just disruptive editing and refusal to get the point. Please stop. You've already been asked to drop this repeatedly yet you continue to ignore the consensus against this content. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Change the caption – to, "A comparison of New York Times coverage about events on October 6, 2011 on the Brooklyn Bridge." Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

thumb|center|250px|A comparison of New York Times coverage about events on October 6, 2011 on the Brooklyn Bridge.

Delete. The new caption fixes nothing about how trivial and unimportant the image is, how it shows nothing worth describing in this or any other Wikipedia article. It is still synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that. Still OR. The comparison itself has not been made or discussed in any source, and is thus OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

— If people want the image deleted, feel free to comment on the file's discussion page: here.— Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't change the subject, please. Please recognize that policy forbids inclusion of this OR image and caption in the OWS article. Please also recognize that consensus is that this image cannot be included in the OWS article, and this has been the consensus for a long time. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of offering policy aid between different sections/interests of this article, the image does seem to be original research. B^e——C_ritical 09:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as obvious original research/synthesis. B^e——C_ritical 09:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

^ The New York Times. Accessed November 2011.

Coverage in this article ends on November 4; please continue it with these sources

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

There seems to be no information in this article of anything since November 4, while I'm getting more news from all my usual sources. Here are some stories which I would like to see integrated into this article, please:

Thank you. 208.54.38.238 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that aren't left-leaning and in overwhelming support of the movement? In other words, is there anything factual in there worth noting other than pov pushing logos or trends? We have more than enough of that.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of them are not RS, but others are as the CS monitor. B^e——C_ritical 01:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit template is for specific requests, not a list of sources you want integrated to the article. CTJF83 03:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Leaning

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While reading the article, I noticed that every time any thing added from a right-leaning source is labeled as "right-wing" but nothing sourced to left-leaning sources is labeled as such. We either do it for everyone or no one. I am asking for consensus on whether to label all the left-leaning sources as "left-wing" as well or remove all the "right-wing" labels. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove them, there is not need for labeling really. And in fact if the source used does not label them then it is WP:OR to do so. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Supposed Polls

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This article is littered with the claim that "polls show most people agree with OWS" and they are all referenced to these to sources: http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120052-503544.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/us/politics/wall-st-protest-isnt-like-ours-tea-party-says.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

The first two have no information of anyone's opinion of the OWS movement and the third one says: "So far, most Americans do not align with either movement. In a USA Today/Gallup poll taken last weekend, 26 percent of those polled said they were supporters of the Occupy movement, while 19 percent identified as opponents, and 52 percent said they neither supported nor opposed it. Meanwhile, 22 percent said they were supporters of the Tea Party, 27 percent said they were opponents, and 47 percent said they were neither. But the large majority — 63 percent — said they did not know enough about the Occupy goals to say whether they approved or disapproved. In the early days of the Tea Party movement, a similarly large percentage did not know much about it."

Just notifying that I removing all the parts in the article where it says "polls say most people support the movement" or something along those lines because there is nothing in the referenced material about that.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I do, I want to ask if anyone else sees anything with this information in any of these sources in case I missed something.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you update the article with the latest polls instead of deleting the old ones? 208.54.38.219 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would I not delete polling information that doesn't exist, it isn't "old" it is non-existent, that's why. And btw I already have put the latest poll in the Public Reaction section.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen lots of good sources which have information about polls. B^e——C_ritical 02:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to the parts in the article where it says a majority of American agree with the protesters. It says it multiple times and the references sourced for that information are those three links. No where in those links is anything that says a majority of Americans agree with the protest, which is my point. The information is not accurate because it isn't found in the sources referenced, meaning it doesn't exist and we should delete it.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong about the first source not mentioning. The first source says

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 25%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

You're probably right that they don't say "agree." So the text should be changed accordingly, I look forward to your edit. B^e——C_ritical 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I asked if anyone saw something I didn't before I removed it, but the second two say nothing about it, so I am going to change the wording and referencing to the first source. Thanks for checking.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Latest comment: 12 years ago86 comments29 people in discussion

Should the fact that the American Nazi Party & the American Communist Party have endorsed the OWS be mentioned in the article? Here are some sources showing how widespread this has been reported. Town Hall Sunshine State News Drudge This one is amuseing, Occupy Resistence Charleston Daily Mail The Gazette WAPO IB Times Fox News SF Gate The Hoya Newsmax Fuse TV Fox again Life News Washington Times Media Matters for America Michigan Messenger New York Post Delaware County Daily Times Boston Herald LA Times Jacksonville Courier A Belgian paper Tehran times Israel today Magazine Fox Nation The Blaze Daily Caller Irish central Augusta Chronicle Florida Time Union

Should the fact that antisemitism has also been widely reported be reflected in the article.513 hit on G news The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazism discussion

No, not until the Nazi Party supports OWS with money or man hours, and the fact is widely reported. A simple endorsement without concrete support is an empty endorsement. It is WP:Undue weight to list empty endorsements. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the sources above are widespread, but I wish you'd point out the best ones per WP:RS. Even those I looked up thinking they were the best like the Boston Herald turned out to be crap [1]. Is there anything good in that list? B^e——C_ritical 01:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had the same experience - I picked three I thought must be the "best" and they were total crap. Then I quit looking... Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes - The Nazi Party and Communist Party are fringe - but the coverage of their support is not. This is widely spread, and there is no reason to keep it off. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No: The ANP has done nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support". Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable, and should not be mentioned at all. It serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. We don't mention Hitler in the article on vegetarianism, do we? Same rule applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No. This is little more than a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Wikipedia should have no part in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I see that TLAM is still citing 'Media Matters' on this, in spite of the headline in the linked article: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not yet It may yet become evident that those in the movement share those views, but simply being supported by them would be a guilt by association. Also, I fail to see this as a "smear campaign" as ATG would say since the media has by and large not reported on any of the transgressions committed by OWS participants. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No - Seems like an obvious case of guilt by association. Hundreds of "groups/parties" have mentioned support for OWS. Why just mention these two? NickCT (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes - Mention these two because it is widely covered and they are fairly significant. It's also covered that the Black Panthers support the group so we should add that in there too as controversy because that's what it is. AndyGrump is nothing more than an apologetic propagandist come on here to do damage control for his OWS buddies.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, because it's not true, apparently. I think it's just a false meme. Looking at the sources, I'm skipping the one likes Drudge and the Tehran paper and a lot of the rest of them because they're obviously not reliable sources... looking for entities with some kind of reputation, I come to the Boston Herald. It's an opinion columnist, and he says that OWS is endorsed by a list of entities including the American Nazi Party and the government of the People's Republic of China... this seems unlikely to be true, so I can't trust this source... next, the reputable LA Times... but its a gossip column (the "Ministry of Gossip")... it says "Meanwhile, the American Nazi Party on Sunday issued a statement of support for the Occupy Wall Street crowd" and they have a link. But the link is here, which has says nothing of the sort, is not any kind of official statement, and doesn't mention Occupy Wall Street or come close... so this appears to be false. (There doesn't seem to be anything about Occupy Wall Street on the American Nazi Party website, that I could find.) Moving on, we have to drop a little in reliability, let's look at the Jacksonville Courier... it is not a news story but something called "Open Line", which may be an opinion column but is not signed and, inferring from its name, is just a place where readers can post stuff... whatever it is, it appears to be a stream-of-consciousness post by a stoned or deranged person... it says ""The Wall Street Mob has gained some interesting supporters. Among them, The American Nazi Party..." with no support for that. I have zero confidence that the writer is reliable or even sober. How many more of these do I have to look at? And these are the best ones. My patience is exhausted with this subject and with the the editor initiating the RfC, who appears to be a troll. (FWIW, even if it was true it's trivial, of course.) Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[2] The ANP report was archived, so yes they have endorsed OWS. You appear to have missed a great many of the reliable sources which were posted, such as Fox, Politico, Washington post. Perhaps you ought look again at the sources presented? The point is this is widely reported on, millions of people will have read about it and then look here and see not a word, this damages wiki`s credibility. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine, but still. Who is the American Nazi Party and what is their organizational structure? Does that page constitute an actual endorsement by vote of any central committee, or is it basically some blogger who has discovered the wonders of the CAPS LOCK key? How many members do they have? What is there notability in the public discourse? If their name was "American Committee for Public Knowledge" instead of the inflammatory word "Nazi" how notable would this be? The fact is that I could convene a meeting of myself and my cats, call ourselves the Trotskyist Front, create a blog and endorse OWS, and if this was picked up by Drudge and Fox News and the Tehran papers, so what? This is maybe one step above "OWS was endorsed by Mrs. Pinckney Pruddle of 27 Hummingbird Lane, Sandusky, Ohio". It's not a notable event, at all. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your fallacious argument of a meeting with your cats doesn't do a very good job at hiding the fact that you are clearly biased, nor does the equally fallacious comparison with a fictitious other statement. Whether or not *you* think a party is relevant is irrelevant. The fact that it was so widely reported makes it relevant, which is what people have been correctly arguing here.

No per NickCT. Why not start a List of individuals and organizations that have endorsed Occupy Wall Street? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Townhall has a full editorial staff and meets the criteria as [[W{:RS]] The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No because it's just guilt by association. Nothing could be more opposite from how these protests really are, than by linking them to Nazism. 완젬스 (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No ANP is not relevant, their support is not relevant. Connecting them and their alleged support to the OWS is WP:SYN and even throwing the ANP, nevermind Nazism in the article is WP:UNDUE.--Львівське (говорити) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes Support is reported in WP:RS. WP is not censored. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
yes widely reported as fact. supports OWS with money or man hours, that is a benefactor/volunteer, not endorsement. Boston Herald turned out to be crap, http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 Oct 18, Todd Gregory. non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement, none of which are requirements for notability. a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Few members of the ANP can actually read, no chance in hell they are members of the press. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No It's a poorly-sourced fringe issue attempting to link the movement to the Nazi party. I don't see this sort of accusation in the hundreds of articles that have been written on the protests in the mainstream media. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) poorly sourced? The American Nazi Party chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No Absolutely not. Not only are the groups fringe, but there are no reliable sources reporting any connection whatsoever. Beyond the reporting that this is a right-wing attempt to connect the groups to the group this article is about, there is no sourcing at all. Seeing as there is definite sourcing about the attempt to connect these groups to these protesters, perhaps we should look at the attempts to enter the information in the same manner. The editor/s who are making these attempts all seem to have the same goals. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No We don't serve as the mouthpiece for the American Nazi Party. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No Obvious fringe problem but inclusion is also a weight problem: there is not any indication why this is a significant item that merits inclusion. The import of information should be obvious to our readers, but at the very least we should be able to explain its inclusion to our readers. Saying "Nazis support OWS" leads to the question, "So what?" and there is no good answer. The opinions of Nazis hold no value in any society. wp:GHITS and politically-motivated Op-Eds aren't persuasive. This is the same guilt by association nonsense that Americans saw in the 2008 election with Hamas endorses Obama; Al Qaeda endorses McCain. --David Shankbone 23:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No Lots of groups are trying to co-opt this movement, but it is a de-centralized, non-hierarchical movement. That gives it a low Drag coefficient that, miraculously, attracts many groups whose own agendas are floundering. For example, why is there widespread union support for OWS? The Union leadership announces their support. So that must mean everyone who belongs to such-and-such union needs to fall in line. Right? But then read the fine print. Because the bottom line is the "Union bosses" realized they were losing their own Rank and file to the movement (ie., their people were showing up at the occupy locations). Let's just say it was "expedient" for the unions to show support for the Occupy movements. But Unions are part of the OWS mix. They aren't dictating anything to OWS. OWS is not part of the Unions. Unions need OWS alot more than OWS needs them. (I would guess that the Nazi movement needs help with their own "rank and file", not to mention a HUGE credibility gap. Again, NO. If you need more examples of groups or individuals claiming support, I can name many more. How about Elizabeth Warren taking credit for providing the philosophical underpinnings and ballast for OWS? That's interesting Ms. Warren: if that's the case, then Warren is an anarchist in her roots, and is only (oh by-the-way) incidently running for public office. Could go on and on with examples of many groups and factions wanting a slice of the "OCCU" - pie. Christian Roess (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No Based on what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any actual tangible connection between the ANP and the OWS movement (not even a diminutive one). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No unless we specifically mention all other groups as well that have voiced support. The list mentioned above, if it's started, could be a place for this information. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No (My unelaborated !vote) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes There's a discussion of the response to OWS from several other political bodies (the White House, Congress, 2012 political candidates) as well as the reaction from the public, celebrities, unions, Venezuela, etc. Of course a list of people and groups who support OWS is pointless and uninformative, but if and only if 1.credible sources are used and 2.those sources talk about the response more specifically than saying "the American Nazi Party supports the OWS movement" then just because you don't like the group doesn't mean their reaction is less deserving of mention than that of the Vatican. At a glance it doesn't look like many of the sources above are non-pov but that isn't fatal (to including the ANP's response, not to using the sources!). Re: the fringe problem, I have to agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that while the groups themselves are Fringe their response may well be poignant. And, frankly, if the only unifying feature of participants is membership in the 99% then why should the ANP be excluded? --68.149.110.63 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-semitism discussion

Yes - Widely covered, notable. Anti-sementism is an element of the views of many OWS campers, and as they have no real leadership or manifesto, it warrants coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No - again, it seems to be a smear campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No:There is no evidence that anti-semitism is shared by a significant proportion of OWS participants outside of a tiny minority. The fact that the movement has a few kooks in it is not surprising, nor is it notable enough to warrant mention here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes - Widely noted with many examples. No sense in hiding it under the rug. There is no requirement that it be shown to reach some magic number of people to be incorporated. Such faulty logic would dictate that nothing bad ever be reported because one could simply say that none those that do bad things don't represent the movement. If it was one or two incidents then probably not. It is clearly far more than that. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes - ...with requisites. The article on the Tea Party solved the issue of reporting on alleged racism by not trying to account for how widespread racism was, or by simply stating the Tea Party movement was racist. Rather, it focused on the discourse of some accusing it of racism while others defended it, and it focuses on a few major events. Similarly, this article need not state that the Occupy protest movement has an antisemitism problem, but rather has been accused of it, and it could include references to supposed events and counter arguments. This should likely fall not under goals, or philosophy, but rather as a sub-section on reception. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No - I scanned the list of articles that came up in the nominators link. The two serious sources that appear (i.e. the New York Times & Washington Post Article) refute the anti-semitic charge or point out that it's marginal. If we do want to add a sentence about anti-semitism it would have to be so heavily qualified that it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning. NickCT (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, per NickCT. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
'No. The nominator's link produces nothing of value. Doing my own search, I find (in reliable sources as opposed to polemic blogs etc.) only the same stuff that NickCT finds, to the effect of "some bloggers have claimed anti-semitism, but it appears to not be true". Not notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No per NickCT. I would just point out that the Washington Post link is an op-ed column, not a news article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
re the op-ed column - Duly noted. Apologies for not stating it as such. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No But I think maybe 1 sentence, with a response as user Cast has proposed, but not a whole entire section, which I'm against. 완젬스 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
yes, if the tea party can have a "racial issues" section, so can ows. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no way an entire section will ever get consensus over here, like over at the tea party article, so 1-2 sentences, take it or leave it. If you're trying to divert attention away from the issue by comparing it to the tea party, you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone. 완젬스 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUS to brush up on what it says, because that's what is common (and applied) to both articles. 완젬스 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No - seems WP:UNDUE to me to use individual comments and turn it into a standalone section. Unless this becomes a relevant part or chunk of the protests, then no. Unless it gains traction in the media in some form, then no. Until then, all of this can be summarized into a single sentence - a section is too much weight.--Львівське (говорити) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes The incidents are being reported in WP:RS. Ironically racism by Tea Party members is only alleged. OWS members actually went on anti-semitic rants on TV! I saw it! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of references for Tea party members shouting racial epithets (see [3] for example). The question isn't whether one or two guys within a much larger movement are racist/anti-semetic. The question is whether racism/antisemitism is a pervasive theme within a movement, or whether it represents a viewpoint pushed by a significant portion of a movement's members. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The question is not if ows is racist, rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference? It's still guilt by association, and will attract edit warring & make the article unstable. Can't anyone else see that? 완젬스 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Typical wikipedia mob rule, published racism undue here, not undue at tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're not in the majority, then just wait your turn. You're trying to change an OWS article during the height of OWS popularity. If you bring up a proposal (an entire section!!!) on antisemitism knowing it will fail, is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point which everyone knows nothing good will come from it. It just creates division between editors when the article still has plenty of peaceful improvements we could instead discuss otherwise. If you know an entire section will never gain consensus, then propose something more popular so that the "mob" will agree with it. When you're on the side of the minority, the burden is on you to work with the majority (unless you're like Dualus who bypasses consensus) because without consensus, even the most noble & well-intentioned edits will never stand, and you know that. The tea party is de facto racist whereas only 2 reliable sources have barely said anything usable about OWS being antisemitic (because as user NickCT said) the statement would have to be so heavily qualified, that it wouldn't be worth mentioning. 완젬스 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

re "rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable" - I think you should be posting your comments in the section above, but as I said above, OWS has reportedly gained the support of the latino community,former leaders of ACORN,labor unions,Kayne West,the mayor of Richmond, California, Jay-Z, vetrinarians, Canadians, etc etc. Should I go on? Get the point? You want to mention all of these groups? If not, why are you so focused on the ANP? NickCT (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Jayz, vets and acorn, you left out Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, CAIR, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Hugo Chavez, Revolutionary Guards of Iran, The Govt of North Korea, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah, a regular who's who of obscurity. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok.... But you're missing the point. You said we should mention ANP b/c their support has been noted in RSs. I pointed out that an endless slew of folk's support has been noted in RS, and that it's not piratical to mention them all. Again, why are you so focused on highlighting support from particular groups? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No Absolutely not. There are no reliable sources reporting any connection of this accusation whatsoever. Beyond the reporting of anonymous people who have shown up at some protests, there is no sourcing at all. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which mention it, your saying there is not is pointless. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No Again, Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece for the far-right Wurlitzer. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor is it a mouthpiece for the leftwing nutjobs of the OWS, wiki reports on what reliable sources have written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

NO - This is more desperation from the Far Right. It's a story generated just like the recent ACORN connection given by an anonymous source to Fox News in the last few days. Christian Roess (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, per NickCT and Dave Dial. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to admin who closes

Please take into account the lack of actual policy based reasons for excluding this content. Several editors have said there are no reliable sources regarding the antisemitic remarks being made. This is patently false, it was deemed a serious enough matter by the Anti Defamation League[4] to release a statement on the matter. Some say no as they believe it is a smear campaign, this is not a policy that i am aware of, nor have any sources made this claim that I know of. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the antisemitism discussion? Or the Nazism discussion? (or both?) 완젬스 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The antisemitism discussion, I will create a subsection for the ANP discussion as basically the same arguments have been put forth there as here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention: Adbusters "Accusations of antisemitism". I think this makes any antisemitism remarks at OWS extremely relevant. Especially in light of the opening paragraph of the Origins section: "In mid-2011, the Canadian-based Adbusters Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters..." 74.101.47.220 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all or nothing: presenting a 3rd option

So do the yes's and no's agree to compromise and just have a single, well-written sentence, as myself and others have said can be summarized? If so, then let us work on that sentence here, so we have something to look at from those who voted "yes" and we'll see their proposal below. 완젬스 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At one time we did have a short discussion with a good ref, but it's long gone. This situation is similar to the incident when a "protester" took a dump on a police car...or so it was said. I believe that we need to remember that there are thousands of homeless in NYC, and most of them live in the very same area that the protest is being held. Not to paint all the homeless with the same brush, but many of them are addicts and/or have serious mental problems. These people have been doing such things in NYC long before the movement established their occupation of the park, but it did not make national news. Same thing for racists - there's nothing new about blaming the Jews for our financial problems - and I can imagine that the protest would draw this sort of racist to the occupy site like bees to honey. Rather than report that the protesters are Nazi, Jew-hating, Commie, dirty hippies, etc., I believe that the information could be covered in an unbiased manner. If we had a reference... Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, and the onus is on people who want to include it. Quick question though--are you saying the "good ref" is long gone? Or the discussion is still in archives or had been deleted? I think a single sentence, in context (with how rare that antisemitism is) can be added, as long as it is put into the proper perspective. There's no way an entire section on antisemitism will ever see the light of day here, and I think the nazism has even less of a chance than antisemitism. 완젬스 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it. For all I know my memory could be wrong. I know we both agree that the task of any editing at all in this article was such a hellish experience till Dualus was banned that it was hard to keep up with what the hell was going on. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if these are the refs from the inclusion I remember, but these two turned up from the past article. [5] and [6]. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source, Media Matters, that explains the issue, "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them]". We could use that story for the article. TFD (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good finds, Gandy, I'll check it out it. Thanks for link thefourdeuce but not quite controversial enough! ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source. It is like asking the arsonist who started the fire. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I would go that far, lol. They're a private non-profit, so they can allow their editors/bloggers more unrestricted and "no strings" journalism & blogs. It's a good site, has lots of recaps & summaries of what the other sides are saying. Each video is like a miniature documentary--highly recommended and very informative for any Wikipedia editor who works on poli-sci articles. 완젬스 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MMfA has come up many times at RSN and is rs. You are confusing the neutrality of a source with its reliability. Certainly it is true that right-wing blogs are playing up the Nazi Party story. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are multiple reliable sources for the Communist Party Support: http://www.cpusa.org/communist-party-heralds-occupy-wall-street-movement/ http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/red-white-and-angry%E2%80%A8-communist-nazi-parties-endorse-occupy-protests/

Sources for Nazi Party support: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 http://www.americannaziparty.com/news/archives.php?report_date=2011-10-16 http://whitehonor.com/white-power/the-occupy-wall-street-movement/ http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/american-nazi-party-urges-members-join-occupy-protests

I also have reliable sources for many more so called "fringe" groups like the Black Panthers, CAIR, and the Socialist Party USA who express support for the OWS movement.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have them, let's see them. 완젬스 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

These groups may all support OWS, however with a U.S. population of 312,577,000 and most of these groups having less than a couple of thousand members, how can it be justified to add whatever they may believe to the article? I don't think the Black Panthers have any - aren't they defunct? How many are in the American Nazi Party - I'll bet it's not many. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

American Communist Party - 2,000 Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want the sources, 완젬스, then here they are.

Socialist Party USA: http://www.socialistparty-usa.org/occupywallstreet.html; http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/10/21/18694303.php; http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/thedc-morning-commies-and-nazis-sure-do-like-occupy-wall-street/

CAIR: http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-council-on-ameri/2011/10/21/gIQAgawr4L_photo.html; http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=298c6f637e745b40f9bc04560&id=00ff1bf3e7

Hezbollah: http://almoqawama.org/?a=content.id&id=25969; http://almoqawama.org/?a=content.id&id=25867

Black Panthers: http://www.occupyoakland.org/ai1ec_event/black-panthers-david-hilliard-melvin-dixon-and-eseibio-halliday/; http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19150533

I am not going to make a giant list of all of them because their are too many. But I have sources for many more.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary -- There are little to no reliable sources that even mention these groups, and the ones that do are either biased and not reliable sources for this article, or mention the attempted connection by right-wing blogs. etc.. If, in the future, these attempts do not subside, the only addition should be about the smear attempts. Dave Dial (talk) 14:51, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree,anonymous, ever single one of those sources are reliable and none of them are "right-wing". And if we are going to nullify sources because they are bias, then Huffington post, New York Times,and all these other extremely liberal media outlets should be nullified as well. And don't these Occupiers claim to be "grassroots" and have "no political leaning" (even though their funders and leaders and speakers are all democrats)? Since they claim that, isn't it irrelevant what political leanings sources have? Your argument is invalid and the fact that these groups support OWS is absolutely notable. This is no smear attempt, I was asked to give sources for these groups by another editor, and it is undeniable fact that they do support the OWS movement. Also, according to Gallop Polling, the OWS is a Fringe group, so there is no need to smear it, it is already smeared.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A single well-written sentence that makes it clear that both of these are being pushed by the far-right American press would be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What's in the article right now seems to at least have equally contradicting opinion. Can we live with it and the very short mention in lead or do we need changes?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What you have added is perfect, the mention of the antisemitic remarks with the rebuttal is NPOV and balanced the way an article ought to be written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, and I have to say as the most vocal critic of including ANY momentum-halting criticism of OWS, I must proudly say that Amadscientist (an editor I admire for being a great Wikipedian) has written the content in such a way as to make both sides happy. Somebody give this man a barn star! (I've given him one already too recently) 완젬스 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Null edit to prevent archiving The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism generalizations

Latest comment: 12 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

There seem to be sources for a general description of the conservative criticisms of OWS. [7] My first attempt was removed, I'm not sure why. Do people have some comment on this so that it won't be removed next time? Here is one from the New York Times: "They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968." [8] B^e——C_ritical 20:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And BTW, we can generalize in the same way as our sources: if our sources have "conservatives say," then we can say the same thing. B^e——C_ritical 23:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a comment, don't say "conservatives have portrayed" because that wording has a negative connotation and pushes your POV. As if conservatives are out to get OWS and they made it all up or misrepresented it somehow. It's basically saying "they say this but it isn't really true". If the sources specifically say it is a conservative's opinion then you can put "conservatives said" but weasle wording like that is clear POV.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well of course I wouldn't, except that is how unimpeachable sources such as The New York Times and CBS put it. Here are some quotes:

"many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." That framework shapes the "I am the 53 percent" backlash (53 representing the percentage of Americans who pay income tax, a figure that ignores other forms of taxes levied). One of the "53 percent" message-based images that went viral, in an appropriation of a clever Occupy Wall Street tactic, admonishes the protesters to "suck it up you whiners." In other words, earning your way is the American way!"[9] "The Chronicle, based in Washington, D.C., is the major news service in the United States academic world."[10]

"The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it."[11]

"But as they have, conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968." [12]

So while I don't blame you for thinking it's POV, it's really just quoting very good WP:RS B^e——C_ritical 01:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "portray" like i said, say "conservatives say" not "conservatives portray", that was my only point, not whether it was conservatives, but the wording.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also is there any actual proof that conservatives circulated that picture or is it just speculation? And you should explain their whole view instead of only adding cherry-picked words that seem like conservatives are just shouting insults.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the current version might be more to your liking [13]. I didn't think the bit about the picture was worthy of the article and didn't put it in. In the current version, things like "envious of the rich" are pretty self-explanatory, although more explanation might be appropriate if we find good sources for it. B^e——C_ritical 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Another subject: Some good quotes [14] from Rush and others which are mentioned in RS as here [15] were removed. Any objections to re-inserting them? B^e——C_ritical 01:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed it up a little bit more, tell me what you think.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well at first glance, you found some good sources describing arrests and drug use, but not linking that to conservative criticisms. I searched the sources for "conserv" in hopes of finding a link to conservatism. So I'd like those sources to discuss criticisms of OWS if we're going to use them. Also, they aren't specifically about OWS. Are there some other sources we could pull in here? (BTW, I'm not sure the forbes source I posted above is good) B^e——C_ritical 02:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If I find any more reliable sources on criticism,(not from blogspots etc.) I will be sure to let you know.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I took them out because they aren't about OWS, and so far as I could tell don't mention what conservatives say about drug use etc. Anyway it seemed to be original research or synthesis in addition to not being about OWS. B^e——C_ritical 03:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, all of those sources were about OWS and were published by reliable media outlets. I would appreciate it if the information was re-added, not necessarily under "conservatives say" but somewhere in the criticism section as the information is still valid.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're thinking that OWS is the Occupy movement aren't you? There's a difference. And this edit is original research. B^e——C_ritical 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

in the voice of Wikipedia

Sloppily critical terms like "ingrates" and "messy" should not appear outside of direct quotes. The criticism section should be more encyclopedic than it appears now: it should not be in the voice of the critics, but rather should report those voices neutrally. Thats my 2c. -A98 98.92.189.110 (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no support for that in policy. When reliable sources make a claim, we repeat it. Are you arguing that the sources do not make the claims repeated in the section, or that they are not reliable sources? B^e——C_ritical 09:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet, it's now been changed. And there certainly is policy about it: Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone..." That's what I'm talking about. -A98 98.92.189.148 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't refrain from describing what people have said. Passages like "Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work" are merely descriptions of what's been said. Wikipedia's tone there is entirely impartial, but it describes that which is not impartial. B^e——C_ritical 23:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. That may be an example of description but it is a poorly written one for an encyclopedia. There is an impartial way to summarize criticism. That ain't it. -A98 98.92.184.5 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to any constructive edits along these lines. Personally, I want to reflect the reliable sources, and I believe I did a good job of it. B^e——C_ritical 01:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And I look forward to hearing from other editors. -A98 98.92.184.5 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In the above example I believe that "ingrates" would be correct. Gandydancer (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

* Discussion continued below in a new section.

USA Today resource

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

'Occupy' movement faces challenge from violent fringe by Rick Hampson, USA Today
Anarchists hijacking peaceful protests

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 10:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD (Bold, revert, discuss)

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Just a reminder. If you have recently made a bold inclusion of previously undiscussed content, and it has been reverted (by me, for instance), the next step is to discuss the proposed content at the Talk page and try to build consensus around it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder, you don't have to revert everything that you don't like forcing someone to get consensus, not everything needs consensus.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the content you added because of policy violations, and yes, if material is disputed, you do need to get consensus for it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't remove anything I added, you must have me confused with someone else. And my point is, it sounds like you are trying to justify over-reverting edits to the article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Image for use in Media section

Latest comment: 12 years ago53 comments13 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This CC image is at Commons. Any worries as to whether this image captured any copyright infringement outside the bounds of fair use which carries through to the image itself, should be taken up at Commons. As to whether the image should be carried in this en.WP article, that's an editorial matter to be driven only by editorial consensus pending the outcome of any copyright/fair use discussions at Commons. As an aside, the copyright policies of en.WP and Commons are the same. However, Commons does not carry "fair use" images. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The following image was removed under the rationale of, "Removing image that has several copy protected logos within the image with no fair use rational for use. May be OK for Commons but not Wikipedia." While there are miniscule corporate logos on the sign the protester is holding, the use of this image is likely within fair-use guidelines. Any and all comments are appreciated regarding the inclusion of this image in the article. Also, it appears that stated concerns should be tagged on the actual page for the image here [16] and discussed on its discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A protester's sign references the initial lack of news coverage by mass media as a 'media blackout.' ^[1]^[2]^[3]

^ Grant, Drew Grant; Sanders, Anna (September 30, 2011). "Media Coverage: Must Reads." The New York Observer. Accessed November 2011.
^ Goodale, Gloria (October 5, 2011). "'Occupy Wall Street': Why this revolution isn't made for TV." The Christian Science Monitor. Accessed November 2011.
^ Udstuen, Lukas; et al. (October 11, 2011.) "U.S. News: Occupy Wall Street Media Coverage." NewsNY. Accessed November 2011.

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

--Amadscientist (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Logos The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - this not a fair use issue at all. Having a corporate logo barely visible on a sign is not a copyright issue. This is an example of copyright paranoia and Amadscientist is way off base here. I'm reverting. --David Shankbone 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shankbone that trivial appearances of logos is not a copyright violation. We don't try to fuzz out t-shirt and ballcap logos, or delete photos of city streets in which store logos can be seen. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fair use issue. Its a trademark and copyright issue. The images are not being used as "fair use" they have been released under a CC license. The guidelines for use at commons and the guidelines for use in a Wikipedia article are not the same. Trade marked logos are the subject of the image as is the poster itself. The image fails a couple of things. It does not have the proper tags (the trade mark tage provided above should be on the image). The image is used to discuss the media black out and it's use on Wikipedia is copyright and trademark infringment and it's use does not fall under "portrait" as the image does not discuss MSNBC or Mc Donald's. The subject is to broad and a free image can be used. Use of images must be made with caution and this seems rather reckless.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In order to show why this image fails Wikipedia policy for image use here are the following:

Wikimedia Foundation.

Copyright violations: Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in our encyclopedia, and we actively strive to find and remove any violations.
Copyrights: Material which infringes other copyrights must not be added. The legalities of copyright and "fair use" are quite complex.

Non-free content criteria: The Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia. The cases in which you can declare an image, audio clip, or video clip "fair use" are quite narrow. You must specify the exact use, and only use the image or clip in that one context.
Reusing Wikipedia content: Most of Wikipedia's material may be freely used under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which means you must credit authors, relicense the material under CC-BY-SA or GFDL and allow free access to it.

The last two are in regards to the claim that the use of trademarks is covered by fair use. As other editors have pointed out this is not a fair use issue. Correct. it's a copyright and trade mark issue. Regardless of how and why this image was uploaded to Commons and their acceptance of it is in no way related to use on Wikipedia. Mr, Shankbone has many images here and that is very commendable and very much appreciated by this editor. But with having so many images and then arguing against copyright of both the poster image and the trademark logos there needs to be an atual argument for inclusion showing how these guidelines are being met.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In a good faith attempt to show my reasoning on this I will explain further. The copyright issue is the poster itself. Copyright of the New York Times.[17] The trademarks being used are an issue in the photograph as is the use of the copyright poster and could be seen as a way around the uploading of the image itself with a fair use rationale. This would be the actual image needed to discuss the "media black out" in context to the prose as well. A fair use upload may fail (maybe not) for not being able to rationalize the use of the trademarked logos (although a good argument would be that the image as fair is justified as the copyright holder would likely have to acquire the license to use these trademarks). Lets be cautious and not reckless as too many of these images are very much acceptable and this is in no way a criticism of the photographer. He does excellent work.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The flag also has many trademarked images.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

All the rules you cite are for single images, but this one has multiple images with an opinion context. The NYT image of the Shh! girl, and the corporate logos on the flag, are all allowed because they are shown together in a single photograph with political protest context, not shown singly in an attempt to hijack the image or logos. Their use in the protest context is allowed. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument about multiple images just compounds the problem it does not clear it up. How is the context allowed? Is there prose that claims that the New York times poster is being used by protesters and that the trademark logos are related to that protest? You provide opinion but do not state exactly why they are allowed nor show any policy or guideline to dispute the argument that this is copyright and trademark infringement.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – The removal of this image appears to be based upon an overly-strict interpretation of copyright laws and Wikipedia copyright policies. The image is obviously not in violation of stated laws nor Wikipedia guidelines. The context of the image is the protester and the media blackout, not the logos that are incidentally in the image. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's a matter of FOP. Freedom of panarama which the US only has for buildings and which wikipidia takes seriously. Again, assuming the image was clear of copyright and trademark issues it is not the image that should be used but the actual poster depicted, per MOS to context. The image itself violtates Wikimedia policy in regards to copyright and FOP.[18].--Amadscientist (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons itself has policy in this regard.[19]--Amadscientist (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Regardless of the decision, David Shankbone should not be commenting or adding the material. Not only is it his work, but he appears to be far to close to the issue. While he does take some good pictures that serve a valuable purpose, some of these issue pictures fall into presenting a specific self-published point of view. We should not be using his pictures to tell his story of the events. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – User:David Shankbone has every right to comment on this and all other discussion pages. Street photography does not convey any point-of-view from the author of the photography. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Shankbone is absolutely allowed to take photographs, insert them into the article, and comment on them. Arzel's complaint has no merit. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Question. How is this not the very definition of original research? User-generated photo, user-generated commentary carrying a POV in the caption, nothing whatsoever from any reliable source? We're not supposed to be reflecting any POV that's not from a source, so far as I understand. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Shankbone supplies sources which describe the so-called media blackout in the early days of the protest. This "blackout" could easily be made into article text, but it could also be considered sufficiently informative in the image caption. The sources: "At first they claimed a media blackout." "Keith Olbermann took to CurrentTV to complain about the media blackout over the protests". "Current TV’s Keith Olbermann lashed out at what he called a “media blackout” more than a week ago, and activist Michael Moore joined him two days later to rail against traditional media’s scant spotlight on the nascent protest movement." Those sources are quite enough to show Shankbone is not making this stuff up. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the images and captions that are completely unsourced. We're supposed to reflect POV from sources, not editors, so if an editor goes and takes a bunch of pictures of exclusively positive stuff and presents numerous of these pictures with captions showing the fluffy and wonderful and sustainable nature of the situation on the ground in Zucotti park, I don't see how that's not a problem implicating NPOV and Verifiability right to their core. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What? Shankbone is not forcing anyone to use his photos. He has many times suggested that others are certainly free to delete anything he adds, move them around, and has even mentioned the many other photos that are available at the Commons. You are certainly free to look at other photos and use them. As always, other editors may object or argue your selections. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm just getting confused. Are you saying it's ok for WP editors to conduct OR and insert their own editorial analysis of things and their own selection of what topics to highlight, so long as they're not forcing it on anyone (whatever that means)? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That was not OR - it was taken on Sept 28 when there was a "media blackout". Gandydancer (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

She's wearing three Nike swooshes but it is still okay to use this photo on Wikipedia.

Still confused. What does the factual accuracy of a claim have to do with whether it represents OR? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist, where is the guideline that says multiple logos compound the problem? Single or multiple logos are usable if they are in a context other than a straight logo. For instance, a photograph of a single record album cover is a copyrighted image but a photograph of three different album covers splayed on a table is not. A Nike logo by itself is copyrighted but worn on clothing it is not. A Ford logo by itself is copyrighted but in a photograph of a car it is not.

This article has many logos in its photos, but you haven't reacted to them. This image in the article has the logo of UnTV News, and a Canon camera logo. This other image has a recognizable part of the USPS logo. This image has the logo of National Nurses United This image has the logo of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) on a guy's shirt and the New York Yankees on a guy's cap. This image has a RØDE Microphones logo. This image has a Ramapo College logo and Poland Spring Water logos. This image has a North Face logo. This image has a Duracell logo. I don't think you are applying the logo guidelines correctly. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

that girl in purple? The main thing is what's that under her shirt? Is an alien breaking out or what? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Images in Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons are NOT required to be referenced with reliable sources or otherwise be deleted or removed from Wikipedia articles per an argument of being Original research. Newspapers, mass media, academia, etc. typically don't write entire theses to create empirical research theorems about images in general that are used within articles in mass media and in Wikipedia, nor in empirical research itself. Images are used to enhance Wikipedia articles; it's absurd to argue that street photography of protesters is original research. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. You can't bypass the prohibition on OR simply by putting original research in image form. WP:OI reads "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." [emphasis in original] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

~~The text in the image was published, not "unpublished."~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(Note): The text directly above this correction was placed in error, and was regarding the New York Times article comparison image discussion occurring below, and not regarding the image being discussed in this section, regarding media blackout. The struck comment above was placed in this section in error. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim advanced by the image and its caption—that the NYT changed its content—is unpublished. Hence the image and its caption cannot be used, because they advance an unpublished claim, which is prohibited by WP:NOR, including the section on original images. I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Also, can you stop putting a bullet point in front of every comment you make? It makes it a huge pain to indent replies properly. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The above reply appears to belong to the discussion below. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it was in response to NA's comment that "the text in the image was published", which is irrelevant. But you are correct that the image being discussed is the image from the section below and not this one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The image's main focus is the story it is telling, which is the media black out and not really the protester. The protester is incidental...the media blackout poster and the logo filled flag are the story. The man holding the sign is not of importance to the image or the statement being made. He is the part of the image that, if left out, would still be saying the same thing. It is also the basis for use in the article.

The image of the logo of Nike is incidentally in the image of the tennis player. It's not the center of attention or statement. The multiple logos in the flag along with the copyright poster are the focus for context in the article itself. Take those images out and it's then just a man standing alone. The point is, the poster and flag are not accidentally in the image. They are the main focus and reason the picture was taken. It's not a Winnie the Pooh bear in the hands of a child who is the main focus of the photo. It's not a design element in the background like a daisy in an upholstered chair.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And User:Arzel is correct. The multiple use of an editor's image contributions may have a very large influence on the articles point of view even if he's not the putting them up. Gandydancer made an good point, is David Shankbone the one who put the images here? If he is, then he may be having an influence in the point of view being expressed becoming over weighted. Images are POV. They are. Mr. Shankbone is a fantastic contributor, he is. But we still treat the contribution as we would any other. To many on one article may be over weighted and if the editor is placing them he is actively influencing the articles POV. Either way doesn't mean it's on purpose but we still need to take note. Too many images from a single person on such a controversial article with so many people involved...we really do want to see more variety for neutrality and accuracy.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Times Square, NYC - There are many trademarked logos here, but the image shouldn't be deleted from Wikimedia

You're discussing other contributions, sure, but what about the image in question here that you removed from the article? You decided to remove this image under a rationale (verbatim), "Removing image that has several copy protected logos within the image with no fair use rational for use. May be OK for Commons but not Wikipedia." Rather than discussing a user's overall contributions, care to discuss your rationale just about this one image, or expound upon your rationale more regarding this one image? The image's inclusion (the one being discussed in this section of the discussion page) in the Media section of the Occupy Wall Street article appears to clear any potential copyvio problems. There are miniscule logos in the image, but they are incidental to the overall theme of the image, which is in regard to initial perceptions of a media blackout occurring amongst protesters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Read above my last comment. There's another one there. But in general it is related. We are not discussing the editor or his contributions, but the use of his contributions here in presenting an over weighted view of the photographer. No one is accusing the photographer of anything, just the use of use of the work on Wikipedia. Just as the discussion is about the image itself. It's a derivative work combining the main elements of "Media" logos along with the copy protected poster. They are central in the image. The man is literally offset in the image and the focus is the poster and flag in vertical center.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You really shouldn't use direct links for images in an RfC, but if your point is, that the use of logos in that image suggests something, the image does not speak for itself here. Part of this argument is how this applies and when. Just placing the image doesn't say anything and your meaning must be implied. It also just distracting from the discussion. Don't justify use of an image for this page with another image used or not used elsewhere. Justify the image use here for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I agree with Northaamerica - let's stay focused. However this comment re my above comment, "Gandydancer made an good point, is David Shankbone the one who put the images here? If he is, then he may be having an influence in the point of view being expressed becoming over weighted. Images are POV. They are.", is far from what I posted. I do look at our photos and who made them and entered them. If AMS does not, it seems a little odd that he is suddenly troubled that many of them have been the work of Shankbone, to the point that he fears that Shankbone is attempting to enter his POV to our article. Really, don't we have enough problems with this article without getting bogged down in an endless discussion about our photos?Gandydancer (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I wasn't suggesting that you said anything in particular about the editor, it was what you brought up. I haven't "suddenly" done anything. I have brought his up before. I am as concerned on this page about images as I am on all pages I edit. It's all content to be discussed and reviewed by editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

But I do actually apologize if you took it as an incorrect quoting of you. It was not what you were saying, it was what you brought up only.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I see that the editor that brought this RfC has decided to go ahead and return the image during the discussion when there is clearly still no consensus. I won't edit war. I made me deletion and instead of justifying the revert an editor went straight for RfC. The contributing editor simply has a large majority of attribution and when that happens, sometimes it makes it a higher chance that their photos are going to have some dispute. It is the same as editing text. I understand that an eye for photography is a specialized art. I wish I had a quarter of his talent. I acknowledge he has the right to contribute. Some have been strong and heavy with context to the articles section. I see another editor even thinks that we should have a gallery. Perhaps that is an appropriate suggestion for it's own section and not within a specific topic. This actually accomplishes a few things. It pulls the strongest images from one of the strongest contributors by the community along with others giving a visual representation that may be needed to fully appreciate the "moment", vents the community need to illustrate the article and encourages the use of images by consensus. Editors could spot light the best images from contributors without using them as expert attribution (No caption "Photo by").--Amadscientist (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think any of Shankbone's pictures should be used unless published in a secondary source to establish notability. He is far to close to the movement and the article is dominated with with his pro-movement photos throughout. The pictures give the feel of original research by using pictures dominated from on pro-movement photographer. Arzel (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

—Comment – See image right. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many trademarked logos in this image, but it is nevertheless absolutely permitted for the image to be used in Wikipedia.

At a discussion at Media copyright questions, Ww2censor, a veteran editor, says the multi-logo image is okay to use. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the most ridiculous series of objections I've every seen. The images of the logos are trivial, incidental, and pass every fair use test imaginable: they're essential to the subject, because the photo needs to accurately portray what people are wearing. The photo itself does not have a POV. (AS photo can, if taken in such a way as to be propagandistic, but this is a neutral plain unmanipulated photograph The person being photographed has a POV, but if we cannot use photographs showing a person expressing a POV, we can't show politics (or many other subjects) at all. Demonstrators inherently have a POV. and it is highly appropriate to illustrate it. The accuracy of the legend has no bearing on the acceptability of the photography. But if we' discussing it, I think it's accurate, and scrupulously referenced in the actual caption, and described and discussed in the article. COI of a photographer is no objection to their photographs, unless you want to claim the photograph is taken in a prejudicial manner00which it clearly isn't. I'd close this discussion myself, except Shankbone is a friend of mine. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This starts with the assertion that the use of [this photograph by Shankbone] is likely within fair-use guidelines. No, as Madscientist points out, fair use is an irrelevance. Madscientist goes on to say (in the context of copyrights) that The guidelines for use at commons and the guidelines for use in a Wikipedia article are not the same. Madscientist's argument then becomes obscure, but seems to say that copyright considerations here at en:WP are more stringent than they are at Commons. No they are not. If there were a copyright concern (and there doesn't seem to be), then it should be taken up at Commons. ¶ It also seems to be claimed within the discussion above that, any copyright issue aside, this image is somehow tendentious or that the use of it is tendentious. The closest this gets to lucidity is the suggestion that photograph and photographer are "pro-movement". The photographer seems an irrelevance here. Anyone wanting to claim that either the photograph or its inclusion is "pro-movement" should argue this point persuasively. As long as the argument is lacking, the claim may be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that image is a copyright issue in that the image is being used instead of the poster it depicts and that the use of logos in this manner on this article may be copyright and trademark issues because they are the subject not the protester. There is no issue with the photographer. His having a large contribution and someone feeling that was a conflict giving his point of view undue weight is just something the article will have to deal with. As I said his having a lot of images is not the issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I find it hard to understand what you are saying in the first half of that. But anyway, you seem to think that there is a copyright issue. If there is a copyright issue, does it not also arise in Commons? If it does, then take it up in Commons; if it does not, then explain how there can be a copyright issue in en:WP and not in Commons. ¶ Incidentally, I note that you say above: The copyright issue is the poster itself. Copyright of the New York Times, providing this link. Yes, this shows the poster crudely watermarked with the claim that it's copyrighted by the NYT. If you want to bring up your copyright concern (whether here or at Commons, depending on your answer to my previous question), you may wish to explain how you reached this jpeg and why you think the NYT would produce or otherwise claim copyright of this poster. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Telling an editor to "take it up with commons" does not argue that the image is not a copyright issue for Wikipedia use. Wikipedia has it's own policy and guidelines for use. Just because an image was uploaded onto commons and wasn't deleted doesn't mean it's even fine for commons. I don't need to explain how I googled an image or argue the copyright claim. I deleted the image and I explained why. Is the defense of this image so weak that you have to attack every other detail instead of just showing the guidelines and policy that support your assessment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed [this] Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines for use, but these concern "fair use" (seemingly irrelevant here) and so forth. There's a presumption in this Wikipedia (and in others too) that material hosted in Commons is not problematic in terms of copyright. Of course conventionally copyright material is at times uploaded to Commons, whether maliciously or ignorantly. If this has happened then the place to point this out is there. (This should be easy for you to do. You're already a contributor to Commons. You've already written a lot here; you just copy, paste, abridge and rephrase there. Or somebody else may wish to do it.) ¶ When you talk immediately above of having explained why you deleted the image, are you referring to the comment Removing image that has several copy protected logos within the image with no fair use rational for use. May be OK for Commons but not Wikipedia? If so, then (i) your objection to the inclusion of "copy protected" (copyrighted?) logos has already been shot to bits above, while (ii) you are still refusing to explain how copyright considerations may apply to en:WP and not to Commons. ¶ What is this "assessment" for which you want "guidelines and policy"? I "assess" the photograph as containing a poster that may be copyright but is highly unlikely to belong to the NYT but whose copyright status is anyway likely to be an irrelevance here, and I "assess" this poster as containing logos that are copyright but whose copyright status is certainly an irrelevance here. I "assess" the photograph as one lacking any unusual warning template at Commons or even a discussion page there -- one whose inclusion in Commons has aroused no objection. I assess myself (and you too) as something less than an expert in copyright issues, certainly less expert than a lot of people who frequent Commons, where any copyright concern should be raised. -- Hoary (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) slightly augmented Hoary (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above, but I get the feeling that people are arguing we can't use pictures taken on the street or other public venues if they have corporate logos or other trademarks in them. This isn't true, because the level we're working with is not the trademark, but the street scene or image of an object in a public place. The copyright to the image is as the photographer makes it, and corporations have lost all rights to it (in context) by allowing it to be displayed in public, for example by selling clothes which they know will be in public places. That's how I see it anyway. B^e——C_ritical 07:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that point - companies use logos to put their brand out there, and the image is NOT using those logos as rip-off(rip-off as in taking the design and changing it slightly so it would represent someone/thing else). The image should stay there and be allowed for use on Wikipedia. User:Bodman456 | Come talk to me or ask me a question! (I don't bite ;D) 09:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] The New York Times. Accessed November 2011.

[2] Grant, Drew Grant; Sanders, Anna (September 30, 2011). "Media Coverage: Must Reads." The New York Observer. Accessed November 2011.

[3] Goodale, Gloria (October 5, 2011). "'Occupy Wall Street': Why this revolution isn't made for TV." The Christian Science Monitor. Accessed November 2011.

[4] Udstuen, Lukas; et al. (October 11, 2011.) "U.S. News: Occupy Wall Street Media Coverage." NewsNY. Accessed November 2011.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]