Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 14

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Which mutual funds invest most and least closely in the protesters' goals?

I was looking through http://www.afscme.org/news/press-room/press-releases/2010/barclays-northern-state-street-and-vanguard-top-list-of-mutual-funds-enabling-excessive-ceo-pay and it occurred to me that I have no idea where to find a list of mutual funds targeting investments from the protesters. It's the financial district. Do any of the financial conglomerates[1] offer a mixed and balanced socially responsible credit union fund to try to get customers off the rebound from http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/? Is anyone else offering socially responsible investments specifically tailored to the 99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely related, here's a smart video about communication with banks. Dualus (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be inviting original research, or else offering to perform some yourself. Please avoid manufacturing topics that you believe should be of interest to OWS protesters. That is not the kind of material that goes in a WP article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we cover both sides of controversies. I am trying to find funds both for and against the protester's goals. Why is that not completely appropriate for a movement based in the financial district? Dualus (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP NPOV doesn't require you to manufacture a topic and then cover "both sides" of it, or whatever the hell it is you think you're doing. Actually NOR forbids you from manufacturing a topic in the first place. As I said, that's not the kind of material that goes in WP articles. Period. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm manufacturing the afscme.org story cited above? Or am I looking for a neutral way to include it? Dualus (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It can never be included. You need some RS's to make the case for the connection. Since the article is from 2010, the article itself cannot make the connection, only you can (which is OR). Arzel (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, you're talking into a black hole of rationality. All logic that is fed into it is never seen again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

List of notable Occupy Wall Street supporters

Please help contribute to the working draft of List of notable Occupy Wall Street supporters. The working draft is currently on the talk page of the list, modeled after the Obama endorsements page. This motion has the backing of a few editors, including 완젬스 I'd like to see progress before making it public, so it doesn't get auto-deleted. (talk). Krishyanity (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's nominated for a speedy deletion, the warning box has a link that says something like "place the following script-code to delay this speedy deletion" or something to that effect. All we have to do is back up every included person with a reliable source, cite-tag, or ref-tag. Usually it's a bad idea to explicitly call out for others to do work on it. Usually people will pile on once the interest picks up, but requesting editors to do specific types of work usually makes them lazy. Once you and I start building it, others will jump in and start editing behind us. Don't let fear (of auto deletion, but also fear in general) stop you from helping make Wikipedia better. The list your making is during the height of OWS popularity, so it's safer than any point in WIkipedia's history. Scared editors are emotional editors, so be a BOLD editor instead, 완젬스 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Using primary sources

I am aware that secondary sources are needed to back information presented in articles, but it is my understanding that primary sources can be referred to as well. In the Demands and goals section I have provided a NYT's article to back information re the "Demands" list, but have provided a ref to the document as well. This ref has been reverted twice. I know that this can be quite complicated from articles that I have worked on in the past, however I have found that in some instances primary sources are used in Wikipedia. Could someone point me to the guideline that explains why it would be against policy to include the primary source in addition to the secondary source? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves 완젬스 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So you still may not be safe with adding it to the end of the secondary sources as the primary source if it goes against those above guidelines. I wont revert over it, unless consensus feels it is self serving or any of the other above guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The notability of primary sources is explained at WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and if you have questions you can ask at WT:RS or WP:RSN. Dualus (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Here is what Wikipedia says about Primary sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Here the claim as it was being made:

The Demands group, drawing inspiration from -era WPA and the Civilian Conservation Corps, publicized its list of demands in the Times in mid-October.[46]

Here is the primary source that was used: [2]

As it was being used as the sole reference to make that claim it was removed. User:Gandydancer corrected that use (which I missed, but corrected my own action) The primary source was illustrative and must be used with a sceondary source (preferred) or a tertiary source (acceptable, but not preferred, especially if the true source can be located) and must be behind the other sources per MOS.

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

The secondary sources go first, so editors and readers can check the Verifiability.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

HOWEVER...as was pointed out above by 완젬스(yes, if you don't point out everything, there are some that will take it as an opening) there are guidelines when, even with a secondary source, some primary sources can still NOT be used. [3]--Amadscientist (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, what it boils down to is nothing replaces sensible judgment, especially in unique scenarios such as this. 완젬스 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted new section in which an editor added a footnote CITING PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS BY HIMSELF

Seriously, this page needs fullprotect. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Herself. Gender gap based attitude. I am a scholar, with first hand knowledge, and I did not sell anything, only mentioned fact. Tomorrow the event will be in the news, and I'll be back. Please do not abuse newcomers, and look me up if you have questions, or you can always get to my userpage. KSRolph (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)71.198.6.16 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Indented your entry in this thread. I corrected the broken citation. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I plan to resume statements I made, I am at Oakland CA, at Saint Mary's College CA. I plan to link the site to: http://occupycolleges.org/2011/10/18/the-national-solidarity-teach-in-how-to/ KSRolph (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest. If you are citing yourself and are self promoting you are at risk of being blocked.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that she is teaching students how to edit Wikipedia. To think that the plans for a teach-in at a small college warrants placing it in the Timetable section with no reasonable reference is as bad as/worse than some of the edits from the Editors from Hell that we are dealing with in this article. BTW, this is not abuse - teach your students that they will need a tough skin to edit here. Gandydancer (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Rolph, rather than a "Gender gap based attitude", my reference to you as a male was based on the fact that your username sounds like chosen by a man named Rolph who lives in Kansas or attends Kansas State. Please realize that being in academia does not give you license to ignore WP policy or cite yourself as a reference, even if you have "firsthand knowledge" of whatever you're talking about. To a limited extent if you actually publish something yourself, it's possible that might be used as a reference, but only on subjects on which you are a recognized expert and have had your work published by third parties. Thus please do not plan on reinserting the material I deleted, which referenced "personal communications" by/with yourself, unless you find independent, reliable sources (see WP:RS) to substantiate the claims. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we all need to remember...

Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers--Amadscientist (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you see as the connection to this article in that essay? Dualus (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The connection is pretty obviously the POV-pushing qualities of the editor or editors memorialized in the essay. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean? Dualus (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not explicit enough? The essay discusses POV-pushers, such as yourself, who display an utter disregard of core WP policy. The following quote is especially on-point:

Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.

Food for thought. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone who does not perceive their biases as neutral? If we judge objective truth, we must do so by a scientific standard. Dualus (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of us have as our bias that we want to build an encyclopedia that tries to be both neutral and verifiable. We encourage that bias around here, it's quite helpful towards getting the project done. When you openly admit that you have no interest in trying to be neutral, we start to wonder about your objectives. Acknowledging bias is an important step, but accepting it is not necessary or even really tolerated. SDY (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Good points.--Nowa (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Demands working group and undue weight.

Here we go again. It's still very much debatable whether or not the Demands working group is indeed a notable enough part of the OWS movement in New York to justify so much weight in the Demands and Goals section. No matter what is done to make that section nuetral, it gets overstuffed by editors who may even think they are working in good faith. So much for a single demand. This builds a good argument to delete the main image now as it is no longer the true nature of the movement.

Also, I am a little disturbed by finding out a ~~Huffington Post~~ {edit:Guardian] author we debated here for several days over their journalistic credentials, is in fact one of the main organizers of the Demands Working group.....since August. (New York times reference confirms this) How many editors are directly involved in the organization of the protests in New York and are actually editing sections and topics they have their hands in here?--Amadscientist (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re the Huff post editor that the NYTs refers to, could you please give the ref for that - I guess I missed it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Demands group has been written about in the NYTs, Mother Jones, The Guardian, and Huff Post and referred to by many others. That seems notable to me - especially considering that the #1 issue discussed in the press is the lack of demands/goals issue. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a reference in the section. What....you're not reading the references?--Amadscientist (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-trying-to-settle-on-demands.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=occupy%20wall%20street%20demands%20groups%20&st=cse

Although Monday’s open forum was meagerly attended, politically active members like Cecily McMillan and David Haack, who first proposed formulating demands in a pre-campout planning meeting in August, said they were ready to take action. Mr. Haack, who in 2009 tried to run for the White Plains City Council, admitted feeling disillusioned after the group struck down their proposal in August, but now he feels inspired by the movement’s “true democratic process,” even if it means slower progress going forward.

--Amadscientist (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say Haack was an editor here. I asked how many editors have a direct organizing position? Conflict of interest does not exclude that editor from contributing but they should declare their conflict if one exists. Haack, however is too closely involved to see him as just a journalist (if he is so) on Huffington Post in this regard.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The most we had before was that he was inspired and that he became involved, but the reference shows him as a true organizer from VERY early on. Like...August.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I also missed something as the references keep coming and going but we had this information even during that discussion. Shame on me for not noticing. [4]

I believed this so strongly that during the early days of the planning, a small group of activists and I introduced a resolution to the general assembly outlining some demands. Our resolution was struck down in late August. At that point, I became a little disillusioned, but decided to stick with the movement.

--Amadscientist (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude and ask if I am reading my own references. You said this: "Also, I am a little disturbed by finding out a Huffington Post author we debated here for several days over their journalistic credentials, is in fact one of the main organizers of the Demands Working group.....since August." I am asking for the name of this person. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all I don't know that they're your references and second I am not trying to be rude. But the fact is David Haack is one of the writers of the 99% Declaration. [5]--Amadscientist (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please document that he works for Huff Post as a blogger or journalist. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

He had been volunteering for the Guardian but if there are objections to inclusion of Haack as a source then are there any objections to any of [6][7][8][9][10][11]? Dualus (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If he is employed with any of them then please show the proof. I would love to see it.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus I see the whole subject now a little clearer. Please justify the references as being notable, accurate and showing that the Declaration is even a part of the Occupy movement and not a past discussion that was turned down by the main GA? Please do that. I won't hold my breath.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This primary source from the official web page (and can be used as it is from the actual website) is official: [12]--Amadscientist (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, what is your association, if any, with the Occupy Wall Street movement, NYC General Assembly? Are you involved personally with David Haack or the 99% Declaration?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no personal involvement with any, except to the extent that I attended a local event about a month ago thousands of miles from NYC and photographed their literature. Would you like me to upload it so you can see? What is your association? Dualus (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't muddy the waters by bringing Dualus and his long list of references into this. I am not using Kingkade or Haack, who we have established as not acceptable, as a reference, so quit asking me to prove anything about him. Also, perhaps if you want to discuss a Dualus connection to the Demands group you should start a separate thread on that. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus has posted and I have replied. You make another thread if you don't want that mud all over yourself. I didn't ask you, I asked Dualus. He made the statement and I ask him to show proof of employment by the author. If the waters are muddied ask him to stop posting. I can reply to both of you on a single thread.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't that complicated. The 99% declaration has been propped up as a real document with no actual direct references. Prove it has anything to do with the OWS movement at this time? Either of you can answer if you wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see one problem I have corrected. I said Huff post and it should be Guardian author. Haack wrote the blogs for the Gaurdian UK. (Kinkade was the author we discussed from the Huff post)--Amadscientist (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But both were used to reference the 99 % Declaration. If Haack is not empolyeed and is just a volunteer what does that mean exactly? The point is this, Haack is part of the subject, the 99 % Declaration and was being used to prop up this subject. Kinkade's articles were seen as non RS. The subject of the document is in dispute as not having any legitimate claim as part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. And has no true direct reference that shows that, either by a "journalist" at Huff Post or by one of the authors of the document in blog postings, or New York Times articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That question is more appropriate for WP:RSN. Dualus (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the Dualus post - I just so dreaded to have him in this discussion as I have not found him to be reasonable and able to discuss topics productively so often in the past. Have you read the Mother Jones article? That seems to tie the Demands in. I know you are reasonable and I just wish that Dualus would stay out of it for now. BTW, just in case it seems that I am trying to make a strong case for the Demands group, that is not the case at all. I find myself in agreement with those who feel that it would be a mistake to make a list of demands at this point. I will be away from this for a few hours, but will get back to our discussion later. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Gandydancer. I too will be away for a bit. I am finding stuff that requires verification. I am just trying to pull away the falsehoods and see what is true and can be verified. I know only a few things for fact right now and that is that Haack is in deep with the organization of the 99% Declaration...and that the NYC GA has removed everything to do with it. The Official site still has some forum posts but apear to have released a statement in regards to the "rogue working group" that could well be a splinter group working from a different occupation location and not the Zuccotti Park location that is being referred to in this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I want the same thing that you want, only what can be verified. I think we agree that from the start the constant complaint in the media has been lack of goals and demands on one hand and support for lack of concrete goals and demands on the other. The information that I added shows that these two different lines of thought exist in the OWS group as well. When the Demands Working Group published their list it was criticized as utopian (Fox News) and widely referred to by many others, generally in negative terms.

Many people believed, and still believe, that the list was issued from the main group. We know that in the weeks before Sept. 17 this group had already formed to work on goals/demands and Haack was part of that group (and that he later switched camps and moved to the other side). We know that the Demands group was considered "rogue", in that they were doing their own thing and usually not bothering to take part in the General Assembly meetings, and then even went ahead and published their plan before it had been approved by the Gen Assembly.

But when it comes right down to it, all the above is moot since we only write what can be verified in the article. I believe that the information that I have added is backed by acceptable references - for instance I have not used Kingkade or Haack, who I have agreed are not reliable. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that undue weight is still given to the subject, but am able to work with consensus here. We deal with referenced facts and reliable sources...but that is not the full extent of what Wikipedia editors do. We read those sources and weigh the facts and determine what is credible from the source and no amount of reading between the lines is acceptable. I think you have done what you could with what you have and I cannot fault you, as an editor for the work you have done. I may not agree totally with it, but you do convince me that it is not only something I can live with...but that it may well change in the coming days, weeks or even moths as the story evolves. Facts, to be notable, must stand the test of time. Does the 99% Declaration stand that test? I think not, as there are actual primary sources that can be used that could well dispute some of this. But, I also feel no great hurry to work this out. Time will, or will not eventually evaporate the actual notability of the subject. As long as this ~~article~~(edit:section) is encyclopedic, neutral and accurate. I am fine for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the 99% part is an invention of Dualus - it is not mentioned in the source I used. Thanks so much - I am willing to change my position as well. It is good to work with you where we can work towards making the article better rather than an ego match. See the new thread at the bottom of the page regarding the reason that Dualus is so insistent on getting this information in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Consensus Gestures

I just saw last night's Colbert Report where Steven interviews two Occupy protesters. It was a fascinating illustration of hand signals used on consensus building. Has anyone considered doing an article on these gestures?--Nowa (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that where they raise their hands? I wondered why they were doing that! There's already a human microphone so if this gets to that level of ... whatever then it will prolly get one too. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Important suggestion, Nowa, as a social scientist I am happy to collaborate if you want to begin an article. The reason gestures are important is they can go viral and the language of Occupiers becomes less relevant, it's like a first-time universal non-verbal language. Would we get hand/arm photos in? KSRolph (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy hand signals has been created. Trackinfo (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Too bad Wikipedia article talk pages don't have a system like that. Every time someone complains about something irrelevant I should make a /_\ triangle or something. Dualus (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

▲ ↑ 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Yes, I went ahead and created Occupy hand signals. Photos or especially videos or animated gifs would be an excellent addition. You really need to see them in action to understand what they are. If you check out the references you will see they are already international.--Nowa (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if that doesn't stick around like that; in its current state it only needs the attention of the right kind of editor to get a more or less speedy delete. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration‎

A user has created 99 Percent Declaration‎. Two editors believe the topic is not independently notable and the article draft has been moved to User:Dualus/99 Percent Declaration‎. If you have feelings regarding the independent notability for 99 Percent Declaration‎ one way or another, please comment on Talk:99 Percent Declaration‎. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that Laura has been WP:CANVASSing those with whom she has not had previous interactions independent of her interactions with me,[13] complaining about my actions on their talk page instead of mine. However, I agree with her request. Dualus (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Laura's comment at my talk page was a direct response to my own comment complaining about your uncooperativeness and disregard for policy. No "canvassing" to see here, move along. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again Dualus, your concerted attempt to evoke Wikidrama has been proven factually incorrect. You do a great job of unifying random new Wikipedians into support against you. I've been on this article nearly a month and have tried so hard not to speak out against you but I'm so beyond convinced that those united against you have done nothing wrong this entire time, except to protect the article from your fanatical attempts to defy core Wikipedia policies including but certainly not limited to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:COI 완젬스 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration. As this article may be of interest to this article's contributors, I wanted to notify. --LauraHale (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Centrify - What you need to know

Wikipedia is encouraging specialist scholars to contribute, moreover, I have a university class I am teaching to contribute to Wikipedia. While we all have more to learn, I do understand the dynamic and sometimes volatile issues at a page such as this one. Please assume Good Faith and stay civil. You can check on us and our Ambassadors; please make constructive and concrete suggestions, we will respond kindly. KSRolph (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Was my comment letting you know you're not allowed to cite yourself on Wikipedia insufficiently constructive or concrete? I'm happy for your class but (a) you still need to observe WP policy, and (2) you're just "teaching" bad editing habits if you encourage your students to dive into one of the most controversial articles around without adequately familiarizing yourself with policy and the types of disputes you'll find at a page of this type. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a great introduction to the Wikipedia experience if you're trying to get them away from using it... it shows the site at its absolute worst: an article that reads like an advocacy pamphlet full of truth and not verification, POV-pushing and advocacy, a toxic editing environment, and wikilawyering. That's four of the five. I don't think we're having non-free content issues, at least, so we can at least drink a cup of tea to that. Given that there restrictions on editing due to persistent vandalism, it's not even the encyclopedia anyone can edit... SDY (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, if you're teaching a class, this page is an exception, rather than the rule. Please consider using a featured article where there are no pov editors (such as honey) because there aren't people who are for and against it, and I think this just puts added pressure on the already stressed out contributors who are genuinely trying to improve the article. Wikipedia is encouraging everyone to contribute, and detests elitism. College students are usually better than high school students, but if you go any higher than that, "experts" are usually seen as WP:MPOV pushers who want to promote their narrow interests. This article has formed organically, and the talk page is very unpredictable & wildly chaotic. 완젬스 (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:KSRolph What not to post

Wikichat is text whose purpose is anything other than improving the related article.
Things that should not be on talk pages include violations of privacy, unsourced controversial biographical information, idle chat, personal attacks, and discussions about editors' behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree so much with what Amadscientist has wrote--please use centrify's talk page to write him a message like this, rather than soapboxing on the OWS talkpage to admonish him. Further distraction such as this is problematic and after 1-2 more days will be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with the above suggestions as well. I will add a few things:

Many of us have articles on our Watch page on which we delete stuff such as "Joey has a very small weiner" (that was one of my favorites!) as part of what we do here. Your entry was the sort that we just delete, and I hope that you understand the reason by now. There was nothing wrong with the way your edit was handled.
Avoid accusing others of lacking good faith. Generally it would be better to say, "I'm right and you're wrong so you should use good faith and admit it", because as often as not, that's what it boils down to.
Yes, unless you really have experience I doubt that this would be the article to start with. Even then, you may be surprised - try editing "Cat" for instance!
I once read a blog that spoke of the reasons that women gave for not editing. Many women spoke of how rude the other editors were and how their edits were just quickly deleted - so they gave up. A little rudeness from time to time is to be expected - we've all done it - but in my experience editors are usually just being assertive.
Good luck with getting women to edit - women do see the world differently than men and many articles reflect their lack of input. Gandydancer (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stay strong Gandydancer, I stood up for you here and you're not alone. You owe it to yourself to stay strong because Wikipedia needs people like you who have no vested interest. Whenever I lose motivation, I read this quote. Hope it helps, and please give the Wikipedia community another chance. We got your back, and will stand up for you, 완젬스 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks! - but actually I never left... Not that I haven't felt like it many times. Gandydancer (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Official NYC GA site

Per Wikipedia MOS [14] Official links can be used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text. This link [15] shows that the NYC GA states:

"In the interest of full transparency and openness, it is time to share with you, dear reader, a story about a group, a group that is no more. Yes, that’s right. I am referring to the “99Declaration” group."

"[T]here were internal disputes within the 99Declaration group and one of the admins decided to take things into their own hands and delete the group. Any group admin has the power to delete their own group at any moment. This story gets especially intriguing, though, when the other group admin decided to blame the movement, which he knew very well was not at fault. Let this post clear the air and set the record straight."

--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I read that, too. I wonder what the secondary sources will have to say about this one. Dualus (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

While this primary source can be used in the article and probably should be used at some point. I am waiting to see how RS form around this, if at all. As I said above, notability must stand the test of time. Does that mean we have to wait for time to pass...not really, but I am just the same. Who knows...they may all get together for a group hug and the document changed to reflect a new consensus that that "Rogue" working group finally excepts or maybe a new movement is born. Not holding my breath for the last part though.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street: It’s Not a Hippie Thing resource

Don’t be fooled by the drum circles. "Today’s protests have more in common with the anti-Hoover 1930s than the antiwar ’60s and ’70s" by Roger Lowenstein BusinessWeek October 27, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea of having more Business Week sources on this article for balance, and that looks like a really good historical overview. Nice find! Dualus (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

American Nazis

Discussion closed as no consensus for inclusion.

[16] Per the sources which have been presented at this NPOV board thread I am of the opinion that the ANP offering support needs one line at a minimum in this article. It certainly meets notability requirements and the only argument against is "guilt by association" which is a policy I am unable to find anywhere. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't promote fringe groups who choose to endorse the latest fad. WP:UNDUE. If you can find a source saying that the ANP's endorsement is indicative of anything other the ANP's attempt to obtain publicity, I might feel differently. Dualus (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not undue when there are 44 news hits for it. It is notable given the coverage it has received and this discussion has already been resolved on the NPOV board, this section is to discuss were to add the line "The American Nazi Party has also offered support" one line from thirty sources is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is totally undue, as the NPOV discussion illustrates - there is no consensus whatsoever in that thread for inclusion. [User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my smear campaign, please redact your personal attack. The NPOV discussion illustrates that it ought be included, per all the sources which mention it. One line is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV discussion illustrates nothing of the sort AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am promoting nothing, per all policy's this deserves a line, it has 44 hits on google news, and a few million on the web, it is notable which means in gets included in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been argued to death. The opinions of fringe groups on current events are unimportant to articles about those events. TFD (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note TLAM attempted to insert this material while this discussion is taking place. I have reverted. And BTW, a good proporting of the '44 news hits' are blogs, or reader response. So much for 'proof by Google'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of this content is an issue, I have tagged the article for neutrality. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of content while it was being discussed on the talk page, with no support for inclusion, is an issue. And you are seriously suggesting that there is a 'neutrality' issue in not mentioning fringe material sourced from blogs you found on Google? That has to be the most ridiculous 'justification' for tagging that I've seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Was it sourced to a blog? Or to one of the most widely viewed news networks in America? Sorry but undue will not fly here, given the news hits + google hits this is notable, it does not matter if you do not like it, policy dictates it ought be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. There is no policy that says Wikipedia content is determined by Google hits, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy is correct, a few google hits does not mean that a small issue must be included. That is not how NPOV works - 44 google hits should be weighed against the millions of google hits of the topic as a whole.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Which of these is a personal blog? Fox news Media Matters for America Huffington Post New York Post Sunshine State News Plenty of reliable sources mention it, so should we. I have taken the liberty of removing your personal attack. @Maunus that is just news hits, there are several million hits on google for it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the credibility of your argument is being ruined by the sources you are providing. First, they certainly are not unbiased sources (although modern media is not necessarily expected to be unbiased). Second and more importantly, the Huffington Post article you posted is indeed a blog post. In addition, it is not a legitimate source of information, given that the author actually lies when discussing the first video he posted. He states that the video shows a mob of OWS protesters attacking a "black, NY policeman" when it actually shows said police officer attacking a protester. Although I think that the Wikipedia page should be edited to include some discussion about possible racism arising in the protests, the issue should have multiple political perspectives and a wide range of legitimate media attention before it can be posted here. Drezken (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your 'sources':

Fox News - a mention in passing, along with The Socialist Party U.S.A, Communist Party U.S.A, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mediamatters: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them."

Huff post - a blog

New York Post - as WP:RS? ROFL!

Sunshine State News - a blog

Now stop wasting peoples time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS blogs hosted by news agencies are reliable. It is not a mention in passing on fox, it was part of their news segment. All those sources are reliable and you know it, this fact is notable and it needs be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such necessity. As I said you have to weigh it against the entire coverage of the protest. The Nazi support is not in any way a significant part of that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually per WP:NPOV there is means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, plenty of reliable sources have mentioned this, however I look forward to the list of celebrities being substantially trimmed.

The key part is "proportionately".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

...and "significant". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand the hesitancy to add information about a notable argument. Stepping back from simply the American Nazi Party, the OWS has come under fire (justifiably or not) for anti-semitism among protestors. These are some notable sources on both sides of the issue: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegitaU (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2011

Most of the sources presented have been opinion pieces and just repeating these opinions would violate WP:WEIGHT. However your last source is a news report which says, "The Occupy Wall Street protests, now in their second month, have increasingly been criticized by a variety of groups, most of them politically conservative, for flashes of anti-Semitism." It also provides balance to those views. We could use that source, but it is far from what a number of editors have been suggesting. TFD (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

47 results on G News now for this, around 40k on the web, still of the opinion this is not notable people? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The source used was from Bret Baier's "Political Grapevine",[22] which covers political trivia. Whether or not it is rs, it is no indication of noteworthiness, more likely the opposite. And saying that the American Nazis also support OW after saying that it is supported by Russ Feingold is a smear against him. Also his article is about fringe groups that support OW, so picking out the one is injecting a POV that Baier did not intend. TFD (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is wonderful that you know what Baier intended, however do you do it? We can of course mention all three groups he mentions, but the ANP have had more coverage, 66 google news hits now btw & 50,200 on the web, still not notable? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

68 hits for the ANP on G news now 48500 on the web. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
G News hits remain stable, About 111,000 results on google search Bing gives 62 News hits. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So what? You've already been told that Google hits don't determine Wikipedia content. Drop the stick, and leave the carcass to rot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all your personal attacks, any more will result in a request for administrative action to be taken against you. Policy dictates content, not you ATG. Policy is quite clear, this is notable as it has received widespread reporting. Your assertion that it has not is wrong, and if you do not actually have a reason other than you don't like it then I shall return the content to the correct place. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You are pushing an agenda. You have no support for your attempts to link the 'occupy' movements with fringe racist political groups. And finally, it is you that doesn't understand policy (or pretends not to) - you are clearly attempting to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Keep this up, and I'm sure that administrative action will follow soon enough... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy. The ANP is an insignificant fringe group, and their opinion should not be give any weight at all in this article. Their "endorsement" is peripheral and irrelevant to the subject of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I support Andy as well. And I'll go one step further and say that anyone that removes another editor's copy is a ******* ****. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If this were just from the ANP website then yes, however this is not reporting on the ANP opinion, it is reporting on what a great many reliable sources have reported. Which is that the ANP has endorsed this protest. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Some sources to show how widely reported this is. Israel today Magazine Fox Nation The Blaze Daily Caller Town Hall Sunshine State News Drudge This one is amuseing, Occupy Resistence Charleston Daily Mail The Gazette WAPO IB Times Fox News I Know not all meet RS criteria (IE Drudge) These are used to show how widespread this has become. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But you tried to delete all mention of anti-semitism from the article, even though it was backed up by reliable sources. -- Veggy (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read through this, I disagree with everyone (except Veggy) currently. While it may not require a sentence, though that would help clarify (NYPost): "“Thus far, however, anti-Semitism has not gained traction more broadly with the protesters, nor is it representative of the larger movement at this time.” At a minimum they should be listed in Occupy_Wall_Street#Demographics with a catch-all term anti-semites. To not list this is not proportional; yes it's significance is overblown by those opposed to OWS; this does not remove it from reality. To do so is over sensitive censorship. - Roy Boy 16:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes the anti Semitic stuff also warrants a line or two. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's already a line in the "criticism" section. I'm not sure that it warrants much more. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to mention how opposed I am to the inclusion of anything about the American Nazi Party. This is like the "Hamas endorses Obama, Al Qaeda endorses McCain" nonsense. WP:GHITS don't determine anything, and the statement "The American Nazi Party supports OWS" inevitably leads to the question, "So what?" because it's fringe. --David Shankbone 17:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources Michigan Messenger New York Post Delaware County Daily Times Boston Herald LA Times Jacksonville Courier A Belgian paper Tehran times Israel today Magazine Fox Nation The Blaze Daily Caller Town Hall Sunshine State News Drudge This one is amuseing, Occupy Resistence Charleston Daily Mail The Gazette WAPO IB Times Fox News SF Gate The Hoya Newsmax Fuse TV Fox again Life News Washington Times Media Matters for America The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"So what?" AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first source says, "On Monday, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation posted an editorial claiming the movement was filled with communists and Nazis". TFD (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent sources, the first source actually says "Not only the Communist Party but also the American Nazi Party has endorsed OWS as well" in reporting on what was said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And the last source says "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, it is however the only source which calls it a smear. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Only one user is keeping this thread alive, a thread whose proposition to mention Nazis has garnered no support due to weight and fringe problems. Aside from the one user, does anyone have an objection to hatting this discussion to allow it to be archived? --David Shankbone 23:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not me. Go ahead... AndyTheGrump (talk)

I can name five editors who dais this warrants a line in the article, hat it and I shall start another. Do not hat ongoing debates, wikipedia is not censored after all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'ongoing debate'. Your 'Five editors' have said nothing here. And if 'Wikipedia isn't censored', does that mean I can go back to accusing you of running a smear campaign? What the heck, I'll say it anyway - your facile attempts to insert smears into this article are yet another reason to give you the boot, Nutley. We didn't want you here earlier, and we don't want you now. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahem.

As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges. [24]

My two cents. Not that Wikipedia cares. You've got your inherent, entirely predictable, well-established biases, you've got your vague rules that can be interpreted in oh-so-many-ways to support defining "notability" and the like however you want (coincidentally, things that look bad for OWS are not to be included while unsubstantiated nonsense on the "Tea Party protests" page is not only allowed, but stories which debunk those reports are apparently "not notable"),and you won't budge. OWS is supported by the fringe because, other than the in-and-out types who show up for a photo opportunity and to say "I support you guys" and maybe tell their future kids "I was there" (foolishly thinking that'll be a point of pride and not shame), it is the fringe. Just ask Gallup. -- Glynth (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed graph of # of news stories: Tea Party vs. OWS

This graph is sourced directly from this blog [25]. At this point, I'm not contesting the number of news stories or his methodology.

I do, however, take issue with labeling 4/15/2009 as "Day 1" of the Tea Party Protests. There were at least 25 protests associated with the Tea Party before Tax Day, the first one starting in January 2009. The blogger, Nate Silver, also writes the following: ::"Unlike the Wall Street protests, however, the Tea Party rallies were a one-day event, and coverage declined thereafter, to an average of 215 media hits per day over the three-week period from April 15 to May 5, 2009." I'm not sure his article was meant to be a in-depth expose', or just posting on some new information quickly for his readers, but even a cursory glance at our very own Wikipedia article here -- List of Tea Party protests, 2009 -- would have revealed that there were hundreds of protests in 2009, most of them after Tax Day.

Even if we're allowed to copy Nate Silver's graph essentially verbatim, there's no reason that we Wikipediers can't add some needed context. If the graph is similar when "Day 1" is set to 1/24/2009 or 2/16/2009, then maybe let's keep. Otherwise, I think the graph is trying to tell a story which isn't there.

Oh yeah, a labeled y-axis would be helpful too if someone could generate that. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly what you think the caption(s) should say and I will try to update it. Dualus (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First I would like to WP:AGF, so there might be a point about this graph I'm missing. However, to me it seems to imply that OWS gets less coverage than the Tea Party got and that is unfair. However, this appears to be based on an inaccurate proposition - that Day 1 for the Tea Party was 4/15/2011. I think if it were just the caption, it would be an easy fix, but the graph itself is the bigger problem.

To make for a fairer comparison, Day 1 for the Tea Party should be 1/24/2009 or 2/16/2009 or something that could be arguably the first date of Tea Party protests.

Do you have this data available, or would we have to violate WP:SYN to get it?
If we do have the data, would the contrast still be as striking, i.e., would there be a purpose of still keeping this graph in the article?

I'm open to hearing other interpretations of what the graph is trying to convey. Please let me know if I'm assuming too much, and if there's an alternate interpretation.

Thanks Ufwuct (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the image is useful as it fails to compare the correct start dates for the Tea Party. There would be greater parity in the curves if the modest beginning of the Tea Party was charted. Furthermore, the image implies a connectin between the Tea Party and OWS that is unexplained in the section. It does not illustrate a point in the section. The image should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I also think that if the graph were to be modified and kept, there should be a sentence in this section summarizing the graph or at least alluding to it. Still wondering if it's worth keeping though. Ufwuct (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Modifying it would raise two concerns: how much original research or synthesis can we stand in an image of this sort, and your earlier query about what the image is trying to convey. Its purpose is unstated and unclear. It should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt. Maybe another 12 hours, and if no alternate explanation, then delete. Ufwuct (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be deleted purely because it offer no context or value moving forward. The implication is that while the TPM started quickly it leveled out, while OWS started slowly and then exploded. It tells no story, yet opens up many unanswered questions. Arzel (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed delete, doesn't really make sense to use it anymore. 완젬스 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose restoring this graph because of its consistency with the Google Trends graph. Dualus (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, NO 완젬스 (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Adjusting for the sampling rates, are there any reasons to say that they are not consistent? Dualus (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what I see on the Google source is a source which is generally the same topic. What I do not see in the Google source:

A simple or transparent explanation of what "Search Volume Index" is.
Any discernible resolution on the X axis.
Any clearly stated (not implied, not weasel-worded) claim that the Tea Party unfairly got more coverage or positive publicity than the Occupy Wall Street protests have received.
Any claim to April 15 being "Day 1" of the Tea Party Protests. (On the contrary, the maximum peak seems to be in Q1 2009, with a marked increase in February 2009.)
Any new data which shows this is really relevant to the Occupy Wall Street article or to this section regarding media coverage.

If this is an accurate and an important data point for this article, then there surely must be better sources. The Google Trends source (see #4) suggests that it's probably not a very important or true point after all. Ufwuct (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned we're using raw data from google trends in one of our articles. That sounds like pure and unadulterated WP:OR. SDY (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting the Google Trends source directly to the article clearly would be. It does not appear Dualus has done this, but is using it as a reason to place the first source back in the article. Either way, it's insufficient. It also appears that, despite all the complaints about this source on this thread - what the source states and what it implies - NONE of the complaints have been addressed, and instead the EXACT SAME source has been re-added. Ufwuct (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Elliot picture

Hey- I've just received a very nice portrait of Chelsea Elliot, who I am told is "one of the women who was maced early on by Anthony Balogna." I don't know enough about the subject to be able to find a use for the picture, and we do not have an article on her, so I'm throwing it out here. If you can find a use for it, then great; if not, then it's not the end of the world. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice pic but I don't see how we could possibly use it... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I also can't see how we could use it here, but it can be used in the WikiCommons page on OWS. It could also be used in other articles, such as the article on protest art. Get creative. --Cast (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Try starting the discussion at Commons and those "other articles". I am unclear why you posted it here if you yourself claim "I also can't see how we could use it here". Nice pic, but not notable enough for inclusion. It is also a rather POV image in my view, but thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please include per WP:NPOV -- do we still have the statement about the police officer who lost ten vacation days for pepper spraying her or was that removed? Dualus (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Silly comment. Nothing about NPOV says we should commit a bunch of OR in order to provide a soapbox for a protester featured holding a sign in a user-submitted photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Come now, there's no need for the aggression. Amadscientist, I submitted it here for precisely the reason I said; I thought the people here best situated to find a use. I am not the same person as Cast, who you quoted. Factchecker, while I agree that Dualus's reasoning is shakey, this is a photo of a newsworthy individual, by a notable artist, and part of a series published on a notable website. Hardly just another "user-submitted photo". If you can't find a use, so be it, but there's no need to be so dismissive. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How am I to know it's been published on HuffPo (link?) when you post it saying that you "just received it" and provide a word-of-mouth description making it sound like it was simply passed along to you by a friend? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You may not be the best to judge aggression. As stated, you have misgivings and yet dropped it here to see what would happen. Again, you may wish to create discussions in those other places. Is the lack of quotes less offensive perhaps?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any remaining objections to inclusion of the story of the first pepper spray victims and their attacker? Dualus (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Happened in Spain first

I believe the Occupy Wall Street protests were inspired by several European demonstrations? - and NOT the other way around (for once Europe is one step ahead of the US in this matter): See for example the early protests in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Spanish_protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokajsen23 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What we believe as editors has nothing to do with what we place in articles and we also don't use other Wikipedia articles as references, nor does it look like the article even states this, or even should.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So to support your case, you might want to look for a reliable secondary source that makes the connection.--Nowa (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nowa Thank you. As a suggestion, maybe a better intro would be to emphasize that the Occupy Wall street demonstration was the first time the US mainstream media started to report on these events? For example The article states: "Internationally, other "Occupy" protests have modeled themselves after Occupy Wall Street, in over 900 cities worldwide." Shouldn't such an unsupported "belief" be deleted from the text? Or at least a reference should be provided, right?

This article in W.Post describes similar demonstrations in Spain six months earlier. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/spanish-revolution-thousands-gather-in-madrids-puerta-del-sol-square/2011/05/18/AFLzpZ6G_blog.html There have been many other similar events in Europe over the last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokajsen23 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but let me show you how this works. The article says that Adbusters initiated the protests. This is the reference. This reference says that there are similarities to the European and Middle Eastern protests in that social media is used by all three. It doesn't say, however, that Adbusters got their idea or were inspired by the EU protesters. In order to make that statement in the article, we need a reference to support it. As far as the other assertions by the article, we can put a ^{[citation needed]} tag in if needed, but better first to review the article to make sure that what is stated in the intro isn't supported by a reference in the body. (P. S., when you edit a talk page, you should press the icon at the top of the edit window that looks like a pencil writing. That will put your signature a the end of the comment. The icon is the fourth one from the left.)--Nowa (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The OWS action and the similar ones in other countries were inspired by the objective conditions in those places. The other fact that there was an initial organizing entity is quickly lost in the ground fact which the creator of this thread conflates with that of origin. In the other countries too there should be an identifiable entity in the role of AdBusters. But that AdBusters did in fact play that role for OWS, is at this point, I believe, an accepted and clear fact. In effect, "OWS" is their branding, so even the posing of a question of the matter of fact is odd. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe demonstrations in other countries were precisely not related to "objective conditions in those places"(?), but primarily addressing the unfortunate and global impact of unregulated banking. Just like OWS, right? Secondly, regarding the article we are discussing: @Nowa: Why is it fair to post that OWS catalyzed global activism without any documentation? But whereas any statement arguing that OWS (or Adbusters) were inspired by prior events outside the US requires a strict reference? Why then not simply leave out speculation about such matters? --Bokajsen23 (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For more details on proper citation see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also, if you feel something in the article needs a source, you can edit the article and put {{CN}} after the portion that needs citation.--Nowa (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the final "See Also" paragraph there are no references to the Spanish (or Greek, or Icelandic, etc) protests (but there is a link to the Tea-Party?) So maybe this article can be about a domestic US demonstration And a separate article should perhaps describe any global-connection between these many events over the last couple of years? For example like this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_October_2011_global_protests --Bokajsen23 (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See Also would be a good place to put in a link to 2011 Spanish protests. Did you want to go ahead and do it?--Nowa (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is locked (until January 2012) so I cannot make any changes? But yes, I would like to add the reference to the wiki-article: "15 October 2011 Global Protests" in the "See Also" section, and, if you insists on keeping the statement regarding the impact of OWS on global activism in the intro, I suggests mentioning the "15 October 2011 Global Protests" in the intro also for balance and context. Or else leave out any unsubstanciated claims about "who inspired who" altogether.--Bokajsen23 (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is only Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi semi protected. As a registered user, you will be able to make edits to it once your account is more than 4 days old and you have made 10 or more edits to other Wikipedia articles.--Nowa (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nowa Thank you very much for your help!--Bokajsen23 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Nowa (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that this editor has added the info to the Background section without a reference. What should we do? Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My post has been deleted. I have found a reference where one person involved in OWS claims to be inspired by the Spanish Protests: http://www.spanishaustralia.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=50:15-october-it-all-started-in-spain&Itemid=10&tmpl=component&print=1 Here is another reference: http://www.allmediany.com/details_news_article.php?news_artid=2107 My point is that the claim in the beginning of the article that OWS inspired hundreds of demonstrations around the world is without reference "Other "Occupy" protests modeled after Occupy Wall Street have occurred in over 900 cities worldwide.", and secondly, any claims that OWS was inspired by previous events are deleted (for example due to lack of references). This is just silly; clearly people in the US associated with OWS are trying to market themselves through Wikipedia ;-) Either we should remove the self-promoting sentences in the (locked) intro, or else include a statement that places OWS into context. I have added some links in the "See Also" section as a start. --Bokajsen23 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Journalist Firings

Per the suggestion above, here is a draft of section on the two journalist firings. Feel free to edit directly or leave comments below.--Nowa (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Two freelance journalists have been fired for their participation in the Occupy Wall Street protests. They are Caitlin Curran and Lisa Simeone. Caitlin was a journalist employed by public radio station WNYC. She was covering the protests for WNYC and was photographed holding a protest sign on October 15, 2011 at Times Square NY . Her manager fired her for violating editorial standards by participating in a protest she was covering.^[1] Lisa Simeone was fired on October 20, 2011from her position as a host of Soundprint, a journalistic program produced for National Public Radio (NPR), for her leadership role in October 2011, an Occupy DC organization. Both Soundprint and NPR considered her role to be a violation of journalistic standards.^[2]^[3]

References

This is an interesting subject, but I wonder how notable it is and if it may be something to tread lightly on. If the subject of journalists being fired is added, it will most likely become something of a hotbed issue for BLP. Generally speaking, journalist are expected to cover their subjects, not join them. This is an ethics problem that should be handled in a delicate way. It could be something that creates a bigger problem than intended.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I put brief mentions in Timeline_of_Occupy_Wall_Street#October_2011 which may be enough for now.--Nowa (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of multiple issues swirling around these dismissals, Felix Salmon of Reuters covers the issues of media ethics in today's Occupy Wall Street and media ethics--Nowa (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually an issue a few Occupy Organizers have discussed, having seen firsthand journalist interviewing them ask to be included in the movement or GA assemblies. While this cannot be used per MOS as OR, I wonder if there are secondary sources that discuss the subject in greater detail. Remember that simply having the information is not enough. There must be reliable, secondary sources. I caution editors, as this can quickly become a matter the subject themselves may have a problem with if not handled correctly. There is no room for dispute on this one as BLP is clear that all unreferenced information must be removed...not may be removed...must be removed (regardless of positive or negative information)--Amadscientist (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

By "the subject", do you mean the media ethics?--Nowa (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject is the person themselves being discussed. We have to assume that any contentious material may be disputed by that person or any editor. Regardless of whether the information is negative or positive we must be careful to make all material nuetral and fact based with no OR, POV or synthesis of information.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this material should be included. Dualus (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Man defecates on police car

Why has there been no mention of this?

References

Stinking up Wall Street: Protesters accused of living in filth as shocking pictures show one demonstrator defecating on a POLICE CAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.71.61 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review prior discussions.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A single event is WP:UNDUE. Dualus (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what they said about the Tea Partier who was accused of spitting on the Congressman. Yeah, you know what I'm reffering to, and you probably believe the Left's version of events, don't you? Y'know, despite what the video actually shows. WP rules can be "interpreted" to mean whatever you want if you're well-versed in them enough and have enough editors on your side (and it's well known which way they lean). -- Glynth (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for winning me the bet

The bet was that this would be the most biased article in the history of Wikipedia. Nazis, Communists, Islamist and David Duke arent mentioned. Anti-semitism is barely covered. Only selective polling is used. The 100s of reported crimed are not covered. This is insanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

From WP:CONSENSUS it says Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. and you're free to participate in helping shape consensus, otherwise you're free to leave. Wikipedia reflects the work of its editors, and you're free to not like it. You may help improve the article and cite WP:Reliable sources, but there is hardly any mention of what you speak in neutral sources. Anything overtly critical of OWS would tend to provide WP:UNDUE weight, and you'd be tagged as a WP:SPA so tread lightly or find neutral sources for your unusual linkages. 완젬스 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Which side did you bet on? Dualus (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: bias... "Anything overtly critical of OWS would tend to provide WP:UNDUE weight"

Enough said. -- Glynth (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is who we have to deal with on this article

Dennis, S. (October 30, 2011) "Top 1% Files for Trademark of 'Occupy Wall Street'" Intellectual Property Brief

Doyle, J. and Jaccarino, M. (November 2, 2011) "Manifesto of demands is bunk, Occupy Wall St. protesters say" New York Daily News

"Occupy Wall Street Commercial" ("commercial"? Clearly unaware of being accused of being communist.)

I've worked on a lot of fast-moving articles over more than half a decade, mostly as an IP editor, but this has got to be the only article where the subjects themselves were clearly trying to disrupt orderly editing. Then again [26] isn't bad. Dualus (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, please explain in detail your association with Occupy Wall Street protest and how you have or do not have any conflict of interests yourself? Seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I, Dualus, am not now, and nor have I ever been, a member of the Occupy movement. When I use the word "we" on Wikipedia, I am referring to the other editors who are here to improve the encyclopedia. I may share some goals with the activists, but at this point they have published so many contradictory things that I have no idea what those shared goals are anymore. My one contact with the Occupy movement was to take four photos, some printed matter, and donate a few coins to make me feel less self conscious about taking printed matter without paying for it at my nearest protest city which was dozens of miles away. I have lived a simple life in a Christian home in America, thousands of miles from New York. I enjoy editing Wikipedia because it helps me meet smart friends online. As far as I know, I have never been in a direct conflict of interest with the material I was working on, except once about three years ago, and those edits no longer exist as far as I know. I am here to build an encyclopedia, and my one demand is to improve the encyclopedia. If I was actually the author of the 99 Percent Declaration then it would include instant runoff voting, [27], [28], and [29]. I have no financial or familial interest in any subjects I have edited in the past several months. I have no conflict of interest. --Dualus (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not your best work, but I will take your word for it. By the way...even if you had a conflict of interest, that alone would not exclude you from editing the article. But being open about such allows others to judge whether the contributions are within MOS for such. Also, just stating you have no association with the OWS movement, does not mean you don't have a conflict of interest. The point was to have you make a general disclaimer of such one way or the other. Also...who suggested you were the author of the 99% Declaration? I could have guessed you weren't from the copy paste.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)\

You suggested I was trying to author the document. I have not been, but I agree the question as to whether it is possible to influence the process interests me. Dualus (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you know what you are saying let alone what I was saying. But, if it really went over your head I will be blunt. You were using the copyright of another person on Wikipedia to prop up the document of an non notable person and a fringe group for personal political beliefs. If David Haack is not notable how is the document he co-authored notable? You still don't attribute the authors and after major ( I mean MAJOR deletions of text and sections) the article is little more than undue weight to Wikipedia for a fringe idea that the Official Website went as far as disclosing from their server information, that the group administrator himself deleted the document from the GA site. But even with your use of the document as a primary source you don't seem interested in mentioning that much on the article...you know...the official statements of the real OWS organization and the true governing body, the New york City General Assembly. I still find that as strange.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why give a diff of your own comment when you're talking about someone else's?

Amad's comment reads:

Fair use doctrine is not Wikipedia policy and you have to do more than use the text from the document as copy paste to create an article. Does not fall under fair use for Wikipedia. You are attempting to "prop up" infromation to give undue weight to Lessig for this document. Please explain why he is even in this artcile you have created if not to push the point of view that you hold. Why not mention the author...David Haack, instead, who is credited in numerous sources as having written this document as far back as August. Could it be that he is not a notable figure? Could it be that this was only presented at some point and then turned down by the governing body of OWS? It could and probably is the reason. You are pushing an article to effect the events of the movement...not record or document them.

Which part of that are you saying "suggested [you were] trying to author the document"? I don't get it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NFCC? Dualus (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that also doesn't say that you were trying to author the 99% Declaration. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, please explain in detail why or why not this isn't just chat and how your disruption isn't far worse.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I second that, please be clear because I've given you WP:AGF but the well has gone dry, and I've been biting my tongue not to trigger WP:Witchhunt but you're so close to getting accidentally warned/blocked for no reason, because it looks like you're going for a power grab by using your influence on Wikipedia to influence the article to your personal agenda, which makes me believe you have some goal which you are trying to painstakingly attain through all this runaround. Why not just come out and be real with us, most of us strongly support OWS and want it to succeed, but to me it looks like trying to broker your influence here as an editor--so how does that help you off-wiki? Amadscientist and I are trying to help cleanse all these OWS pages so we can find out whose hands are clean, and whose are not. Any comment about our suspicion to you having off-wiki affiliation to OWS? A straightforward denial can ease my doubts and give me another week's worth of patience. 완젬스 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of his edits seem to be aimed at promoting Lessig's book.Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no financial interest in Lessig's book sales. I met him once at the Stanford Law Library, where we discussed the collection. Dualus (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody suggested you did; Gandy merely pointed out that you seem intent on promoting the book. That's not what WP is for. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get it - that is exactly what he is up to. He wants the Demands group included because they mention a constitutional amendment and Lessig's book does as well. Here is his post over at Protest movement:

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig had called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution[50] in a September 24-25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[51] in Lessig's October 5 book,[52] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[53] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.[54] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[55] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[56] Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan,[57] Karl Auerbach,[58] Cenk Uygur,[59] and others.[60][61] Some protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.[62][63][64][65] [edit] New York City

He should be barred from all Protest articles (at the very least). Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, is any of this true? You seem fanatical about making the OWS articles violate Undue Weight with your 99% declaration, and your growth of sections disproportionately with how we, the community, have reached consensus against your viewpoint at every critical crossroads. You act like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and you make new arguments and find creative ways to weaken our power to stop you. You seem to try and push Gandydancer's buttons to make her frustrated with you (constant examples of sarcasm/belittling such as this) daily to anyone who disagrees with you. After a lengthy debate, when you lost consensus, you still insisted not only that the rest of us were wrong, but you sent us on a Snipe hunt which throws up red tape we must deal with before we can even proceed to productively edit the article. You make dozens of OWS/99% edits per day, some of them are just to create red tape which makes your edits so heavily fortified because of the exhaustion you're making us all endure. After reading the pages where you're an activist, I humbly ask you to stop editing in areas of those articles where we strongly feel you have a Conflict of Interest; and, until then, we hereby ask you to now explain in detail your association with Occupy Wall Street protest and how you have or do not have any conflict of interests, yourself. 완젬스 (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow! He's even added this stuff to Lawrence Lessig's site. As usual the references are not adequate, especially for a living person - someone needs to take a look at it. BTW, I said the Protest movement above, I meant to say the Occupy movement. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We'll give Dualus a couple days to respond, but then I think we should diligently prepare for a case made against Dualus at WP:ANI before his fanaticism spreads and pervades across more OWS articles. He already has created a 99% article which is likely to result in no concensus. Unless Dualus changes his editing behavior and begins normal adherence to Wikipedia policy, then he'll likely be blocked, and we can do a second attempt of deleting the other article, currently in deletion discussion. I can volunteer the necessary time, and take a look through stuff tomorrow, if you and Amadscientist can do a fair amount of the work. He has single-handedly thrown so much red tape everywhere, getting us to waste time on the stuff he wants to distract us with (e.g. here), while he violates the rules right under our own noses. He is able to create discussions, invent articles, violate WP:UNDUE while we're simply unable to keep up. He does this by sarcasm and gamesmanship very effectively. This behavior alone is sufficient for precluding him from editing all OWS articles--highly manipulative, and caught lying. I read through the whole thing but don't want to create an rfc until we hear his answer, but I have been planning this for the last 4-5 hours. His repeated style of misbehavior here on these OWS pages is so hard to build a case because it is so voluminous. Not to mention, he's really convincing & knows how to dig himself outta holes when he's in a jam. I'm so tired and I know it will drain all my energy defending an rfc or ani against him. He's eloquent, forceful, and intimidating--just the fear of all the work it will take to prevent him from pervading the Lawrence Lessig stuff (and the 99% declaration) is daunting, and I don't think any of us are as strong as him at statesmanship (which probably affords him considerable influence off-wiki with the OWS also). When there is a bully, we either all stand up to Dualus, or we can only blame ourselves for allowing Dualus to abuse our policies which are specifically designed to facilitate consensus in shaping this principal OWS article, which has yet to fully happen. 완젬스 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

About half way through this I started to have some concerns that this was inappropriate....but where else can this be discussed among the actual contributing editors but on the talk page and it is discussing how to improve the article....as well as being suggested per MOS.

Requesting a third opinion doesn't seem to be an option as it is for disputes and those between two editors. Education and warning [30] has been tried numerous times. I myself atempted to warn this editor of his behavior and accusations and ended up asking him to stop further contact on my talk page. I have suggested community sanction and got no response, so editors feel that route is not something they wish to take. However now we see the results of not attempting some form of "intervention". We may have little left to do but request a block at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents or administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Blocks by admin are not punitive [31]. They exist exclusively to protect the encyclopedia...and I believe that would now be the case. Disrupting the article and the site in this manner is creating a "backing away" effect from contributors while at the same time..as we see from above...others are clearly seeing what he is able to get away with and are now coming to this page for their own agendas as well. The following are the three reasons for blocking a user (Dualus is not a new user. He should and does know better)

prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and,
encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's give him a chance to deal with me for a couple days. Maybe I will be able to get through to him (especially if he's Asian, like me) so we'll pursue a block only as a last resort, because none of us want that, and if he successfully outmaneuvers us at the WP:ANI, then he'll simply become empowered by it, and feel more invincible. 완젬스 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just saw that he replied to us so that's a great start and something we should all be positive about. Let's stay optimistic guys, 완젬스 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am very optimistic. How do you feel about Waikiki? Not that it has anything to do with improving the article, but I think it's civil to try to get to know people better. Dualus (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I spend half of my editing time attempting to fix his edits. He had long-argued for including info re the Demands group but we had no acceptable sources for it. When one did turn up I added the info, but that wasn't good enough for him and he needed to re-do the Goals and demands section so that it opened with the info re the Demand group, putting everything out of sequence. In another instance he twice deleted information that used the Huff Post as the source, saying Huff Post was not reliable. This stems from the fact that the group decided that Kingkade, a freelance HP blogger, was not acceptable for info he wanted to include. So in spite, he decided that established journalists that work for HP are not acceptable as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I say use any Huffington Post blog from Kinkade you wish. They are being used on the new 99 Percent Declaration article. Go for it. I won't argue against it.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I certainly will. I noticed that Dualus has no problem using blogger Kingkade in the article he created and yet deletes their financial section (if I remember correctly) journalist from this article - seems to me that he called that copy "gossip" or something of the sort. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I try to avoid primary sources such as unedited Huffington Post bloggers unless they are associated with breaking news. Dualus (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[1] Adam Clark Estes and Dino Grandoni, “Another Public Radio Freelancer Gets the Ax Over Occupy Wall Street”, The Atlantic, October 28, 2011

[2] |Soundprint annoucement re Lisa Simeone firing

[3] David Zurawik “Lisa Simeone confirms her firing from public radio's 'Soundprint' show”, Baltimore Sun, October 21, 2011

[1]

[2]

[3]