Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

potential resource The 99%, the 1%, and Class Struggle

From Talk:We are the 99% ...

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/1111toc.html in Dollars and Sense by Alejandro Reuss ...

A few people, on the other hand, get much of their income not from work but from ownership of property—profits from a business, dividends from stock, interest income from bonds, rents on land or structures, and so on. People with large property incomes may also draw large salaries or bonuses, especially from managerial jobs. Executive pay, though treated in official government statistics as labor income, derives from control over business firms and really should be counted as property income.

Between 1979 and 2007, the income share of the top 1% of U.S. households (by income rank) more than doubled, to over 17% of total U.S. income. Meanwhile, the income share of the bottom 80% dropped from 57% to 48% of total income. “We are the 99%,” the rallying cry of the #OccupyWallStreet movement, does a good job at calling attention to the dramatic increase of incomes for those at the very top—and the stagnation of incomes for the majority.

Within article capitalist, bank profits, executive compensation, Collective bargaining, Performance-related pay, Bankers' bonuses,

SOURCES:

• Bureau of Labor Statistics, Real Hourly Compensation, Private Business Sector, Series ID number: PRS84006153;
• Bureau of Labor Statistics, Output Per Hour, Private Business Sector, Series ID number: PRS84006093;
• Congressional Budget Office, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 (October 2011);
• James Heintz, “Unpacking the U.S. Labor Share,” Capitalism on Trial: A Conference in Honor of Thomas A. Weisskopf, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts-Amherst (September 2011).

99.181.130.209 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See Wealth inequality. 99.181.134.37 (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This would be related to the above, from Portal:Current events/2011 December 15 ...

• The 2010 United States Census shows 1 in 2 people are classified as low-income or poor. (Associated Press) (NPR) (CBS News)}}

99.56.120.67 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Active violence at OWS

Protesters tried in vain to actively occupy private property over the weekend, using willful destruction of private property in an act of violence. How long until the OWS crowd here come to grips with reality?

Firstly, I scanned it an the violence seems to have been on the part of the police. Secondly, I freely admit that the movement has some violence in it. Maybe it isn't properly called nonviolent. There is certainly a case to be made for that. Probably, calling it nonviolent is unjustified. But you need to understand and meet the sourcing policy. Nothing more or less. Till that time, the current sources are sufficient to call it nonviolent. B^e——C_ritical 04:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning tag on talk page

I'm not familiar with wikicode but I think we should put warning up there with the "this is not a debate forum" tag that asks people not to just post websites. People constantly make new sections just saying "we could use this source" and posting some website related to OWS; it is disruptive and I think could be avoided with a simple warning tag.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some people are not quite yet ready to take the plunge and make an edit on their own. Why discourage them when they are trying to be helpful? When someone posts just one or two sources, I always take a look at them and have sometimes used them. As for disruptive, there is only one on this entire page - how can you call that disruptive? Gandydancer (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It's not "people", it's one person.
2. It's not just this article; it's hundreds of articles.
3. Almost all of the sources are inappropriate for the article suggested; he likes posting a request to add something (irrelevant) to article A on Talk:Article B; when there is no objection (usually because no one can figure out what the quote might be relevant to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, so that IP is basically a troll you're saying? Why wouldn't we just report it? B^e——C_ritical 02:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at a recent edit or two from 97.87.29.188 I can only see helpful suggestions and polite editing. By the speed this editor is assisting across different subjects I'd say he or she doesn't have time to incorporate all the material themself into so many articles. This guideline may be helpful. If you have time, can you tell me which posts are inappropriate or unhelpful on my talkpage, and I'll take a look. Penyulap _talk 03:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Date formatting

I notice that at the top of this talkpage there is a small note " Dates are in MDY format, with the year being 2011 if unspecified. "

If there is an ongoing problem keeping to a standard format, please work out what is the most popular format amongst new editors, and then read about Editnotices one of those may be helpful. They are not to be used to tell people anything about a point of view or a consensus, possibly an article FAQ is for that I don't know. They are just for things like the date format and so forth where no argument is likely to break out. Penyulap _talk 04:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

resource from Portal:Current events/2011 December 18

• More than 50 Occupy Wall Street protesters are arrested as they attempted to establish a new encampment. (The Guardian)

99.19.40.211 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-violent protest?

The infobox describes the movement as "non-violent". There are more than enough verifiable sources stating the objective fact that numerous acts of violence and criminal activity which occurred at OWS. The infobox should be edited to reflect this objective fact. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The infobox takes generality to a high level. The protests are nonviolent protests, despite a few incidents of violent actions. B^e——C_ritical 07:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Protest movements may be either violent or nonviolent:

• Peaceful movements - various movements which use nonviolent means of protest as part of a campaign of nonviolent resistance, also often called civil resistance. The American Civil Rights movement, Polish Solidarity movement or the nonviolent, civil disobedience-orientated wing of the Indian independence movement would fall into this category.
• Violent movements - various movements which resort to violence; they are usually armed and in extreme cases can take a form of a paramilitary or terrorist organization. Examples: the Rote Armee Fraktion, Al-Qaida.

This editor has recently removed the wording "nonviolent protest" from the Occupy movement article as well. Surely s/he does not see the movements in the same class as Al-Qaida? Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because the examples given were extreme doesn't mean that you have to be extreme to be considered violent. Almost every single occupy movement, especially the one in New York, have had violence reported, and a lot of it, not just a "few isolated cases".--174.49.24.190 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give reliable sources characterizing it as something besides a non-violent protest/movement? Your concept of Wikipedia sourcing policy seems to be markedly flawed. B^e——C_ritical 20:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy isn't a nonviolent protest, but it isn't a violent one either. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Toa Nidhiki05 21:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's good to know that you are so interested in me that you keep tabs on everything I say in discussion pages; my suggestion was completely in line with current consensus on what people are considered part of what religions, but I'm not going to get into that here. I would be happy to give reliable sources to back my claim that the Occupy Movement, including and especially the New York protests, have been extremely violent. This source has a list of many crimes committed with each one sourced to either a video or a reliable news article. Most of which has somehow miraculously managed to stay out of the article.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You are committing original research, and using unreliable sources. Stop it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not "committing Original Research", you clearly don't understand that term. Becrit asked for a reliable source, and I gave him/her one. The sources cited in that list are more than reliable. I will continue to enlighten people on despite your cheer-leading and unfounded, ridiculous attempts to keep it out of the article.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Finding many instances of violence and using them to call something a violent protest is WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Unless the sources call it a violent protest, it is not a violent protest. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The source says violence more than 15 times, check again. And the sources within the source also say violent. There was on OR "committed". At this point you are just a disruptive nuisance to people actually trying to add information to the article and the correct manner.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

biggovernment.com is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if that were true, there are still hundreds of sources within that link that are undeniably reliable.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that state that the protest is violent - that's the OR by SYNTH part. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, check again, the source I gave that you claim is not reliable , is not actually the source I am using, it is just the source that conveniently listed many crimes with reliable sources for me; I am using the many sources in the list. Now, if you look at the sources in the list, 15 of them specifically say violent in the title alone; if you read each individual article, which I don't have the time to do, I'm sure you will find many more say they are violent somewhere in the article. It isn't my interpretation, it is what the sources say.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You assume it's in the sources, and leave it for me to do the work? That's not how it work - per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That's you, asking that we call it a violent protest. When others were challenged to find sources for nonviolent, they did so. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OH, so that was you Jacksoncw, and you believe that the Christianity article "should define a Christian based on what the Bible says" [1]. Okay then, you really need to study Wikipedia sourcing policy. Please stop giving people at this article a hard time till you do. Please also edit under your username from now on. B^e——C_ritical 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the archives about religious matters. Yes it is me and I have said that multiple times. And no, I don't have to edit under my username, and I won't edit under my username because it is a hassle to log in every time I change wifi connections. If you have something to say about the Christianity article, then say it on the Christianity talk page. The sources in that list are more than enough to at least remove the non-violent protest tag if not tag it as a violent protest.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not till you present the appropriate sources. B^e——C_ritical 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I already have presented the appropriate sources. Did you not see that enormous list? Each crime has an individual source from different publications, all reliable.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite explained above. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a bad idea here. B^e——C_ritical 01:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be good if there had been consensus on this. There hasn't. You are trying everything you can to defend the movement but I will go through the proper channels to get this notable information added to the article, no matter what ridiculous attempts you guys make.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable source stating this is a violent movement. Not one. The link you gave isn't a RS, and you are attempting to use original research and synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have said two times already that my source is the sources listed in that link not the link itself. It's as if you people are intentionally not looking just so you have some excuse to keep the truth out of the article. Look at the LIST. Every crime on the list has a different source. So while you may think biggovernment.com is not a reliable source, which there is no consensus to back that claim up, that's not even the source I am using. It has an enormous list of crimes, and each crime has it's own individual reliable source. 15 of which call it violent within the article title, and I'm sure there are more than call it violent in their content.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of going through some of the sources on the list. Here are just some of the sources that specifically say violent. | This source, | this source, | this source, | this source, | this source, | this source, and | this source.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the sourcing policy. There is one RS on your list, and it doesn't speak of OWS as a violent protest. Indeed, it's not even about OWS. SERIOUSLY, Jacksoncw, read the sourcing policy. B^e——C_ritical 03:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this source or |this source?--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me try and explain. Here we have mention of violence, but nothing which indicates that it is to be categorized as a violent movement, and we also have this quote "If the movement gets violent, it loses all its force." So no, that one won't work. The [www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/occupy-wall-street-violence-6575448 other blog you point to], in Esquire, is not about OWS, and does not say that OWS is to be characterized as a violent movement, or not to be characterized as a nonviolent movement. What you have to show is a general preponderance of sources saying that they are not a nonviolent protest. As to how the current characterization of "nonviolent protest" was or is sourced, I do not know, but I do know that you haven't shown the opposite. Requesting sources for "nonviolent protest" is very valid, and that is where you should put your attention if you want to change this. But per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you can't try to prove the opposite yourself, you have to have sources directly saying things. B^e——C_ritical 19:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe OWS is a violent protest just because there were instances of violence and I don't believe it is a non-violent protest because there is at least one instance of violence. Violent protests are also called riots, and non-violent protests can not have one instance of violence or they would be called sometimes-violent protests.Racingstripes (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, well it's all about the sources. B^e——C_ritical 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So we are agreeing, since there instances of violence it should not be label a non-violent protest and since this isn't a riot it shouldn't be labeled a violent protest.Racingstripes (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think we are agreeing to that. The Occupy Movement considers itself, and is reliably sourced as a nonviolent movement

“ Nonviolent resistance (or nonviolent action) is the practice of achieving goals through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political noncooperation, and other methods, without using violence ”

Just because there are incidents of violence during portions of some protests, definitely does not take away from a movement being nonviolent. There were incidents of violence during many nonviolent anti-war protest. Gandhi's movment had many, many instances of violence, yet his strong views of nonviolence define the movement. We should stick to what the movement/s define themselves as, unless there are controversies surrounding those descriptors. Reliably sourced controversies, that are not partisan. Otherwise, we are not following NPOV or weight. Dave Dial (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV or weight has nothing to do with whether the protest is violent, non-violent or neither. Those are the guidlines of wikipedia not how to define a protest. Racingstripes (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

But calling it a nonviolent protest does need at least one good source? Do you guys know of one? B^e——C_ritical 02:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider throwing a piece of glass at a police officer violent. And a protester threw a piece of glass at a police officer. That is a fact. Protesters also spit on police officers, not as violent throwing glass but still has a degree of violence. Not a riot, but it is violentRacingstripes (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

@Racingstripes--You can consider whatever actions you would like as 'violent' or not. Actions of the individual do not define the group. That's just common sense and also reported in reliable sources. The movement defines itself as nonviolent, and sources also describe it as such. You don't get to do you own synthesis. @Becritical, here are some sources. International Business Times- LA-ABC - Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal - Time Magazine - Washington Post- Seattle Times Dave Dial (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If I define myself as an eight foot tall purple panda doesn't make it so. The word non-violent means no violence. Non, is an important qualifying part of that word. Non-violent is not the case for occupy wall street. If you support non-violence and part of the protest that does not mean the movement is non-violent, just like if you support violence that does not make the movement violent. Racingstripes (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not remotely the issue, but you can describe yourself as anything you want. If reliale sources also describe you as an 8 foot panda then you are. According to self descriptions and the reliable sources I listed above(there are many, many more), the group is described as a nonviolent movement. That should be all here, and I will only respond again if someone brings some new reasoning here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to find sources specific enough to meet my standards, but this is one. "Lower Manhattan was swarming not just with demonstrators and police but with journalists from around the world – and with tourists who wanted to see what all the fuss was about. A small, nonviolent protest had been amplified into something much bigger and more compelling, not by the strength of its numbers but by the power of its central idea." B^e——C_ritical 04:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If the NY Times said I was an eight foot panda they maybe a reliable source but they would be wrong. So in that instance there is a rare example of when a reliable source would be incorrect. But there are enough reliable sources that indicate examples of violence that occurred within OWS. So do we exclude these reliable sources, do we redefine non-violent? Once again OWS is not a non-violent protest and it is not a violent protest.Racingstripes (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeating your own opinion over and over doesn't help. Even if you're right, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. B^e——C_ritical 09:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A Source that states OWS is non-violent or violent is stating an opinion. Because there are a few examples of violence that are associated with OWS, hence nullifying the non on non-violence and not enough to call it a riot so it shouldn't be called violent, the neutral point of view would be to not include either non-violent or violent in the infobox.Racingstripes (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That is purely garbled logic, and your own personal opinion. Which isn't in keeping with Wiki policies. You don't get to 'nullify' sources because you can point to instances of violence. The fact is, the movement defines itself as nonviolent, there are many reliable sources that call the movement nonviolent, with little to none describing it as a 'violent' movement. Civil disobedience itself can be described as both nonviolent and violent, depending on opinions. But CW and reliable sources describe those types of protest movements as nonviolent. So that is what we describe them as. That's the trouble with trying to insert one's own opinion here. There are no sources describing the movement as 'violent'. There are sources that have reported on incidents during protests that have resulted in violence, but it's not up Wikipedia editors to take those incidents and attribute them to a whole movement and 'nullify' sources that describe the protests as nonviolent. That it pure synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My logic is very simple, the word non-violent is a defined word. As seen here in the most reliable and impartial of all sources Merriam Webster. Based on that it's pretty clear that OWS does not qualify as a non-violent anything because OWS as a whole has not abstained from violence and has not been free of violence. My point is the English language, not some reporter's opinion and not the protesters themselves.Racingstripes (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This information is located within the "Characteristics" of the movement. As such the "Characteristics" of the movement include both violent and non-violent methods. For anyone to make the case that it is explicity a non-violent movement is clearly not willing to see the movement as a whole. The section should have either both or neither. To claim one aspect only is clearly a WP:NPOV violation. Arzel (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No one -at least no one who knows policy- is making a case for anything. Properly source what you want to change in the article, per all applicable policies, and it will change. To be very explicit: your arguments are perfectly true, logical, and correct. But per policy, no one cares what you think. B^e——C_ritical 03:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources have already been stated, thus you should have no problem adding the second category. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a more reliable and impartial source than Merriam-Webster. Reporters are partial and often hide their opinion in articles they write. The facts of their articles is what is included, not their opinions.Racingstripes (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just don't edit the article without consensus. We've explained things to you, but you won't listen. Furthering this is disruption. B^e——C_ritical 04:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

By calling it non-violent, you are changing the English language, and denying probably the most reliable source.Racingstripes (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, your arguments and thoughts are irrelevant. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." Find us sources saying that it is not a nonviolent movement, and saying that it is a violent movement. We already have sources saying it is a nonviolent movement, so you have to demonstrate a preponderance or genuine controversy, per WP:WEIGHT. B^e——C_ritical 05:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

generally speaking, OWS is non-violent

Labeling the protest "violent" would violate Due Weight policy because we have numerous reliable sources for labelling OWS as non-violent protest, as well as the fact that OWS organizers continuously exhort non-violence, and (afaict) there are no RSs explicitly challenging this characterization. Mainstream media may focus on violent clashes and other violence, which is anecdotal evidence at best, but Wikipedia takes a broader view. NPOV is a cornerstone of this project and Due Weight is a part of that. The vast majority of the OWS protest actions are non-violent. Period. El duderino (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

True, and your point about the sourcing for "nonviolent" is the major one. Here is another good source. To overcome that, you'd have to have a source saying that OWS is no longer a nonviolent movement. It's from Foreign Affairs. B^e——C_ritical 06:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OWS is not a violent protest and anyone that says it is violent is wrong, just as anyone who says it is a non-violent protest is equally wrong. What I don't understand is whether or not you feel that is not a reliable source? Because if it is than it should not be labeled as a non-violent protest, just as it should not be labeled a violent protest.Racingstripes (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is irrelevant. Read the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. B^e——C_ritical 07:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Does wikipedia need Merriam-Webster to put out a press release flat-out stating that OWS is not non-violent? Is it that wikipedia needs Rachel Maddow or Glen Beck to appear on television reading the definition, is that wikipedia needs the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal to publish the definition? WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are more about creating an opinion, a definition is fact. And I'm not including something based on WP:OR, I want to see someone's opinion removed from the article. This is some people's, whether it is users' or reporters', opinion that this is non-violent but if you read the definition it does not qualify as non-violent. And since this it is an opinion, doesn't calling it non-violent violateWP:POV.Racingstripes (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're getting the idea: what we'd need, is for the NYT to say "Occupy Wall street is no longer a nonviolent movement." But, while you're being sarcastic and disbelieving, you are getting the general idea. It's not just someone's opinion, it is sourced [2]. B^e——C_ritical 08:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're saying we should ignore the definition of the word which is universal, unbiased, and sourced, and we should include reporters sourced opinions which violates which violates WP:NOV. That's cherry picking your sources.Racingstripes (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm above is almost exactly what is needed in order to even consider making a change to the article. Except for the dictionary ranting. That does not matter in the least. And the fact that you do not understand this, calls into question how you have edited Wikipedia for almost 3 years, as well as your other edits here. These are the basic pillars of Wikipedia. The attempts at using original research by Jacksoncw and synthesis by you is concerning. The fact that neither of you "get it" after reading those rules is far more concerning. Which calls into questions of competence. Dave Dial (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If I was trying to include something with original research your point would valid. I want something removed because users are including reporters' opinions from otherwise reliable sources, and this does violate WP:POV.Racingstripes (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing a fringe opinion which is covered in WP:NPOV policy. Please read that and tell us why a very small percentage of violent crimes committed during the protests, some of which may not even be connected to the movement in general, should outweigh how RS describes the protests as well as how the protestors themselves have acted overwhelmingly non-violent. You need more than your semantical interpretation of "non-violent protest" to change the label. El duderino (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A small percentage would nullify the non in non-violent because that would mean that it is not free of violence and has failed to abstain from violence which is the definition of the word. So if a reporter refers to OWS as non-violent either that reporter doesn't know the definition of the word or they are including their opinion in the article. So every source stating OWS as a whole is non-violent would be wrong. Racingstripes (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Absent any reliable sourcing for your opinion, this argument has gotten stale and repetitive. Please move away from the horse. El duderino (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"You're saying we should ignore the definition of the word which is universal, unbiased, and sourced, and we should include reporters sourced opinions" Yup. "And the fact that you do not understand this, calls into question how you have edited Wikipedia for almost 3 years, as well as your other edits here. These are the basic pillars of Wikipedia." Yup. "Please move away from the horse." Yup. B^e——C_ritical 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Racingstripes posted a note on my talk page asking for an uninvolved opinion. Due to the ephemeral nature of the Occupy movement, I'm not sure it is necessary to call this either a non-violent or a violent movement. There is no shortage of sources detailing the fact that the Occupiers are advocating policy changes, but none that call for violent overthrow of banks or politicians. At the same time, the protesters are throwing batteries and rocks at cops. This is obviously a case of the actions of a few bad apples spoiling the majority's intended message, but because there is no real central Occupy organization we don't have a developed enough platform to call call the movement entirely non-violent. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this. OWS is neither violent or non-violent, so no reason to define it to either extreme. Toa Nidhiki05 21:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying that they are no longer a nonviolent movement? Because I have sources categorizing them as a nonviolent movement, in addition to their self-categorization. B^e——C_ritical 21:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We have sources that call it violent, that is all that is needed for WP:V. You may not like the fact that some in the OWS movement that you support act in a violent way, but that is the case. Arzel (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We most certainly do not have sources that state the movement is 'violent'. You may not like that fact, and your POV pushing is tiresome, but as of now that's the case here. Dave Dial (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I guess this was just a walk in the park then. Arzel (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples of violence:

• Yahoo News: "Watts allegedly threw a AAA battery at officers who had set up a barricade"
• Fox NY
• Gothamist: Five protesters were charged with felony assault/"Unfortunately, some protesters today have deliberately pursued violence"
• DNAinfo.com: "The day has been marked by sporadic violence"
• CBS NY: "reported that protesters were also throwing batteries at officers"
• NYObserver: "We saw violence in the “Canyon of Heroes” along Lower Broadway..."
• National Review: "Violence and Illegal Guns at Occupy Wall Street"

Fodient (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, nobody cares bout examples. B^e——C_ritical 03:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

They all describe violence in Occupy. So its not non-violent.Fodient (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Again, nobody cares. B^e——C_ritical 04:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you do not care, this is noted. Willful ignorance does you no service here. Arzel (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, Wikipedia doesn't care per its policies. B^e——C_ritical 04:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that indicate that it is not non-violent, and there is a general consenus that it is not non-violent. What else is needed to decide that Occupy Wall Street is not non-violent.Racingstripes (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, reliable sources saying that it is not nonviolent. B^e——C_ritical 07:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok that was provided already.Racingstripes (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there are no sources provided here that describe the movement as a violent movement. Nor are there any that state they have changed the nonviolent tactics to violent ones. With the sources provided here that state explicitly that the movement has a nonviolent philosophy and the movements description of itself as nonviolent, you would need a source that explicitly states that they have changed tactics from nonviolent to violent. Giving sources that describe incidents of violence is not what is needed. It's pure original research and synthesis. So please, either provide the proper sourcing or stop beating this dead horse. Dave Dial (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Added-Let me just add that there may be some reliable source out there that could provide the necessary sourcing that would allow us to remove the term from the infobox. I don't really know, because I am not following this movement or the various protests very closely. But from what I do know, the goals are nonviolent protests in the same manner as other civil disobedience movements. Isolated incidents from people during protests is definitely not enough of a source to change the infobox goals, but is definitely worth including in the article body. Which it, for the most part, already is. So these incidents are not being ignored in this article, but we must also take into consideration to undue weight and BLP concerns. I would like to keep assuming good faith here, but it's difficult with the continued ignoring of synthesis and original research. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That section is not called Goals it is called Characteristics While they may state their goal is non-violence, the characteristics of the movement have included quite a bit of violence. One or two incidents are isolated, coordinated efforts, such as the one last weekend, are not isolated. Good faith goes both ways, and the appearance here is of OWS supporters trying to make sure that OWS is presented in flowering light. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Under what combination of personal self construction did you come up with that contrived interpretation of synthesis of material? OR and Synth forbid presenting a novel interpretation of source data or combining sources to present a new thought. Simply reporting what the sources have said is NOT OR or Synthesis of material. You do not need a source to say that they have changed their philosophy when their actions have shown that they have and are acting out in violence. They (which is ironic since they supposed have no defined leadership unless it is flattery) can call themselves whatever they want, but we use RS to describe how they act. A person or group may claim to be innocent of a crime or action, but that does not mean we cannot report their crime or action. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, when you come to a place like this, where you can't form consensus for what you want to do, you need to go to the noticeboards. I suggest you post this one on the WP:NOR/N. Just continuing to say the same things with which other editors disagree won't get you anywhere. You have to get others to agree with you who aren't involved in the article. Now: "You do not need a source to say that they have changed their philosophy when their actions have shown that they have and are acting out in violence" That's the very essence of original research. You may wish to read these essays: Wikipedia:The Truth, Wikipedia:Truth, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. B^e——C_ritical 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

With the interest of getting it right, I like this WP:IAR. Racingstripes (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a free pass to do what you want after others have objected. See WP:What "IAR" means e.g. "If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do." and "IAR does not sabotage the other rules." El duderino (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I did. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. There isn't a request to stomp on the rules. There is a request to apply reasonable thinking to get the article right. Which is where the word non-violent does not apply here because it has not been non-violent. Racingstripes (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of the term as it applies here. OWS is overwhelmingly non-violent, despite what makes the news coverage. INstead of arguing semantics, perhaps you should read more about non-violent protest which is first and foremost an overriding philosophy. It appears that you and others are cherry-picking incidents in order to erode the credibility of this article and/or its subject. El duderino (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is you and others that are failing to read the definition of non-violent(back to merriam-webster) that was cited earlier. And it is you and others that are choosing to interpret and cherry pick the rules to fit the label you want. By saying generally speaking, OWS is non-violent or describing it as overwhelmingly non-violent clearly shows that the movement is not non-violent because it is not free of violence(see Merriam-Webster's definition) which means it does not fit the definition of the word.Racingstripes (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I am having a difficult time at the Occupy movement article. The splinter articles all state that their Occupy movements are "peaceful" and other than the incident in Italy, which was extremely violent, they cannot furnish references that show that the worldwide movement is any different than the OWS movement. Even the Italian incident, as reported, states that it veered from a peaceful intent to violence and the peaceful protesters had to seek shelter from the violence and reported violent protesters to the officials. Suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

^This appears to be in response to my post, not to User:Racingstripes, (based on several factors like indent, timestamps, and repeat posts initially) so I've asked Gandydancer directly on his talkpage. @Gandydancer - Please feel free remove this note, either way. El duderino (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you are correct - my reply was to you. It must have been an edit conflict that I was not aware of. Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with El duderino about what constitutes a nonviolent movement. LOL, when someone pulls out IAR that way, you know the discussion can safely wind down :P B^e——C_ritical 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

From a nothing-to-do-with the OWS debate perspective, violent or non-violent would refer to a comparison to the general society or other protests. Last I saw of it a few weeks ago, and if nothing has changed since, they're still not building barricades out of burning cars and the death toll isn't yet into the dozens (above the usual street murder level and police interaction with the public level). But as I said I'm not watching or interested. (was here to maintain my template, see if it was causing trouble or not). Some tanks squishing people or lynchings would change it, but that's too far to go just to change a wikipedia article. Penyulap _talk 04:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resource

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-members-report-to-court-for-brooklyn-bridge-rally.html "Occupy Wall St. Protesters report to Court" by Colin Moyhihan page A31 in 15.December.2011 print issue.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good source, thanks (: B^e——C_ritical 03:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting information here, from the article link above within this section, ..."Others said they wanted their day in court. One was Mike Dobsevage, 35, from Danbury, Conn., who said he thought the police had used “trickery, deceit or entrapment” while stopping and arresting the marchers on the bridge. The police said the demonstrators had been warned that taking to the roadway meant that they would face arrest." Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The article already talks about this claim as well as the counter-claim that cops merely got out of protesters' way instead of trying to use physical force to keep them off the bridge. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mother Jones resources

Saw this on Talk:Occupy movement ...

• Occupy's Next Target: The Iowa Caucus by Gavin Aronsen December 19, 2011, regarding the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012
• Occupying Wall Street, Shipping Ports, and Hearts; The protests encircling the globe have brought the 99 percent together like never before. by Rebecca Solnit Dec. 22, 2011
• Occupied Washington; Grotesque income inequality is just a symptom of our larger political disease. by Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery, January/February 2012 Issue coverstory.

99.181.132.91 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

separate article(s)

One I think that could be created as this article has grown awfully long are Background of Occupy Wall Street and Reaction to Occupy Wall Street--Levineps (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Past or present tense?

Diehards aside, is this protest past or present tense? Sources within the article indicate the protesters were dispersed. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What specific sources are you referring to? OWS is not limited to Zucotti park, if thats what you mean. As you must know, changing the article's tense from present to past is a bold move -- and according to WP:BRD you should not have restored your changes [3] before discussing here and gaining consensus. El duderino (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, doesn't seem that "bold" to me. Also, BRD is a suggested guideline, not a policy you can demand other editors follow. Regarding the content change itself, I'd guess that OWS protesters are going to feel that OWS is "indefinite"; i.e. they are not going to be satisfied with anything that happens and thus will insist that the movement is ongoing so long as that is the case. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop twisting other editors' words here to make a point. There is no demand. But WP:BRD is a widely accepted practice and, more importantly, based on WP:Consensus which is policy. And yes it was a bold move. Your 'guess' is irrelevant. El duderino (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "twist" your words and I'm not sure what "point" you think I'm trying to make. I observed that you were making a demand [yes! a demand] that wasn't within the bounds of your limited authority as a WP editor, and made an earnest speculation that is relevant to improving the article. In the meantime, you yourself have been making "bold" reverts that actually directly violate core policy. Practice what you preach. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, in multiple ways and using scare quotes doesn't help. Clearly I said User:Kelly should not have restored which is no demand. And my reverts are not against any policy, though they may be against your interpretation of such. Given your apparent distaste of the article's subject, i can see how you might conflate the two. At this point we're arguing about arguing which does nothing to improve the article. And neither does speculation. So I ask again: Do any RSs say what you and Kelly are saying? El duderino (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "saying" anything on the subject other than the speculation I made above, discussion of which was relevant to improving the article. The reverts you made were clear SYNTH, which I'm afraid is against policy, and you should not have made them, although perhaps your obvious fawning adulation of the article subject prevents you from understanding this. (See how easy it is to rudely speculate about the motivations of another editor? Fun!) And I certainly agree that this petty sniping exchange that you've insisted upon pursuing is not helpful. Perhaps you could avoid this path in the future. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So we can take that as another 'No' to the question about RS. And yet you continue to bicker about a false parallel. How typical of a POV pusher to question the motives of someone seeking to balance criticism. El duderino (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

While there is one editor involved in this back-and-forth who has certainly fueled this uncivil fire, both of you have fanned the flames. Please back away, drop the sticks, and stop with the personal attacks. After you've done that, how about you find a better, more productive way to communicate that would lead you both to cooperative and collegial editing that leaves out the sniping so you can get back to building an encyclopedia? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:LesHB/Lhb1239 is the absolute last person who should be lecturing anyone about 'uncivil fire' and a 'productive way to communicate' as he too easily conflates disagreement and debate with 'personal attack' -- especially we were both advised to stay away from each other yet he followed me here . El duderino (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there nothing ongoing with OWS? As long as anything at all is happening that we can document, no reason to change the tense. Wait a few months, there's no hurry here, we don't have to update the article that quickly but should wait for things to become clear. OWS would cover NY general area I would think also. B^e——C_ritical 07:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with El duderino on this matter. User:Kelly has inserted the same past tense assertions on both the Occupy San Diego and the Occupy Los Angeles articles as well without providing any sources that both of those protests have also vanished. Though I believe these edits were made in good faith, I have reverted them and included references on those articles that state otherwise. RiseRobotRise (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Our Occupy groups here in Maine are still alive and well. The Portland group is still outdoors in the snow and cold and is suing for their right to be there. They are on the nightly news almost daily. Gandydancer (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011

Please change:

"A 22-year-old was charged with two counts of forcible touching fater allegedly groping the breast and buttocks of a 22-year-old women. "

to:

"A 22-year-old was charged with two counts of forcible touching after allegedly groping the breast and buttocks of a 22-year-old woman. "

because there is a typo in "fater" and "women" is grammatically incorrect. 129.42.208.184 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Bryce (talk | contribs) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential resources

Occupy Wall Street, Act II: Go local With many encampments razed or in jeopardy, Occupy Wall Street needs a second act. For now, many activists are settling on issues of concern to local residents. Will that weaken the movement, or strengthen it?" by Gloria Goodale, The Christian Science Monitor December 5, 2011. Staff writer Mark Guarino in Chicago contributed to this report.

99.190.86.5 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one Occupy Geeks Are Building a Facebook for the 99% B^e——C_ritical 09:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wired.com ^ 99.19.40.123 (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Political movement: "Occupy Iowa Caucus" [4] Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy the Safety Net by Betsy Reed December 14, 2011. This article appeared in the January 2, 2012 edition of The Nation.

99.19.40.123 (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

See Occupy movement in the United States. 99.19.46.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

[5] B^e——C_ritical 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unused references

I'm moving unused references here in case they are needed later.

Specific Section on anti-semitism

While ideologically opposed, balanced articles written about the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement ought to be comparable. There is much more evidence that factions of the Occupy movement are anti-Semites than there ever was that the tea party was racist. However, allegations of racism compose a significant portion of the tea party article. Shouldn't there be then a larger mention of antisemitism in the Occupy article? I realize that such allegations have not received much front cover mainstream media attention- however, in principle was that right, or, at least, is that right for Wikipedia. I'd be willing to do the editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.177.24 (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Already considered, here B^e——C_ritical 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And rather than making anyone reading this wade through the responses, what was the outcome (or consensus)? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 04:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think anyone who wanted to write a small paragraph would be welcome to do so. That's all it deserves per WEIGHT, and it is a thoroughly refuted smear campaign which is how we would present it. B^e——C_ritical 05:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"such allegations have not received much front cover mainstream media attention" - Yup. And on that basis, it would violate WP:UNDUE to give it much attention here either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Such allegations..." According to whom? It was reported by all the majors including Reuters, Deutsche Welle, and BBC. As far as Becritical's comment about a "smear campaign" - what smear campaign are you referring to and who was doing the smearing? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 05:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

'"Such allegations..." According to whom?' - according to the OP, who seems to misunderstand WP:UNDUE. If something doesn't receive significant attention elsewhere, it shouldn't get it here: and if it does, then provide the evidence, in a way that we can meaningfully discuss it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to do this why not provide a bunch of RS? Have to do that anyway to write it. B^e——C_ritical 07:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm or a sincere question? (text doesn't allow for hearing prosody and observing body language, you know) (talk→ LesHB ←track) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's real: if someone wants to build a paragraph on something, the first thing to do is gather sources and see what you can build with them. Why discuss this if we don't know what sources we're dealing with? B^e——C_ritical 19:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually there was not enough support for inclusion last month when it was discussed and voted on (now archived as Becritical mentioned above). If we were counting votes during that discussion in November, 2011, it would be roughly 9 for some mention -- with varying degrees of qualification -- and 13 against. I find this argument the most persuasive: "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)" ...especially since one of the two sources mentioned (WaPo) was an op-ed. So unless there are new RSs since then to consider, I'd add my vote of No to make it 14 against. I know we don't exactly count votes for these editorial decisions, but there would have to be much more support before we consider building a paragraph. El duderino (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There are some mentions of antisemitism in the article. Do you know enough about this issue to look them over and see if they are appropriate? B^e——C_ritical 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through the archive the majority other than those who were violating wikipedia rules by attacking other believed it should be added.Nbaka is a joke1 (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note the above account has been blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• This seems highly implausible unless anti-semite is going to be extended to anyone who doesn't offer uncritical praise of Israel (which I guess means many Jews are anti-semites...). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening paragraph and NPOV

Please discuss changes you may feel need to be made to the opening paragraph of the article rather than just reverting. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an arm of the OWS movement and not an advertisement tool. It is important that this article remain NPOV and contain no bias whatsoever. Statements such as these: "The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly from the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing income and wealth inequality in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population" are not neutral and have been reverted to the NPOV version. Please discuss here rather than revert it back. Please do not edit war. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I especially disagree with the last setence of your edit, but dont mind if you revert the rest of the paragraph Pass a Method talk 03:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's just the last sentence of the edit you disagree with, why did you revert the entire section? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 04:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I also said there was no consensus for your change. Pass a Method talk 05:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be consensus to NPOV an article - NPOV is policy and policy trumps consensus. I did, however, start discussion here to help discourage the continuing edit warring behavior (which has been a problem at this article). If you have something to say about what's wrong with the opening paragraph, please do so. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 05:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is in the eye of the behold..... never mind Pass a Method talk 05:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in terms of Wikipedia, NPOV is in the heart of the policy. You might want to familiarize/refamiliarize yourself with it. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using { outdent } above existing comments, it disrupts the order of discussion and puts additional burden upon the reader to make sense of replies. El duderino (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

LesHB, you're violating POV by putting "what is seen" if you don't have sources to back it up. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(interjected) Not. "What is seen" gives room for differing viewpoints, which is at the heart of NPOV. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Somedifferentstuff's revert of the lead, although I did not object to the previous more weaseled but more cautious version. However, there is no real reason for the weaseling, since there is no argument in the sources concerning the fact that economic inequality exists. Also, that's what they are protesting against, regardless of whether it exists or not. There was no need for the weaseling, and so I agree with the revert. B^e——C_ritical 17:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what they are protesting against, however, until there is proof that what they are protesting against is fact, then what they protesting against is still just their perception of the truth. Implying otherwise is POV. It's no different than when an individual says they saw one person killed another - until it's proven (whether it really happened that way or not), it's alleged. If Wikipedia were to present the facts surrounding that death, it would still be POV to say anything other than "alleged". Don't forget that the threshold to inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability over truth. Further, even if there is verifiable evidence that "high unemployment, greed, corruption, and the undue influence of large corporations—particularly from the financial services sector—on government" actually exists, including it here as proof that the OWS cause is right would be WP:SYNTH and would not be allowable as content. Yes, the OWS folks believe they are protesting against all of the above, but its still just all their belief that it exists. Wikipedia is not an advertisement arm of the OWS cause, just a place that presents information on what they say they are about. And that makes for a very fine line one must be careful about not cross in the NPOV/POV realm. To present the legitimacy of OWS' claims as anything other than what their perception is would be crossing that line in the wrong direction. I'm fine with it being written differently with different wording, but no matter how it gets changed, what's presented still has to have a NPOV tone. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 00:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Most people dont know what zucotti park is, so dont put it back in the lede. Pass a Method talk 09:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with users PassAMethod and BeCrtiical, the phrase "what is seen" should not be there. The protests are about those conditions, whether or not you agree with them. The questionable phrase is not only weaselly but also an example of poor writing, as was the last sentence's use of "ensued." These changes should have been discussed here and gained consensus after the first revert. User:Lhb1239/LesHB exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the collaborative editing process when he says "NPOV policy trumps consensus" -- WP:Consensus is policy too. El duderino (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if they were protesting that the moon should not be made of green cheese, that would still be what they are protesting against. To put it another way, whether the conditions exist or not is irrelevant. Even if they do not exist, that still what the protesters are protesting, just as abortion activists are still protesting baby killing whether or not one can genuinely call a fetus a baby. However, and it can be very important, NPOV policy DOES trump consensus. Most editors don't know that. But in this case NPOV is not obvious, so consensus determines what we accept as NPOV. In addition, we have highly reliable and specific sourcing saying that those are the things they are protesting against- sourcing such that attribution is unnecessary. B^e——C_ritical 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We agree that NPOV is reached by consensus. They are inseparable in cases like this, and that's what I'm referring to. So I don't see how anyone can reasonably say the former somehow "trumps" the latter. The closest wording at WP:NPOV might be this, upfront: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." That doesn't mean the obverse is true. I think it's actually irresponsible to say something like that at a controversial article talkspace where POV pushers fight consensus as long as they think they know what's best. El duderino (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the passage. But it goes both ways: NPOV trumps consensus for POV pushers and NPOV pushers alike (: I'm not too worried, especially as I'm an eventualist in most cases. B^e——C_ritical 22:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV trumps consensus because it's policy and it's necessary for an encyclopedia to have neutral content. Consensus is based on editors reaching an agreement and isn't necessary from a content standpoint. Content is what an encyclopedia is about. Editors writing NPOV content is compulsory. If consensus is for POV, there's something wrong with the consensus as it doesn't reflect the encyclopedic goal and the consensus needs to change. QED: NPOV trumps consensus. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. You can't ignore current consensus by trotting out your own interpretation of NPOV. You can accept current consensus, gain consensus for proposed changes or seek outside help. And once again, please stop using { outdent } above existing comments, it disrupts the order of discussion and puts additional burden upon the reader to make sense of replies. If you insist on interjecting, do so with extra indent(s). This is normal procedure. El duderino (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to User:Lhb1239 arguments, but I think using the word "perceived" might be less problematic. For example the new sentence would read as follows :

"The protests are against perceived social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, ..."

I am however more in agreement with User:Becritical's arguments. That leaving that sentence the way it is, is better for this article.

If we do change it to User:Lhb1239's version, then should we also make major changes in both the List of Tea Party protests, 2009 and List of Tea Party protests, 2010 articles?

For example instead of having the first line read:

"February 16, Seattle, Washington - Dozens protested wasteful spending in the stimulus plan." instead have it read as "February 16, Seattle, Washington - Dozens protested what was seen as wasteful spending in the stimulus plan." And do the same thing to every single line in both those articles? Also should we change the Tea Party protests article and write "perceived excessive government spending/red tape, US national debt, excessive taxation..." instead of what is currently up there right now? RiseRobotRise (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If the Tea Party page needs to be more NPOV, then yes, I think it should also be made clear that what they are/were protesting against is their perception of said purpose for protesting (if there is no proof - like with OWS - that what they are protesting against does or doesn't exist). (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is proof. Read the article. B^e——C_ritical 17:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than having to guess what you're referring to specifically, how about you provide that "proof" here? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BeCritical and Somedifferentstuff. By now I've read hundreds of articles about the movement and they seldom use such words as "perceived as...". If the article used those words, I'd use them in my edit, if not, then I wouldn't either. Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying we have to stick with "perceived as...", I'm just saying that however it's worded, it has to be made clear that what the movement is protesting against isn't necessarily how things are. For instance, "...corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly from the financial services sector—on government" is a very strong indictment. Where's the proof that there is "corruption" and "undue influence of corporations" on the government of the United States? Without proof it exists, you're painting a picture with a very wide, inaccurate, and POV brush. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is actually proof for most of it on a factual level, but the claim in WP is that this is what they are against, not that what they claim is true. Further qualification like you want to put in is only casting doubt: it's POV. Better to just make the neutral claim that they are protesting against these things, and let the reader decide what is true. Just like with similar articles as noted above. B^e——C_ritical 17:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

El duderino says that NPOV is an "end result". That is not how NPOV should be seen at all. NPOV is way more than an "end result" -- it should always be one of the primary foci while editing an article. As a fundamental principle in editing Wikipedia, NPOV is "non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Consensus by its very nature is negotiation - because NPOV is (as the quote policy above states) non-negotiable, the policy that is NPOV will always trump consensus. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus - " the primary way in which decisions are made on Wikipedia" - is established regarding the lead, and it is not to be taken hostage by filibuster or any other means. Note: NPOV is singular. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Who the hell are you implying is trying to filibuster or take anything hostage? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 04:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Time to respect the consensus and thereby demonstrate good intentions. Beyond our accepted manners, filibustering, wiki-lawyering and other tactics of holding an article hostage are all that is left to get the lead changed materially from what it is. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus wasn't being respected, the article would have been changed back days ago when it was reverted to how it was when I tried to make it more NPOV. Your accusations of filibustering, hostage-taking, and wikilawyering are not only woefully inaccurate, they are out of line, uncivil, and definitely not [WP:AGF|AGF]]. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 04:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not follow your logic, but I do hope for the realization that nothing can "trump" consensus.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy trumps consensus. Believing otherwise defies logic. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 04:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to know what WP policy is being referred to, and how that policy is employed through any other means than consensus. Also, you haven't been accused of anything, but you have been advised against using the most common - "non-negotiable", as it were - means to subvert consensus.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for being quite brash here, but do get over yourself and please take your advisement somewhere else - hopefully next time to where it would be appropriate and might actually apply. By quoting the policy on NPOV, I wasn't trying to "subvert" anything nor was I suggesting the consensus on this matter should be subverted. You're completely off the mark here. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 04:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't impress myself that much, so there is no need to bark orders. However, there is no other way to regard the outrageous statement that "NPOV will always trump consensus" as anything as but a complete perversion of WP's very nature. I hope it was a misstatement and should not be taken prima facie. Now, what is the policy referred to and how would it be implemented except through consensus? I'm still wondering about that. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Bark orders" - "Excuse me" and "Please" do not = barking orders.

"...a complete perversion of WP's very nature" - LOL!

"I hope it was a misstatement" - No, not a misstatement at all.

"I'm still wondering about that" - Wonderment is a good thing. Keeps the brain cells healthy.

Are you done in this section? Perhaps you can help BeCritical out with his "wonderment" by answering his question. ;-)

(talk→ LesHB ←track) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be silly. Of course "Excuse me" and "Please" are not barked orders, they're random words devoid of context. Let's also not be too forgetful of saying "take your advisement somewhere else." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognize your claim I was "barking orders" was silly. Since the statements you originally referred to as barked orders are both preceded by politeness, it is, indeed, silly to define them as such. Finally, something we can agree on. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you could be referring to since the damning quote reflected so poorly only upon yourself and formalities of politeness do not lessen actual rudeness, they in fact magnify it by their cynical use. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We generally work toward NPOV through consensus. There are only rare circumstances where consensus is overridden by NPOV policy, such as BLP issues. However, you're right that the consensus on one talk page may not be community consensus, and may not be NPOV. In that case, take it to the noticeboards or WP:DR. We can generally only arrive at NPOV through the consensus process. There's little reason to bring up the primacy of NPOV here. B^e——C_ritical 06:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"There are only rare circumstances where consensus is overridden by NPOV policy". Unless you have actual and accurate statistics to back that statement up, I don't see how you can write it with any sincerity (or a straight face, for that matter). It's an awfully big Wiki, and you would have to be involved in every discussion involving NPOV and consensus re: NPOV to actually know this for a fact (either that, or have the aforementioned statistics as a point of reference). (talk→ LesHB ←track) 21:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The exceptions prove the point that NPOV is always set by consensus. Dispute resolutions - in all cases I've seen - defer to consensus and let editors settle minor and arcane issues. The only mechanism for circumventing it would be through IP or editor banning. But this would be too drastic a step for the current situation. No admin would come down from a mountain and decide between the lead one eidtor wishes, and the other that consensus favors.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[resp to User:Lhb1239] Well, you can believe that if you want, but let's just say that this is not one of the circumstances where NPOV overrides consensus. B^e——C_ritical 01:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I can only believe what facts will let me, not what I wish to beleive. How otherwise would NPOV be enforced except by admin action? Is anyone except an admin allowed that prerogative and to enforce his or her judgement? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're responding to here. The indenting was messed up, see this. B^e——C_ritical 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Understandable. Now, could you, Be, explain the mechanism for NPOV trumping consensus except by an admin banning or blocking an IP, or imposing necessary reviews of all proposed edits? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On a biography page, editors might be in consensus about material that violates BLP, but even 3RR can be breached to remove it. Community wide consensus can't be breached except by Jimbo or the board, I think. B^e——C_ritical 02:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OWS is not a biography page, so that would not apply here. Wouldn't any case where NPOV would "trump" consensus require active involvement of an admin or higher authority? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my first post on the subject here, "But in this case NPOV is not obvious, so consensus determines what we accept as NPOV." And to answer your question, yes on this page. What I meant originally is that consensus on a particular page can be overridden ideally by NPOV. But community wide consensus can't be. We could ask about this on the NPOV talk page, there was probably a discussion on it in the past. Some of the language of NPOV would seem to accept an editor pushing till NPOV is achieved against the community. B^e——C_ritical 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)