Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Four non-RSs

With this edit, Plankto has used four sources listed with the unsuitability of each explained.

1. This article is by a certain Susan Deckhardt who has written only one published article - anywhere - it seems. Her OpeEdNews profile says she is a folk musician and program director of Mom & Pop's Coffeehouse among many other things, none of which move towards what is an WP:RS.
2. The blog posting from Anandamarga.co.uk/occupylondonsx is an advocacy site for Occupy London aStock Exchange and subject to WP's general prohibition of blog sites where posting are bylined pseudonymously.
3. See item 2.
4. Livestream video interview of is unusable for the same reasons that Youtube videos are not accepted.

Yes, I reverted it. B^e——C_ritical 03:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Or as it seems we tried seconds apart and you got there first. B^e——C_ritical 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OWS responses to police / occucopter

What happened to the occucopter? Is this article being censored? --Pawyilee (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, that is cool but probably not notable enough for this article. But it might be notable enough for its own article (: B^e——C_ritical 18:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

HaHaHa, it's notable enough for OWSer Tim Pool to have his own article, and for Privacy law to be a serious concern of Calo, M. Ryan (December 12, 2011). "The Drone as Privacy Catalyst" (PDF). Stanford Law Review Online. 64. Stan. L. Rev. Online (29). Stanford Law School. ISBN 0038-9765. ISSN 1939-8581. Archived from the original on December 31, 2011. Retrieved December 31, 2011. Associated today with the theatre of war, the widespread domestic use of drones for surveillance seems inevitable. Existing privacy law will not stand in its way. It may be tempting to conclude on this basis that drones will further erode our individual and collective privacy. Yet the opposite may happen. Drones may help restore our mental model of a privacy violation. They could be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the twenty-first century. {{cite journal}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title= and |month= (help)

HaHaHaHappy New Year. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Tim Pool really notable enough for his own article in the first place? --(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

potential resource

Commentary (magazine) coverstory Occupy Wall Street and the Jews by Jonathan Neumann (page 26 to 33 in-print, January 2012 issue).

• https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/occupy-wall-street-and-the-jews

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Occupy movement addition in the 2011 article

Thought you all might be interested in taking part in the Request for Comment on this subject at Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions. Seems to me the writers of this article would be especially qualified to make a judgment one way or the other. Wrad (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing on Criticism section

Discuss. See previous consensus to put this paragraph in (I left about 2 weeks for discussion to appear after saying I was going to put it in). There are no substantive, real objections to this paragraph. I left weeks between the time I asked for any disagreements with it and the time I put it back in. Before that time, there were objections to a single word in the text, which I removed before putting it in the article. There was also a request that each word of the text be sourced, yet no actual indication that there was any flaw in the summary. At any rate, there is no reason to source each word as we are supposed to paraphrase, not lift words directly from sources. Lifting many of the words directly from the sources was merely a way of making sure I was staying closer to the sources, and thus an added justification for the summary. So I await substantial objections to the text which give indication that the sources are somehow summarized wrongly. I also await editors willing to actually help edit and give suggestions. Wikipedia:I just don't like it isn't good enough to remove well-sourced text from an article. There are extensive archives on this, for anyone who wants them- here. B^e——C_ritical 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good articles don't have criticism sections. --John (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but developing articles which are controversial need them so editors can keep track. Anyway, this paragraph might go better in another section, such as Political response, but having it in the article at all is the issue at hand. See you tonight, won't be here for part of the day. Merry Christmas! B^e——C_ritical 18:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, you need to get consensus to add that info. Also, you were made aware, by more than one editor, regarding the placement of references within a sentence so editors can quickly discern what source represents what information. You said there was a previous consensus - please post a link to that here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I sourced it in a standard way. I provided sources. If you don't read even the quotes I provided with the sources, that is not my problem. I do not have to source every word in that summary, especially as I have the right as an editor to use my own words in summarizing the sources. Reading a few of the sources should be sufficient to tell you that the summary I provide is correct. If not, then it is up to you to say where it is incorrect. I have more than met WP:BURDEN. BURDEN does not mean that I have to jump though any hoop you set me. Only that I have to do a good job as a Wikipedia editor. Do you want go request mediation? If not, please do the following: read the sources provided, or at least the quotes. Second, say exactly where I have deviated factually from what the sources say. Thirdly, I would request your help in editing, however the first two steps would fulfill your duty as the person reverting and as a Wikipedia editor interested in collaboratively editing this material. B^e——C_ritical 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to provide a link to the consensus reached. Where is it? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Here. You will say that is not a consensus, but in fact after we agree to take out the word "ingrates," I asked for any objections to putting it in and then waited weeks I think, and there were no objections. You can't just leave the talk page and ignore the issue till it gets put in again, and then come revert. B^e——C_ritical 03:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution requested here B^e——C_ritical 04:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems a that tree falls in the forest makes no sound. Better to develop and respect consensus and not run to mom or dad. It's also best to avoid taking ownership. This page can do well without officious oversight. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's obviously not resolving itself, but thank you for getting the discussion going. B^e——C_ritical 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What discussion? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. B^e——C_ritical 19:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was too polite to suggest sarcasm, and I am saddened to see it used. Mature editor's lose feelings of entitlement, and learn that consensus is better developed though respect, not quasi-legal ploys. I strongly advise a break from this article; you would be amazed at how well it can do unaided by yourself.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was genuinely thanking you for getting the discussion going, and "exactly" meant that there wasn't any before you came a long. B^e——C_ritical 20:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, though what an odd way to show gratitude, and for what? As best I can tell, I certainly can't take any credit for advancing a discussion that has gone nowhere fast; almost all have ignored it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But anyway, I don't want to let the debate stagnate. Do people want to kick it up to full mediation, or are you willing to accept the outside opinion we got on the DR noticeboard? B^e——C_ritical 00:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Court shopping is indicative of just not getting it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well yes you're right, so that's why I'm asking if people want to accept the results or go on to further DR? B^e——C_ritical 02:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no results to declare or consensus fashioned on another page that obliges anyone here. Sit back and think about the benefits of being a less suffocating presence. Unless others join in, no one will want to mediate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation is precisely for situations where disputes remain unsolved- mediators know that. You're right that the editors in the former dispute aren't "obliged" by the result on the dispute resolution noticeboard. So I'm asking you and anyone else who's still active here: will you accept those results, or do you want to go on to mediation? B^e——C_ritical 06:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, there are no results to refer to, and my direct experience with mediation is that if no RSVPs, no mediation. It is as easily futile as a dispute resolution if no one but one or two editors here care about it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the results here, where we got an outside opinion. B^e——C_ritical 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that looking for results and found none, just, as you said, "an outside opinion". Not very official or impressive at all. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's what they do on noticeboards- give outside opinions. I'll take that as you saying we go to mediation. B^e——C_ritical 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'll allow myself to be drafted. I've been in mediation before, and I was reluctant to be drawn/recruited into it. You can go there, as it were, but you might have few joining you; making it difficult to get a mediator, who are not the entitlements of each and every mediation filing. The mediation I was in got good editor participation, around ten of us, but no one mediated our dispute (something about RSs, I think.); we just worked it out among ourselves, and we now play nice. But, who knows, you might have better good luck. (:-}> The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment drawn from mediation noticeboard message: I would urge all involved to read WP:WEASEL, which rather clearly indicates that words like "most" or "many", even if they are sourced, should probably be avoided in article texts. More accurate phrasing is generally preferred. And, yes, I think that is generally the case even if the sources themselves use such unfortunate phrasing. There are no objections to a criticism section, but it would probably be best to include both positive and negative criticism, and to include it in such a way as to not lead the reader into thinking any of the opinions expressed or included are more commonly held than others, unless such material is itself specifically included in the sources themselves. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning to post another draft version and will take your recommendations to heart per WEASEL. Not sure that the text indicated that some views were more commonly held than others[1]. B^e——C_ritical 05:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism revert

This edit made the section POV, outdated, and inaccurate. If there aren't any objections, I'll restore to the more accurate version. The editor who changed it doesn't edit much, so may not respond. B^e——C_ritical 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary... Calling the Emergency Committee for Israel a "right-wing" organization based on an opinion piece is a misuse of labels. At the very least, whoever calls an organization "right-wing" needs to be cited in-text. -- Veggy (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I withdraw the complaint. I am used to editors reverting good edits wholesale on that section and made assumptions. I owe you an apology. B^e——C_ritical 02:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Veggy (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

More unreliable sources

This edit uses unreliable sources...

1. This a link is an interview conducted by a self described blogger published on a fashion site. The source PMC-MAG.com is ,in fact, a promotional vehicle for a fashion photographer who has no background in journalism, but is described in a bout of shameless promotion as "the premiere nightlife photographer of New York City" .
2. The Guardian link is not from the venerable publication, but an YouTube video - which the editor earlier has tried to use as a source - posted by an anonymous activist contributor. The Guardian added nothing to the embed beyond adding that the good monk "was among the first to be arrested". Note, they did not say he was the first to be arrested, thereby not supporting the editor's assertion, thus establishing a conflict of sources. ref is the same video embedded on marintv.mirocommunity.org. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If the Guardian publishes the information, it is an acceptable source by any measure. The additional sources further confirm the story. The wording can be adjusted to fit the source, as Becritical has now done. The video demonstrates the subject was arrested at the protests. The interview documents the stated view of the subject, which the interviewer on the OWS web site highlights. There are 25000+ Google hits on this subject, establishing notability. Numerous other outlets report the story. It is this compendium of sources that together prove the factuality of the story. Artist AKA systematically attacks the veracity of the information. The RS argument is wrongly being used to expunge material apparently not meeting approval due to the subject stating the views being considered marginal. That is a nonsense approach and against WP standards, not least as it involves an article covering a grass roots movement like the OWS.Plankto (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is not the publisher, YouTube is via an anonymous activist who posted it. There is no indication of any Guardian editorial involvement at all. Another anonymous person - or the same person, perhaps - simply submitted it to a crowd sourcing section of the Guardian. The WP shortcut regarding YouTube videos is NOYT (No YouTube couldn't illustrate the point better. Also, Becritical deleted the content. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For you to second guess Guardian editorial policy is presumptious and incredible. The Guardian is clearly the publisher having made the story its own.Plankto (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Two words: crowd sourcing. Also, if WP policy were suspended and the Guardian was to be anointed the source, then the monk is not the first to be arrested, thus not notable in this case. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The claim that there is no RS has been overcome. Trying to find new reasons to expunge the material is a well known pathology in WP editing but it won't work here. The arrest in the OWS protest is not the real story, it only links the subject to the subject matter of the article. The statement about relations between police and protesters is the value added of this short insert.Plankto (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian was very careful to attribute OccupyTVNY as the source, much the same they would embed a BBC photo and but never claim as theirs. Also, consensus does not agree with your edit. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This information is not a police response and does not belong in that section. While his actions are admirable, I do not see him as noteworthy enough for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Check out this story [2]. It should, along with the other sources, address any notability concerns. On further reflection, the article needs a section on notable views among the protesters themselves. As it now stands, the actual participants are described but not heard, while just about everyone else is given a vent for their views. How silly is that?Plankto (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god...what a Behemoth this article has become. Still battling the "unreliable sources" I see Gandy and AKA?! LOL! Wow...stepping away from this article for the holidays was the best idea I ever had. Time to get back to work here I think. Images haven't stopped growing at a faster pace than the prose I see. LOL! OK...I kid.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What made you think crummy sources would go away? If you can stomach them, alrighty then. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. LOL! Actually...what I was going to post was a comment about how the page reminded me of the Templar knights on Friday the 13TH.....but then I realized it was Friday the 13 and the shock of the coincidence made me think twice about it. (seriously) Anywhoooo. As fast as they are found, checked and removed....someone else puts them in. It really might be time to discuss splitting the article into three separate pages. An excellent argument is that management concerns. This article is too big to deal with by the community in its current form...and I think we need to address that as a major concern. The larger this article gets the more unmanageable it becomes.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Time to split the article?

It's too big for it's own breaches. Come on....isn't it time we discuss how and where to split this article into another article.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. So you know, there is a previous discussion (now in the archives) discussing just that. Magister Scienta^talk 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but the trick is to separate the material into two logically consistent but separate articles.Plankto (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as well. Perhaps Reactions to Occupy Wall Street and Criticism of Occupy Wall Street could be spun off? (Like Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid and Criticism of the War on Terror have been from their articles.) Making this article a bit smaller would be a good way to start getting it closer to Good Article standards. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest we go with Mark Arsten's proposal.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been suggested and a logical proposal made to slit this article into 3 separate articles. The logical choices have been suggested using similarly existing articles. When this is done, what will happen is NOT a loss of sections, as they will remain in summary with links to the main articles the body of work has been transferred to. I also suggest that the timeline information should also be transferred to it's existing article with a small section summarized in prose as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In principle it is a good idea to combine the chronological sections with the timeline article - for the sake of reducing the size of the main article. However, as the material is overlapping, it risks becoming redundant in the same article. On the one hand we have a rather complete narrative of the main events and on the other a point by point summary of the main news on each day. One solution would be to further condense the chronology sections in the main article, as brief summaries of the main events in a given time period, rather than being a rather complete narrative. The work would further need to ensure that all the information cut from the main article is in place in the timeline article.Plankto (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion "Ravi Batra - take two" has been transferred to the page Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

Ravi Batra - take two

In late October, Gandydancer and AKA Artist fought tooth and nail to exclude Ravi Batra from the OWS article based on their twofold claim that he a) lacked relevance to the Occupy Wall Street protests and b) was not notable enough. I spent much effort trying to satisfy their demands to no avail. I didn't do a very systematic search of articles about Ravi Batra in the national media. I've now come across the following articles which establish him factually as a figure of national prominence no matter how his predictions played out or if you agree with him or not:

• The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by Lester ... Aug 16, 1987 ... In 1985, Venus Books of Dallas, Tex., brought out this book written by a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dr. Ravi Batra ...[articles.latimes.com/1987-08-16/.../bk-1573_1_great-depression]
• Articles about Ravi Batra - Los Angeles Times Ravi Batra News. Find breaking news, commentary, and archival information about Ravi BatraFrom The Los Angeles Times.[articles.latimes.com/keyword/ravi-batra]
• Depression Theory Sets Economist Apart - Chicago Tribune Oct 16, 1988 ... Many economists glory in the emoluments of the good life, attending sumptuous dinners, making speeches and entertaining bankers. But Ravi ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8802070798_1_forecasts-theories-ravi-batra]
• Featured Articles about Urban Land Institute - Page 4 - Chicago ... "We`ve had a seven-year-long expansion and with myopic eyes we cannot see anything in the 1990s different from today," said Ravi Batra, an economics ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/urban-land-institute/.../4]
• Scenario Of `Great Depression Of 1990` Is All Too Convincing ... Aug 24, 1987 ... Let`s take Ravi Batra over the top! His book, ``The Great Depression of 1990,`` ranked fifth on the New York Times best-seller nonfiction list Aug ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8703040329_1_depressions-mild-recession- wealth]
• Is This Just A Preview? - Chicago Tribune Oct 26, 1987... the cataclysmic financial gales blowing through Wall Street, don`t start congratulating yourself yet, warns doomsday economist Ravi Batra. [articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8703200772_1_wall-street-crash-panic]
• The News Has Helped Land Books On The Best-seller Lists For ... Jan 14, 1988 ... The stock market plunge set off jitters that helped the sales of ``The Great Depression of 1990`` by Ravi Batra, and the national debate about ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8803220192_1_fiction-list-nonfiction-authors]
• Clients May Walk Along With Harris - Chicago Tribune Jan 18, 1988 ... Or so predicts Indian economist Ravi Batra, author of the bestseller, ``The Great Depression of 1990.`` Batra was guest at a reception last week ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8803230412_1_salomon-brothers-harris- lazard-freres]
• Market bears' gloomy growl being echoed by big players - Chicago ... Dec 2, 2007 ... Ravi Batra, among the most bearish of bears, expects nothing less than a popular uprising against "moneyed interests preventing reform" and, ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../0712010036_1_soft-landing-sudden- downturns-van-der-eb]
• Dr. Doom' Stands by His Predictions of Gloom : Economy: An Indian ... Feb 26, 1991 ... DALLAS — Unlike most economists, Ravi Batra says he's always hoped his forecasts would prove wrong. But then again, Batra isn't your ...[articles.latimes.com/1991-02-26/business/fi-1989_1_end-result]
• Breaking into the '90s. A New World in Time. Walls fall, debts rise... Dec 31, 1989... over the edge of the abyss--the gasping plunge into "The Great Depression of 1990," heralded by Ravi Batra and other purveyors of doom. ...[articles.latimes.com/1989-12-31/.../op-453_1_entering-recession-year]
• Viewpoints : Who Are the Most Overpaid People in America? : Some ... May 22, 1988 ... Ravi Batra, economist and author of the best seller, "The Great Depression of 1990". "Most business executives are overpaid. Workers' ...[articles.latimes.com/1988-05-22/.../fi-4801_1_top-executives]
• It Won't Make Their Day - Los Angeles Times Mar 29, 1993 ... He's back: Apocalyptic author Ravi Batra, who predicted the "Great Depression of 1990," has a new book due out in April called "The Myth of ...[articles.latimes.com/1993-03-29/.../fi-16443_1_days-make-won]
• Greedy 80's | Dubious '90s Trump Greedy '80s - Los Angeles Times Dec 26, 1999 ... In the 1987 bestseller "The Great Depression of 1990," economist Ravi Batrapredicted that 1990 would bring a stock market crash and the ...[articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/26/business/fi-47645]
• Articles about Great Depression - Los Angeles Times In 1985, Venus Books of Dallas, Tex., brought out this book written by a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dr. Ravi Batra. I heard about it ...[articles.latimes.com/keyword/great-depression]
• Featured Articles about Panic - Page 3 - Los Angeles Times Oct 20, 1987 ... The time to panic is two years from now," Southern Methodist University professorRavi Batra said from Pittsburgh. Advertisement. BUSINESS ...[articles.latimes.com/keyword/panic/featured/3]
• Featured Articles about J Gordon Melton - Page 5 - Los Angeles Times Aug 1, 1997 ... Author Ravi Batra, a professor at Southern Methodist University, basks in overnight celebrity. A wave of publicity in newspapers and magazines ...[articles.latimes.com/keyword/j-gordon-melton/featured/5]
• How Hollywood Dealt with Great Depression - Los Angeles Times Feb 24, 1991 ... The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by... August 16, 1987. Los Angeles Times Articles. Copyright 2012 Los Angeles Times ...[articles.latimes.com/1991-02-24/news/tv-2335_1_great-depression]
• Reliving the nightmare of the Depression - Los Angeles Times Sep 29, 2008 ...The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by...August 16, 1987. Los Angeles Times Articles. Copyright 2011 Los Angeles Times ...[articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/29/local/me-martinez29]
• Popular Articles & Stories for August 16, 1987 - Los Angeles Times Aug 16, 1987 ... The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by Lester Thurow (Simon & Schuster: $17.95; 197 pp.) Paul Erdman, Erdman is an ...[articles.latimes.com/1987/aug/16]

In view of the above RS, establishing him as the first economist (in the 1980s) to link wealth concentration and depression, I suggest his mention in relation to this article be drawn out more clearly.Plankto (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Views of the protesters

To remedy the deficit noted above, a new subsection on Views of the protesters has been created. Presumably, if the protesters are noteworthy enough to be described in an article, their actual views are also noteworthy, at least the views of those who manage to get quoted or interviewed in the media.Plankto (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not going to work Plankto. We can't include every person that was interviewed by the media in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Space constraints is not a good argument for deciding to exclude material, including that earlier considered acceptable. To exclude protester views or responses, which are in principle in alignment with other material, does not make sense. It could even be argued that the views of the protesters should take precedence over the views of non-protesters. We should be careful not to confuse the inherent notability of celebrities in relation to this article and the non-notability of the protesters themselves, in deciding what is notable in this article. Priority should be given to notability in terms of the protests themselves - both how they happen and what they mean. Of course, to include the views of the protesters will need to be limited to those being supported by RS. If the media reports the story it is notable. So far, the monk and police captain material seems to stand out. Undoubtedly, there are some more stories like that, but it is not going to break the camels back, so to speak, to include them in the article. Eventually, splitting up the article may become necessary to accommodate all relevant notable material.Plankto (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The section you wish to add is a grab-bag of unrelated stuff. Nothing in it hangs together to tell the reader what are the views of the protesters. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not much more than a Soapbox for deservedly obscure participants. The Notable Responses, which the Views section is just a ghost of, has Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges among others, who have actual gravitas. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This editor wasted hours and hours of our time trying to get Ravi Batra in the article. The only way to get him off our back was to let him get away with including the name as a notable person (with questionable references). So now he is back and up to his old tricks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, your claim does not stand up against the record. In addition to the many recent references given for Ravi Batra, please look at this one [3] establishing him as an intellectual precursor of the Occupy movement as well as a commentator on it. See further discussion below. Plankto (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah this section has moved, but since this is still here: a right wing Republican proxy (which blames Obama for a a 4 trillion dollar deficit, is for some reason violently opposed to electric cars, and strongly defends Mitt Romney is not a RS. Some discrimination and judgement is needed, not a right wing echo chamber. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for keeping this new section? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

CNN block quotations undue weight

Please do not add more media reports to the main body of the work unless they have something truly new to say or is something outstanding that was missed and do not place them in quotation blocks. I can see the heads exploding with the addition of such block quotes in such a manner (tree separate times) from FOX News. Regardless of affiliation any news organization given such prominence is undue weight. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view[[4]].--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

They are good quotations from a major news organization. There is no requirement that we balance coverage of one news organization against another. Were it the case that all reports on Occupy were from CNN, then we could use CNN, and if the sources we happen to find are CNN, we can use it. What happens to heads at Fox is completely irrelevant. Succinctly, WEIGHT doesn't apply here. Secondly, they do have something new to say, and they were placed in specific places to explain and expand the contents of the sections. Thirdly, your formatting preference is noted, but is there any particular reason you're asking that blocks of quotes not be used? Fourth re your edit summary "Reverts must be made with full explanation of reasoning," it's not up to me to explain reverting: you edited, I reverted, you reverted back in controversion of WP:BRD. That's edit warring. It's up to you to explain your edit and seek consensus for change, and you should return to the longstanding version in the meantime. B^e——C_ritical 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Due weight APPLIES on all subjects to all opinion. What do you mean it does not apply here? That's outrageous. Good lord man, look at the past discussions on due weight and try starting on the page for neutrality. It's about giving more weight to CNN in the form of block quote boxes and you know well enough. We have already had this battle before as we have with so many things. I am not calling the use of CNN as undue weight. It's the boxes that make them stand out...which is the point...to make those stand out. Yes sir. That is undue weight to CNN. Why does that network get three quote boxes? Explain that reasoning to me, a liberal democrat that supports this protest. Why would it not be the same wrong to suddenly see three blockquote boxes sticking out like a sore thumb from FOX or MSNBC or any network?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You said "it's not up to me to explain reverting: That's right you should know this by now. I made an edit and stated it was undue weight and you reverted and made your explanation. We both said our peice in summary but since you reverted and wanted more discussion YOU should have done so. Edit warring is not defined as an edit and a revert when I made my justification. You did as well, but demanded a conversation. Who are you to demand discussion if you wont start it?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Due weight does not apply to the various sources, but to opinions. CNN and Fox are not opinions, they are news organizations, and Weight does not apply. And you were simply edit warring to revert back instead of discussing: read WP:BRD. However, it's quite acceptable not to use the boxes, and I'll edit accordingly. You also removed the quotes from the sections where they explained content relevant to those sections in particular. Then you put them in press reaction, which WAS giving them undue weight, as they were significant explanations and analysis, not significant press reactions, and the were irrelevant there. B^e——C_ritical 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I generally don't like block quotes because they do give the suggestion that the enclosed information is somehow more important than info that is not block-quoted. I don't believe that they should be used at all in an article such as this one. Gandydancer (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, put back in minus the quotation formatting that made it stand out. I hope Amadscientist will discuss things here instead of trying to edit war content out. It would be nice if someone else tried to explain about how we aren't trying to give every news outlet their say, but rather opinions which are reliably sourced and relevant. (Note: On reading over what he says above, he seems to be only objecting to the formatting, but then why would he remove them from their sections?) We can also use mere quotes instead of blockquotes (I changed to blockquotes which don't change the color but do indent; if that's not good enough we can just use quotation marks). I don't care about the formatting, giving them more weight via formatting was not the object to begin with, it simply makes it look better. B^e——C_ritical 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And I wish you wouldn't make accusations of edit warring when it did not happen Becritical. You want to be able to insert large chunks of quotes into the article from CNN. It doesn't matter what the News organization is (as long as they are RS). We balance all major opinion. If it's fact...then we don't need the quote, just the information. It would be nice for you to explain why you think that news outlets deserve "A say". There's this thing called "Copy Right" and we don't misuse quotes. If your entire reasoning is based only on giving them a say then they are simply not needed here. If you have a quote that had great importance and shows a unique outlook that would not be seen in any other form of prose then we use a select clip. We shouldn't be using too much of any given source as it defeats the purpose of this being a neutral encyclopedic article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Re edit warring, it doesn't matter at the moment, but read WP:BRD. I don't think the news outlets deserve a say. That seems to be what you think, as if we have to balance news sources, instead of opinions. There is no misuse of quotes per copyright: if you think there is, take it to the appropriate noticeboard, they'll tell you the same [5][6]. I believe that the quotes do have "great importance and shows a unique outlook," and I believe that they put it so well that we should use quotes. But, if it makes you happier we can paraphrase. So, what I'm saying is I'm happy to change things as long as the information is kept, but I do not think you have a case under any of the rules of Wikipedia. B^e——C_ritical 21:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh....and you think you have a case. I am not at all sure this is a moment to "Ignore all the rules". It doesn't matter who the source is. We don't treat news and media special. They are simply scholarly sources. If they are in the minority we treat the opinion as such. If there is opposing opinion we do balance the other with that opposing view with due weight. I am not sure what you have against neutrality and writing an encyclopedia in an accurate and disinterested manner, but can only guess that you simply have too much invested in the subject and your own opinion of the facts and "Truth".--Amadscientist (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also...we don't paraphrase. The information speaks for itself so completely original prose from the info is how we write an article. At least it was the last time I saw Jimbo Wales weigh in on the subject. I don't think you are fighting to keep the information. You want the entire quote from 3 separate CNN sources to be singled out, and block quoted. OK...now please explain why these three specific sources, and the information are needed in this article. As you have it right now, balancing these scholarly opinions with additional opinion of due weight is called for. It's not like there is no opposing opinion or that that opinion is in the minority.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors may wish to review Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations[7].--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a disagreement, so instead of rehashing things here, why not take it to a noticeboard? We both seem to think we're self-evidently right under WP rules, so we need outside input. I believe you're wrong every time you post, such as "we don't paraphrase." Don't put words in my mouth such as that I want to IAR. That's not what I want to do. So, let's get outside input. You are now at the point of resorting to assumptions of bad faith. If you have a reliably sourced opposing opinion, post the source and we can go from there. B^e——C_ritical 22:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You are within your right to do whatever you feel is appropriate, but no, That is not the proper way to deal with a disagreement on a talk page. If you feel I have edit warred then you may take that to the Admin Notice board, or the 3RR board but be aware....I believe you have reverted more than 3 times in a 24hr period and I have stopped. Whether that is a mistake on my count or not is up to others to decide if you so choose to take this to the notice boards. I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill as I am not reverting you and you did revert all of my contributions. If you feel that a guideline is not being properly attributed in my posts then please feel free to show the links to whatever guideline supports your interpretation. Odd that you demand discussion that you refuse to actually start yourself and now that I do not agree on the discussion I did start, you want an administrative action. OK....that's up to you sir. Do as you feel is best.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned, everything's good as of right now. If you want to make changes to the article that involve removing the quotes/deleting the info, then we should discuss that first. B^e——C_ritical 23:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume you either refused to read the guideline I posted or you don't agree with it, or my interpretation of it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, for WP:BRD to apply....you need to show how there was consensus for your edit...and there wasn't. The consensus of editors on this page is to not give undue weight in the form of block quotes and block quote boxes. So...why is CNN more prominent in block quote...than the Vice president for example, who's quotes are written into prose. No, sorry....but it is you, I believe that went against consensus and attempting to justify your edit in ways that are very misleading sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think the guideline[8] says that we're doing anything wrong. Show me the consensus against block quotes. What edit of mine are you referring to which didn't have consensus? And recall that you removed the text entirely to where it was undue weight and where it was irrelevant. Please also stop making accusations, such as that I have edited in a misleading way. B^e——C_ritical 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I did move it...to the media section so that it could be written into prose. OK...well, the consensus has stood and now you wish to change it. Gandy and I both have stated that it is undue weight for you to begin using block quotes. You have no further support to alter the current consensus and two editors have objected. Two against one alone is not consensus unless the standing consensus was altered by you...and it was. The current consensus is to not use block quotes or box block quotes. You have edited three CNN quotes into the article without consensus. I actually reverted your change and you reverted against consensus. Since you refused to discuss the situation I did and you have not gained any support. Therefore I am removing all three quotes until such time as consensus agrees to their addition and in what form they should remain. If you feel this action goes against the spirit and guidelines of Wikipedia you may continue to edit war or take this to a notice board. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I changed it to blockquotes, when you and Gandydancer complained about {{quotation| quotes. I also offered to paraphrase, and, basically, I've offered to work with you to find something we both can live with. But as I said before, the information seems important to me. You've once again removed the information. You may be interested in participating here. B^e——C_ritical 02:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Congress resource

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/occupy-protesters-take-on-congress/2012/01/17/gIQADi6p5P_video.html

99.181.157.73 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC).

Discussion:Block, blocked quote removal consensus needed

A straight line runs from the 1930s sit-down strikes in Flint, Michigan, to the 1960 lunch-counter sit-ins to the occupation of Alcatraz by Native American activists in 1969 to Occupy Wall Street. Occupations employ physical possession to communicate intense dissent, exhibited by a willingness to break the law and to suffer the -- occasionally violent -- consequences.

Discussion:

I made a couple of changes. Please let me know what you all think...Gandydancer (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus against "boxed" block quotes appears to stand at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we allow the use of boxed or blockquotes again

I am going over the use of quotes to see where we decided to take them out and I came across this discussion that may help at least get some focus on why the consensus went that direction: [9]

In it another editor listed some very important issues he felt needed to be addressed. The discussion was about the use of a quotation and this editor stated "Extensive quotations are out of place in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia has always been loose on this, but part of the job of an editor is to summarize, not sensationalize." The article itself is filled with these almost random quotes that we have allowed with consensus, but perhaps that is something to think about in regards to block quoting one specific source.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about this subject, for the record. It doesn't matter whether quotes are blockquoted or not. It is easier for the reader if they are in blockquotes, but it's not important. B^e——C_ritical 05:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I see what I did that helped to create some of the misunderstanding here. I used the term "block quote" and thought I was talking about boxed quotes. It has been my experience in this article that direct quotes were needed more often than in a lot of articles I've worked on and it is my understanding that it is policy to indent the section if more than about two sentences are being used. When I said I don't like blocked quotes, I actually meant I don't like boxed quotes. I feel very badly about any frustration I caused and apologize to both of you. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. That's what I thought you meant, that's why I changed it to blockquotes. I don't think this would have been avoided if you'd been better understood. B^e——C_ritical 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I put the quotes back in, as plain blockquotes, per Wikipedia:CON#No_consensus, and per Gandydancer's and olive's comments, and per Transporterman on the DR noticeboard. B^e——C_ritical 20:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well-done and I applaud your persistence! Gandydancer (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(: (: B^e——C_ritical 21:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I still don't like a lot about this. One quote from CNN is out of context to the subject at hand at best, unencyclopedic in nature as opinion that is poorly worded, but two of similarly phrased opinion stacked on top of each other have no value to the article. If you were going to quote anyone it should be someone more central to the goals of the movement...or at least more notable authors. But again, this article has far too many quotes and they seem pretty random. They are opinion and reaction and the article needs to be more centraly focused on each part of this subject in a nuetral manner. Well...I still add my weight for total deletion of the material. All three quotes are undue weight to un-notable CNN reporters (CNN has notablility but these are not top writers or journalist. It makes the article loose focus and seems to be attempting to add puffery to the section. I won't make any chnages if consenus doesn't move.

And thank you Gandy for being seeing where this forked and finding a form of consensus that is something we can live with for the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is a lot of merit to your opposition. I do believe that editing has been difficult for this article since, for the most part, we've had to use this or that person's opinion about the movement. It has seemed to me that frequently a quote was the best way to go. But I'd agree that we must be careful to use notable people (etc.) for the quotes except, perhaps, in unusual circumstances. So, I hope that we see what we can do for a possible compromise here. I've been busy with other articles, but I'm going to find some time to read this article from start to finish - something I used to do every few days. It is good to have such good editors to work with! Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes. Hope that you and BeCritical (and others) let me know what you all think... Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice B^e——C_ritical 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh Noooo! Good thing I glanced at the edit changes page and realized that you had tweaked my edit....because when I changed the quote and wrote my edit summary of "that was just awful..." I didn't mean your wording, I meant my own! All's well that ends well? Gandydancer (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is out of place and random. What is the basis for it's placement in the "origins" section?:

Writing for CNN, Sonia Katyal and Eduardo Peñalver said that:

A straight line runs from the 1930s sit-down strikes in Flint, Michigan, to the 1960 lunch-counter sit-ins to the occupation of Alcatraz by Native American activists in 1969 to Occupy Wall Street. Occupations employ physical possession to communicate intense dissent, exhibited by a willingness to break the law and to suffer the -- occasionally violent -- consequences.[18]

The reference is dated Dec 18 and the quote makes no significant contribution to the facts of the origin of this movement. This is strictly an opinion and should not recieve a block quote. It is undue weight to this opinion above all other references to actual facts of origins. This is puffery, random and added specificly to make give the opinion more weight than it deserves...if any at all. This does not add anything to the section except over bloated prose that lacks direction and purpose.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken some time to give the article more attention and I agree that the block quote is not appropriate. I really like the addition because I feel that it adds some history to the article, but considering that it is only two sentences, I see no reason that the quotes can not be included without the blocking. Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort and will not argue further against it's inclusion. I understand what it is saying and how it relates to the subject. While I do feel the use of "opinion" on the article is a bit out of hand I also know that many of these claims and statements can referenced with other sources in many instances and I will try to find better references while I go through the varification of citations on the article. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the last week on both articles especially those that helped to fix the broken references. I was doing it the hardway by trying to fix each individual broken link by going to an old version of the article and copy pasting the actual reference from it's location next to the information in the body of the article. Someone else came along on my Wiki break (went to Tahoe) and simply moved all of the listed references in the reference section! That works as well! I just want to eventualy fix the references so even without the generated list in the reference section the actual inline citation is properly formatted on each claim as well as properly attributed, written and used, etc. This makes it easier to achieve that so thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Status: Ongoing?

The sidebar of this article identifies Occupy Wall Street as an ongoing movement, September 17, 2011 – ongoing (4 months, 2 weeks and 1 day). To me this seems inconsistent, though, with the introductory paragraph stating that "Occupy Wall Street is the original protest that began the worldwide movement beginning September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park", which is pointed out later in the article to have been closed to protesters November 15. I haven't read any new developments in the OWS story since the flashmob thing on January 3, and the timeline laid out in the article for December & January is pretty spare and specifically refers to other campaigns by name (Occupy Our Homes, Occupy DOE). Furthermore, the sidebar already reflects OWS as "part of the Occupy Movement", which has its own article and timeline. Does anyone else think that the OWS infobox should be changed to reflect the protest as Ended, with a date somewhere around November 15, 2011? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.19.10 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, because of the doubts that it really has ended -I think some of the protesters would dispute that at least- we should probably have some good reliable sources saying it has ended. B^e——C_ritical 21:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But I addressed that point already in the context of the article opening paragraph. From the first sentence the article defines itself as a protest in Zuccotti Park in NYC that sparked the Occupy Movement (again, separate article, separate timeline). If the Zucotti Park protest ended on November 15, taking the article on its own terms, why should it be considered ongoing regardless of whether some of the protesters would dispute it? They are POV by definition, and for that matter, what source(s) is considered reliable in making the final determination? It seems to me that we have all the facts in front of us that we need, unless the article's description of the event isn't correct. Does Wikipedia even have guidelines for determining the status of protests? Glancing at the sidebar template and the other articles it's used in, it appears that very few articles using it give an end date for the relevant protest/movement. Even the Arab Spring is indicated as ongoing, even though Google Trends shows news trends for that moniker are way down as of January 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.19.10 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York protest have not ended. Zuccotti park has been re-opened and the protest in New York are still ongoing. Do you have a reference for this claim and date of the ending? I say leave this as is until you can show that the protests have indeed eded...but as far as I can tell starting in one place and then moving to another location or taking a different route does not end the demonstrations or the OWS NYC group.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, then why is this not documented in the article? If this is current and the direction Occupy Wall Street is taking, then it should definitely be part of the article, should it not? The first and foremost reference of my claim is that the only cited 2012 events in the chronology currently is the single flashmob event from January 3, which was neither on Wall Street nor a genuine effort to occupy? Similarly, the December 2011 chronology refers entirely to the launch of related movements and a cyber attack by Anonymous, not a word about events occurring on Wall Street? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.19.10 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OWS did not pack up and go home. Some occupiers continue to sleep in nearby churches and some are working out of a donated office space. Gandydancer (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal knowledge whether they did or did not. The basis of my question is, if protest activities are still ongoing, why is there no mention at all in the article. Perhaps the OWS really is ongoing, and this article has failed entirely to follow relevant activities for the past two months? Either way, the article isn't consistent internally with its own facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.19.10 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with tiddles. Wikipedia is not a news source. We are discouraged from making edits based soley on current events as they may change. What you seem to be asking is why the article doesn't mention that the protestare are still ongoing.....but it says that in the lede. If there was a source that showed the protest in New york has ended and it is a Reliable Source, then it would be added and we would go from there. There simply isn't a source that states this. I can only assume you feel the article should stay current at all times to the protests but we simply don't do that. Only the most notable parts of the subject have encyclopedic value and even then it is up to the consensus of contributing editors to determine such. Please feel free to weigh in further if there are sources you can show that make the claim the protests have ended, however, if there are other sources (even primary sources like the NYCGA website,,,the official website) then there would have to be some discussion of the source making the claim and why it differs from other sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edits for clarity and consistency

Howdy. I've flagged 'Origins' for a copy-edit, and I'd be more than happy to take an hour to wrangle it into shape. Is that section contentious and under constant revision (i.e. will I be wasting my time?), or is it settled enough to spruce up a bit? Please advise. --Ryanwould (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually this section has been stable for some time. We are still discussing the blocked section. What problems do you see that need improving? (BTW, you may want to move this to the bottom of the page) Gandydancer (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To the bottom — done. There are inconsistencies with date formatting (The protest began on Sept 17th, 2011, an Occupy Wall Street page on Facebook began on September 19 ); a half-dozen minor issues with punctuation ("start setting the agenda for a new America.") and italics (Adbusters' senior editor); a few usage kinks (The protest was begun at Zuccotti Park)(Eduardo Peñalver said that:); inconsistencies with OWS as an initialism ("Occupy Wall Street" v. "OWS"); and the like. I'm proposing a light copy-edit for these minor things and wouldn't delve into content issues. Good to hear that the section is stable. If I don't get an objection, I'll tidy things up this evening (EST).--Ryanwould (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You sound very much like you know what needs to be done here! Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust any edits I may make during or after your work if it goes astray in the areas you mention!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Gave it a not-too-intensive once-over. ≈20 edits. Everyone feel free to finesse further Ryanwould (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I got a note about my date format edits. Here's a useful page for those interested.Ryanwould (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice job! (BTW, I don't see a note on your talk page) Gandydancer (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Page has been split

The reaction section has been transferred to it's own article, Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. A summary of the article can now be edited but should not be expanded too large. I begin cleanup of references.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yay. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It didn't work. I have returned the entire section and requested speedy deletion of the other as author.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Crime" and "Sexual assault" sections

These are unencyclopedic, POV section headings. The titles are contentious and create "Biography of living persons" issues. The point of view is that crimes were commited and assaults took place. Since we are wrtting from the point of view of the authority this becomes a major issue. I feel that this section all belongs within the "Police section" on the "Reaction page". Any objections?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I object, they are due weight, they don't violate BLP, and it is factual that people were arrested for crimes. This really doesn't belong in the reaction section.Racingstripes (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am removing that until such time as you have obtained consensus. We are writing an encyclopedic article in a disinterested manner. Constantly readding the information and not seeking consensus is not working in a colloborative effort. Please state your case here as to why this should be as you have determined. Until such time you should be warned this is considered edit warring. Seek consensus for your edits when they are reverted. Just objecting is not enough. You must convince others that it improves the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my rational for reverting. You are not readding the information to improve the article, but to make a point. That is not within the spirit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are not adding it to the section to expand it but to continue to keep your Point of View going on the article without consensus. You have not added any other information from the section in summary but attempted to drop the entire load back in against the current consensus. While it is only a weak silent consensus, it is consensus never the less. All you need is to gain the consensus of editors. It's not that hard, but failing that...the hard part would be accepting it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the crime section is too long, but to delete the entire section is wrong. And it was done without a consensus. The way it works is it is discussed then after the discussion action is not taken. Making a statement on the talk page and then acting on it is far from a consensus. The section should be shortened, and maybe even made into a page of its own. The sections has reliable sources, it had significant news coverage, it is pertinent to the article. That's how edits are done. Allow for a discussion before making major changes to the article.Racingstripes (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't say it was done without consensus, it's not like we aren't watching this pretty closely. Silence was acquiescence. The way he did it was perfectly in order per WP:BRD. There is absolutely no requirement of prior discussion on Wikipedia, and he went above and beyond by posting anything on the talk page. It would have been perfectly in order for him to just do it without saying anything. However, making changes and then trying to require other editors to gain consensus before reverting is definitely out of process at Wikipedia ("I am removing that until such time as you have obtained consensus"). That was what he did with me a few days ago, and I had to take it all the way to the WP:DR/N. Further, being officious and threatening about it "you should be warned this is considered edit warring," assuming bad faith and being accusatory "You are not readding the information to improve the article, but to make a point," and using a silent consensus as a justification for all this, is very inappropriate. B^e——C_ritical 18:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point. I just feel that something covered as much as the crimes that occurred within and around zuccotti park by the protesters is a valid section. The section is too long for the article and has a lot of information, but it does not belong in the reaction article. There is also enough coverage and have been enough incidents that it may even warrant its own article.Racingstripes (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there already existed a consesnus for both situations with you, Becritical and with Racingstrip. You continue to make accusations of bad faith and in doing so show actual bad faith. "Being officious and threatening"? What a load of horse dung. It is common to "warn" editors that their behavior may be seen in such way. What you did was to actually threaten to take me to ANI over a content dispute claiming I was disruptive, which you then did and was denied, suggesting that you take it to DR which just kicked it back to the talk page. Look, You might want to stop discussing the the actions of editors on this page. THAT sir is considered disruptive behavior and I will take it to the full dispute resolution if you continue. I don't like your tactics to be honest but I am not berating you on this page. I ask you to stop discussing other editors actions and stick to how to improve this article. If you can't do that then we probably will be meeting back up at DR.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Racingstripe, There was a discussion on this page and I gained consensus before the split. Actually there were several discussions and even one editor who even began a subpage. As far as the crime section itself being placed back as it's own section it is now undue weight to the article. Crime is indeed a reaction and responce from the protests. What you feel is not an explanation of why you feel that way. Please explain why the section is relevant and not just trying to paint a negative when now no positive exists on the page. No, I am removing that again because there indeed was a standing consensus and a discussion about both the split and an ogoing discussion of the crime section as undue weight. Look, there is no "Charity" section, or similar Nor should there be. It is not neutral nor encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I support Amadscientist's POV and agree with his actions.Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, and there was no discussion regarding removing the section. Making a statement, then erasing something is not a consensus or a discussion whether is was silent or not. Its well cited, relevant, and has significant news coverage.Racingstripes (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you don't agree, but why don't you agree? Being well cited only means the information can be used on an article...it doesn't mean it has to be it's own section. As I said crime and assault is a reaction and response. Also the title is indeed a BLP issue. It isn't a crime until a conviction is made and there is not one single mention of a conviction. Also, not one of these mentions states directly that a protester commited an act of any kind. In fact the protest organizers were victims of theft according to refences. That is a response to the protest. IT ISN'T A PART OF THE PROTESTS. (sorry if that looks like yelling) And that is what this is attempting to do. Make "Crime" a part of the actual subject. It isn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus still stands. You continue to edit war with reverts when the discussion has not garnerd any support on your side. By simply reverting to have it the way you want it, you are beginning to become disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up here WP:DR/NRacingstripes (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? Why? Seriously.....this is the place to gain consensus, or the NPOV noticeboards, but you are asking for a dispute resolution discussion before you have even explained your postion clearly so any potential supporters of your view could even weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

With the last DR I assumed incorrectly that DR was for disputes other than content (shows how often I am involved in DR). That is not so, it is for content disputes that cannot be resolved. When the complaint is primarily conduct disputes, then that is not the correct place. However, since this isn't yet something unresovled I am confused. Consensus appears to simply be going against having a crime section on this page. There is a summarry of what was the crime section as incorporated into the police section at Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, but you actually stated in a post above that it is the protesters commiting crime. See....that's false and is why I stated you are attempting to "Make a Point". Are you reading the information? The protesers are the victims in these accounts. You are simply incorrect with your assumption that the crime being documented is BY PROTESTERS. Again you are turning the information around to paint the subject in a flase and negative way. Your neutrality is disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reversing my stance on all disagreements on this page. Any part of consensus that I have contributed to can be considered null and void and I will not argue the point further.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted copy and past

I have reverted the recent copy and past that was done without care for references. the amount of errors in this version is not acceptable. If a reversal of a split is to happen it must be done with care.Moxy (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is acceptable and I am the editor that split the page and am requesting speedy deletion of the other. References are easy to fix and are not a reason to stop this reversal.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If broken links were unacceptable the original split would have been reversed.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

O well - wish you all the best - perhaps a sandbox would be better over your current method.Moxy (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not testing. I am reversing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He's referring to the fact that if you had tested the split in sandboxes, you wouldn't be in this mess. -Rrius (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I know what he was saying and I am saying he is incorrect. I see the split drew NO criticism of the broken refs but the reversal does? Yeah......thought so.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If the deletion is denied for any reason I will use my third revert to undue. If it is deleted i will make the reference fixes. No one need obligate themselves to help.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You really should be asking for help or be using a sandbox for all this copy and pasting. There are many copies before all the errors that you have reintroduced into this article. Moxy (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't need assistance. Thank you. Speedy deletion has been denied and the article is back to the former version. Happy?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not about being happy - its about whats best for the article. That said we really need to work on these refs,,I will startMoxy (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure...after you accused me of nominating this page for deletion inaccurately.[10]--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I see I was wrong and apologizes in a second place for my wrong post that I had already withdrew. Anyways moving on - hope no fellings were hurt. Moxy (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Accepted and will make no further comment on it. This article is a train wreck anyway. I have no idea why I care about Wikipedia policy and guidelines anyway when they can be ignored at a whim by anyone and there is diddly squat that can be done about it. Happy editing. Peace.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Further reading section?

Are this books ok for a Further reading section? (Books can be read).Moxy (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Occupying Wall Street: The Inside Story of an Action that Changed America. OR Books. 17 December 2011. ISBN 978-1-935928-68-3.
• Sarah Van Gelder; Staff of Yes! Magazine (17 November 2011). This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60994-587-9.
• Carla Blumenkranz; Keith Gessen; Mark Greif (17 December 2011). Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America. Verso Books. ISBN 978-1-84467-940-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

potential resource from Talk:Occupy movement in the United States

from Talk:Occupy movement in the United States#WSJ and Foreign Affairs resources (from Talk:Tea Party movement#WSJ and Foreign Affairs resources) ...

See The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? by Francis Fukuyama January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs,

A reprint of Fukuyama's Foreign Affairs article, from Francis Fukuyama on the decline of the middle class posted on Friday, Jan 6, 2012. It is archived on PNHP's website. Excerpt ...

It is conceivable that the Occupy Wall Street movement will gain traction, but the most dynamic recent populist movement to date has been the right-wing Tea Party, whose main target is the regulatory state that seeks to protect ordinary people from financial speculators. Something similar is true in Europe as well, where the left is anemic and right-wing populist parties are on the move. ... In the United States, for example, although the Tea Party is anti-elitist in its rhetoric, its members vote for conservative politicians who serve the interests of precisely those financiers and corporate elites they claim to despise. There are many explanations for this phenomenon. They include a deeply embedded belief in equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome and the fact that cultural issues, such as abortion and gun rights, crosscut economic ones.

See Income inequality in the United States and more importantly Wealth inequality in the United States.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.14.75 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Problems with Reaction [sic] section

In summary, the section says nothing. Substitute gun control or gay marriage for OWS, and you wouldn't have to change any other wording.

Among the general public, opinions of OWS have varied over time, and there are contradictions between the data collected by various polling agencies. Many prominent politicians, academics and celebrities of varying degree have weighed in with their reaction and responses. Mass media of all genre [sic] as well as labor unions, the banking industry and business people have given statements and given both financial as well as moral support.

1. Reaction is singular but...
2. opinions of OWS have varied over time, - need the what, how and when here. Otherwise this is pointless and obvious. What else would have the opinions done over time?
3. there are contradictions between the data collected by various polling agencies. Yep, nothing to see here, move along.
4. various polling agencies When are polling agencies not various?
5. Many prominent politicians, academics and celebrities of varying degree have weighed in with their reaction and responses. Yeah. So?
6. Mass media of all genre as well as labor unions, the banking industry and business people have given statements and given both financial as well as moral support. Yeah. So? And Genre is singular. And the banking industry. You mean the whole stinking banking industry, each and every one of them?

. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This was nothing but extending your flippant remarks and says nothing new, but simply singles out the prose line by line to say more of nothing. There is no mention of any policy, guideline or misuse of such. You bring up some grammer over some individual word use, but I am not even sure you are correct there.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

One word: dictionary. But, since the obligation to be helpful is felt, why are there the words "genres" and "reactions"? You know, plural forms of singular words. Ironic, the section said nothing about the reception of OWS except what has been said of all political movements of the same scale. Pointing out emptiness in the quoted text masquerading as something-as it were-is an application of heretofore lacking critical faculties. But an apparent act of transference is at work; saying something lacks substance is not insubstantial, quite the opposite. It is a plea for substance. Logic has a purpose, even here. Not that I'm the best speller, but it's "grammar". I'd take the above as a gentle ribbing of what needs fixing by whomever would claim the section as worthy of inclusion. References from secondary sources would help.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You offer little more than critical commentary here and barely any contribution of value. You generously offer ridicule dispensed with grandeur but what substance your statements have is lost in over expressed idealism. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Now now now, let's simmer down. Without making any comparisons, I have made idiotic edits, but have always appreciated humor - which more sensitive souls would call ridicule - as an effective way of pointing out my errors. I have never been too humble to eat crow. In the words of art historian Bernard Berenson "I don't stick to a mistake", but then again, "you can lead a horse..." I would, however, in any case, start coming up with sorely needed references for any section I added to an article, or at least promise to. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do I have my doubts to such saccharin suggestions? Could it be that you don't attempt to make changes but simply point out deficits for enjoyment?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. I don't feel inclined or qualified to research the section, but would hope I could prod others into fixing-or junking-it. Since we agree, why has creator of the section let it stay deficient? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is your choice not to edit of course. The aricle was split and the section was not created (it already existed) but summarized quickly during the work.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hardly need permission to abstain, or have some obligation to not comment on what so blatantly, as we seem agree, has "defecits"-none of which have been defended. Even the singular/plural issue. Hmmm. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

*Brushes chin with fingers* Hmmmmmmmmmm.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, burn. Anything else learned at the playground today? Any plans to get some decent refs goin'? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no plans to work on the references at the moment, no. The section as you so eloquently pointed out could well describe a number of other subjects. It does not say anything is in dispute aside from a perception of grammatical error. As generic as that summary may have been, I felt the claims were unlikely to be disputed and felt no obligation to add references as it was summarizing a section that contained them (for better or worse).--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Artist, your sarcasm and arrogant attitude is getting pretty old. We all have a bad day from time to time, but you just won't quit. If you don't like the summary write a new one. Gandydancer (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh look, a scolding, and though I have had bad days, lately my dog hasn't died, my sweetheart hasn't left me, and the 49ers recent loss to the Giants is something I have learned to let go of and move on. So, I'm doing OK. Nonetheless the solicitude is appreciated. But I'm wondering: when did speculation about my personal issues, or anyone else's have a place on a WP talk page? Still, it's easy to throw around charges of sarcasm-and I thought it was irony that was in my employ-and arrogance, especially when the accusing editor won't either support the charges or deal with substantive issues, such as bad, empty writing and no refs. As for arrogance, I don't know nothing about that, especially if I'm to be compared to an editor who will not, I mean flat out refuses to, source a non-lead section. I positively shocked by this of that position. (Since suspicions of insincerity seem to be the robust here, let me make this clear: I really am shocked, not shocked, shocked.) If an editor will not use references, and unless there is a policy that permits no citations with a simple wave of the hand along the lines of "Yo, bro, there another article with those refs, so why you wanna make me hafta put 'em over here too?" the section has no way to remain. So without that policy is produced and explained, not just cited (and there is a WP policy against that cheap ploy), ctrl X will be needed. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Crime section (again)

I just updated the wording for the Crime section, but it bothers me to see it so "unprofessional" (for lack of a better word) sounding. Considering that the protest is now a worldwide movement and that the park was closed many weeks ago, it just seems silly to be including information about what tactics were used to defuse violent confrontations, an EMTs broken leg, the age of the woman that was assaulted, and on and on. I am wondering what we can agree on. Can we agree that the section is now too long/specific?

Yes. As an encyclopedia, we don't just follow the sources, but the general historical weight. Those things had more weight earlier, and now they have very little weight. We just think how it might be covered by any other encyclopedia in a couple of years. Those things are no more weight now than they will be in a couple of years or 10. B^e——C_ritical 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be limited to notable incidents. Groping by man with warrants and by cook in the kitchen, the need for female only tents, the need for internal security volunteers, and the protesters comments with regard to a molotov cocktail and macys.Racingstripes (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

All of this could just be spread through the article. Just a suggestion.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm sure we can agree on something. Racingstripes, what are the "molotov cocktail and macys" incidents about? Gandydancer (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The incident in which a protester made references to a molotov cocktail going through a window in macy's, then fellow protesters yelled at the police for arresting him.Racingstripes (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

At first reading I thought that Amadscientist's idea wouldn't work, but looking at the section again I'm thinking it could mostly be worked into the preceding Park Occupation section. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You want to make the crime section into a subsection of Zuccotti Park occupation subsection? Making a subsection of another subsection is fine with me.Racingstripes (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it have to have it's own subsection? Can't all of the information be placed in the section Gandy mentions and what doesn't can be placed in either "chronolgy" or most pertinent spot?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. This is essentially a controversy section which is very common in wikipedia. Just about every article that is as notable as OWS has a controversy section. If this section should be blended into the chronology section then why not the origin section and just about the entire New York City Protests section. We break articles in sections and subsections to make the articles easier to read. Racingstripes (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Racingstripes, it really isn't that common and in fact is not the proper way to write a nuetral article. Controversy and criticism sections, such as this, are not a way to create an encyclopedic article. It is "Common" on wikipedia for articles to have many mistakes, that does not mean it is standard or even suggested to make them. We are trying to clean up the article to fit within the Manual of Style guidelines and policy towards improving the article for higher rating such as GA and FA. It does not need to have a crime section. It doesn't. In fact...it should not have the section for the very reasons I stated.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with Amadscientist and BeCritical. At this point I believe that most of the crime section would be best moved into the Zuccotti Park occupation section. As other editors have said, over time individual incidents need to be wrapped together and reported in a more general manner. For instance, many instances of police brutality have been reported and we had a substantial amount of copy in the article devoted to them, but over time it has dwindled to a sentence or two - and I hardly think that anyone would be arguing for a title or subtitle of "Police brutality", which has been as significant as crime. Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there would be anything wrong with a police brutality section. But the thing about police brutality its a little bit of crying wolf, and thats an entire different discussion.Racingstripes (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the same thing actually and Gandydancer worded it very well. I think you have bias that you clearly can't see. Not an insult. Everyone has bias of some kind, but we write an encyclopedic article in a neutral manner and a "crime" section within a subject not related to crime is not neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 5 core pillars that represent the essence of what this encyclopedia stands for. These pillars represent the fundamental principles that we, as editors, should be striving for, not ignoring. "Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles"[Pillar 5]. You may personally feel that "crime" and controversy sections are important, but it is exactly like believing in your own "truth". Pillar 2 states (in it's entirety):

• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

So I understand that some editors are less forgiving about anyone that removes information of any kind or disputes a portion or section they feel strongly about but neutrality is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. We have had consensus to alter the information and exclude the section for some time now, but I feel that we are being patient and not attempting anything that would be perceived as disruptive, however clearly you are the single holdout. 3 editors have weighed in and consensus is clearly not for inclusion of a Crime section. If we were to begin the change to exclude the section and begin transferring information to other sections as stated above, what would be your reaction?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding weight/notability... what objective rationale are there for and against including this section? (Or the amount of content in it.) As a benchmarking exercise, I tried looking for mention of openly carried guns in Tea Party movement and Tea Party protests, since the topic got media attention at the time. Also tried looking for crime and arrests at Super Bowl and Rose Bowl Game, since it's typical for a couple dozen arrests to be made at a Rose Bowl game (not including the parade). Came up empty-handed there, but did find mention of over 50 player arrests in 2007 NFL season. Also the "media also commonly noted that the 2006 Bengals had more arrests than wins" in 2006 Cincinnati Bengals season, and in History of the New England Patriots found that the "1995 season was also marked by the Patriots' first home appearance on Monday Night Football since 1981. During the Patriots' last appearance on the program, a number of fans in attendance proved to be rowdy and uncontrollable and there was an abnormally high number of arrests." Personally, I'm rooting for the Patriots in a non-rowdy way this year, and back on topic I agree with BeCritical here. PubliusDigitus (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The title's point of view is of crime in general, not crime that the group has committed....like storming a building in mass or some notable riot or act of civil disobedience. Due weight should be observed, in at least not grouping random acts to place a label on them in this context. Why not "Victim"? It's a point of view as well. Reading the information itself you see the victims of these crimes are being reported as being protesters as well. Theft within the protest group and sexual assault, assault etc. The one exception is the threat a man made about committing an act, but details show no proof he intended to carry out the threat. That piece is a crime a protester committed, but the crime was of making the threat. Why place this among the protester on protester "crimes"? This associates that random act of a protester with the acts against protesters just by placing them in a single section toegether. The information is best served where it can have direct context to the events and subjects is other sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/Noticeboard discussion

This has been brought up at the Neutral Point of View/Noticeboard for discussion. Please comment here[11].--Amadscientist (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Per notice board suggestion and the compromise here of moving all the information into the above section, I have placed the crime section back into the Zuccotti Park as a sub section and retitled as "Security Concerns" for the time being. I can live with this with a reassessment of quality to match the similar articles used as examples for this article to segregate negative information.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

New source

New source If anyone wants to add this to the crime section: Todd Stanes (January 31, 2012). "Occupiers Dump Condoms on Catholic School Girls". Fox News Radio. Retrieved February 1, 2012..--v/r - TP 15:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Right now this article's scope is restrained to the New York protest itself and not the general movement over all....the information needs to have context to the subect.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)