Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Template:Rtnews

Dates are in MDY format, with the year being 2011 if unspecified.

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)

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)

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)

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]. See further discussion below. Plankto (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

CNN block quotations undue weight

Please do not add more media reports to the main body of the work unless they have some truly new to say 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)