Talk:Occupy Wall Street

In the beginning of the article dates are mention without giving the year, making the information useless, unless someone can find out what year the events happened the dates should be removed.

Edit Request: Sanitation subsection

No mention is made of the thousands of people who showed up at the park at 6am to prevent the eviction, many prepared to be arrested, and that this was a cited reason the cleaning was postponed. Could this be added?

68.196.114.161 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Source? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

US constitutional convention

Lawrence Lessig is trying to call a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. And here's his informer site. Should this be added to the article? Dualus (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.callaconvention.org/ has more information. Dualus (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Informer.com and callaconvention.org are not reliable third party sources. Wait until reputable journalists report on it before including. MPS (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this author and law professor? Dualus (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a Marketplace Morning Report and Dan Froomkin piece which were much less verbose.[1] Dualus (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dylan Ratigan apparently has this at http://www.getmoneyout.com/

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

Does anyone know whether we're likely to get instant runoff voting if the electoral college is abolished? Dualus (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Karl Auerbach has one at http://cavebear.com/amendment/

"Corporate and other aggregate forms of organization are neither Persons nor Citizens under this Constitution and shall have neither protections, rights, nor legal standing under this Constitution. This Amendment shall not be construed to deny or disparage the power of Congress or the Several States to enact legislation that defines rights, powers, limitations, liabilities, and standing of such corporate and other aggregate forms of organization."

Are there any more out there? Dualus (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the OWS movement supports Lessig's ideas any more than a lot of other reform ideas that have been floated, and I don't understand why Lessig is important enough to OWS to go in the introduction.

In my understanding, the OWS movement has not decided to back *any* policy, much less a constitutional amendment. Lessig was working with the Tea Party, not OWS, and to suggest that OWS has policies in common with the Tea Party, or that it supports campaign finance reform or public campaign financing, is WP:OR and unsupported by WP:RS.

What's the evidence? --Nbauman (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't see the connection between protests in the context of a constitutional convention and otherwise? Did you read the "Occupy the Constitution" reference at the end of the paragraph? I intend to revert. Dualus (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict - request for opinion

I would like opinions regarding this wording from the Celebrity section:

NYT best-selling author and SMU economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement.[137][138] Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the USA. Ravi Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions, in his best selling books in the 1980s. In 2007, he wrote a book titled "The Golden New Age: the coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[139]

I had edited this editors previous (similar) entry to read:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that the tax and benefit legislation in the USA since the Reagan Presidency has contributed greatly to the inequalities and economic problems. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[137]

His section is currently about twice as long as the other personalities - the average is about four or less lines. It does not need to include the SMU or the "best-selling" wording. His books and further opinions, etc., may be found at his article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoo hoo...still looking for feedback. Look at this guy's article and I'm not even sure he should be in the article - we certainly can't list every Tom, Dick, and Harry with their views on the protest. How many people have ever heard of this guy? Furthermore, I am not happy that the editor that wants this info included believes that s/he is above commenting on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First, you made extensive changes to the article without discussing with anybody. Second, it seems you need to keep up with the edits. For instance, I reverted before you posted here.

13:03, 15 October 2011‎ Plankto (talk | contribs)‎ (97,002 bytes) (→Celebrity commentary: Agree with Gandydancer and revert own changes, fix) (undo)

Length is a function of relevance and secondary sources. Batra has plenty of notability concerning OWS as is now brought out more clearly in the text - thanks to your prompting.Plankto (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First, if we are going to split hairs, you made an extensive change when you decided that a (presently) little-known author deserved twice the length of article space as any other "celebrity" in the list. Second, you made your edit while I was making my talk page edit, and to say that I was not keeping up with edits is absurd. As for your statement, "Length is a function of relevance", can't disagree with you there! And that is exactly why I trimmed your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability, Batra's books were #1. on New York Times Best Seller list for months on end in late 1987. He has been featured in Time and Newsweek magazines, been on all the major networks, etc.. He was awarded a medal by the Italian Senate in 1991 for accurately predicting the downfall of Soviet Communism in 1978. At the same time, he predicted the downfall of Capitalism within 25 and 50 years. For what its worth, it's all playing out as predicted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gandydancer here, when I saw the long-version I thought it was giving far to much weight to one person's opinion over others.LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please suggest what text you think is irrelevant and warrants being omitted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the word "best-selling" twice in the first paragraph is appalling. With that and putting in a plug for one of his books those edits are using this article as a coatrack to talk about Batra. I don't want to ask why you think Batra's opinion carries so much wore weight than others, I'm sure you have your reasons. Other people have their reasons why someone else deserves mention in this section, which is rapidly becoming WP:TRIVIA. But it is somewhat arrogant of you to think that your opinion as to notability decrees that it should be given twice as much content as others. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

LU, it seems you didn't bother to check what was in the article since the changes were made in my 13:03, 15 October 2011 edit. It was different from what Gandydancer put up on the talk page. I assumed people checked what was on the page itself. He also failed to check it in his 15:44 edit on that day. So your conclusions are based on old information. I've trimmed the entry to a bare minimum in view of the feedback.Plankto (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Having a a NYT bestseller in 1987 does not satisfy WP:NOTE. If there is significant coverage of Batra's opinion from verifiable third party sources, then perhaps it might merit inclusion. The length and tone of the section borders on violation of both WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. My vote is for immediate deletion. Bowmerang (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a fishing expedition to establish non-notability? As for "significant oppinion" on this article of October 11, it is already developing. Of course, there is an endless stream of hits on Google regarding his earlier work and his notability is established from all directions - also what I wrote above. For instance, the nationally syndicated radio personality and author, Thom Hartmann, has Batra on his show regularly. At the same time, Batra is not popular with the establishment - just like the OWS movement.Plankto (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the one who has been on a fishing expedition. Take a look at our copy and note that Barr, Moore, and Klein were the first to speak at the event and are very well-known. West is well-known as well, spoke within the first few days and drew a crowd of 2000. Fiasco was involved even before the initial event and Ruffalo was also involved from the start. Like Sarandon, who was also involved in the first few days, they are well known for their activism and attended the protest. Žižek is the first (other than Klein) foreign personality to speak at the event. Note, also, that one did not have to go to Truthout to find information on any of these people's connection to the protest - it was reported in every major news service. As Bowmerang has pointed out, a bestseller 20 years ago does not satisfy notability, and appearing on a talk show from time to time does not either. Furthermore, we have to keep in mind that even personalities such as Paul Krugman, who is certainly well-known and had an article in the NYT (rather than Truthout) does not have any copy. I agree with Bowmerang in that the Batra section should be removed. LoveUxoxo, do you have an opinion on removal? Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer. The original text was too wordy and otherwise poorly written. Gandydancer wrote the same essential information in fewer, simpler words. I would make it even shorter:

Author and economics professor Ravi Batra, wrote in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that the tax and benefit legislation in the USA since the Reagan Presidency has contributed greatly to the inequalities and economic problems. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.

The fact that it's "an article" is trivial. The source (Truthout) is already in the footnote, where it belongs according to WP style.

I do think Batra is notable, however. He's published a lot in popular sources. I don't know much economics and I recognize his name. --Nbauman (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nbauman, I'm glad to note that there are editors here how know something of this national debate which has taken place largely outside the mainstream media. Indeed, Batra has long been speaking of a coming financial crash which would lead to a civil revolt against the injustices. Finally when it occurs, and protesters actually take to the streets, using the language and reasoning of Batra, some here think it non notable because their awareness extends only to the mainstream coverage of any such debate, which is almost negligeble.Plankto (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good input Nbauman, however do you feel that perhaps by including Batra we may be on a slippery slope to including every published and recognized personality in our article? For instance, as I type these words Paul Krugman is speaking on CNN as a panelist of four speaking on the protests. His opinion is for the "positive" position while Steve Forbes has a somewhat different point of view. Or take Chris Hedges, very popular best-selling author who also has a weekly column on Truthout - to be "fair" should not his opinion be included as well? In other words, where will we draw the line? Obviously the line must be drawn somewhere or the section will get so bloated that it may need to be deleted as a whole. IMO, it is better to keep it pared down to the few that are both widely familiar and actually spoke at the Occupy Wall Street protest (with perhaps a rare exception). Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Add: I do feel that opponents to the protest such as Hannity, etc., should be included because it is obvious that they would not be speaking at the event. Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the text as it now stands after Somedifferentstuff edited it further at 09:39, 16 October 2011. It was Somedifferentstuff's decision to retain the longer version after I trimmed it down. Further the para has been moved to last before the roster of other notables by name only:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[157] Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions.[158][159] In 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[160]

The para draws out Batra's link to OWS movement, as something of its intellecutal godfather, and as such contains highly relevant information. Paul Krugman, by comparison, has not discussed the need for a revolution against the political influence of the wealthiest 1%. His Nobel prize in Economics reflects his participation in establishment economic policy discourse for many decades. He is a recent arrival, a neophyte, when it comes to the concerns of the OWS movement. Batra has, however, been active in writing and trying to raise the awareness of the dangers and injustices of crony capitalism for over three decades. I support retaining the para as is.Plankto (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source to back up this statement: Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions.[157][158] Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it's very important that such a source substantiate the claim that he has special relevance to OWS because he popularized that concept — it's not enough to merely provide references for the fact that he popularized the concept, while leaving unreferenced the claim that he has special relevance to the movement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is clear as stated. However, you are both formally right that adding 2 and 2 together is not enough to include something in Wikipedia(OR). I have not found a source for the statement on the net, as OWS is such a young movement. That said, let me recall that Batra's article on Truthout on 10/11/11 is titled "The Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Coming Demise of Crony Capitalism" already represents a link between the author and the OWS movement. Moreover, there is already plenty of discussion of his recent article, including at the OccupyWallStreet web site [2]! That is a significant link indicating major relevance of this author to the movement. On October 13, author and radio show host, Thom Hartmann, had Ravi Batra on his show to discuss the OWS movement [3]. Thom mentions in the intro to the interview the relevance of Batra to the ongoing developments - as having predicted it all and written books about it. [4]. There is also growing discussion on this article on many other sites, including the DemocraticUnderground [5] and others [6], [7],[8],[9],[10]. So, you get some sense of the relevance based on my percursory web search. In view of the above, I suggest the actual phrasing of the "relevance" be adjusted to suit the already established published facts by acceptable sources. Moreover, I would only caution that the facts themselves are emerging at a rather fast clip as these are still early days in this popular movement and likely the relevance of Ravi Batra to this movement will be better brought out on the net as more time passes. So, if there is a desire to go strictly by the rules for this entry, it should be in the same way the WP criteria is applied to any other entry on this page. Other phrasing can then be identified to get this central idea across in line with what is in the available sources. Plankto (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, listing references to blogs, opinion pieces, and self-promoting articles does not in any way satisfy WP:NOTE. "I suggest the actual phrasing of the "relevance" be adjusted to suit the already established published facts by acceptable sources". Which we would be happy to do if you can provide verifiable third-party sources. As it stands, this section has four references. Three of which simply mention or discuss Batra's books (no mention of OWS anywhere), and the other leads to Batra's article on Truthout (his opinion, without coverage from third-party sources, is not notable). Bowmerang (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the para fulfulfills WP:NOTE. I've presented numerous verifiable third-party sources in my comment above. We can add some of those in the article. The OWS movement is a manifestation of Batra's language, his prediction and concerns. Nothing more is needed to prove the point of his relevance or the specific ideas - they are so prominent in both places and now recognised by third party verifiable sources, even if not spelled out word for word in the sources mentioned. You do not correctly reflect the sources given. Indeed, on Hartman's web page, the article is cited as it is on the OWS site. As for the comments on relevance, check out the Hartman interview with Batra on October 13.[11]Plankto (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Now Plankto has added this edit, including the block quote, to the timeline article resulting in the entry for Batra's Truthout article the most wordy of any day's entry. I deleted it but it won't surprise me if he puts it back... Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Plankto has not yet provided verifiable sources to back up his claims, I decided to take it upon myself to find some for him. I used Google news, Bing news, and Yahoo news in the hopes of finding at least ONE article that is reliable. I have yet to find a single one that mentions Batra's significance to the OWS movement. At this point, any mention of Ravi Batra in the celebrity commentary section fails to satisfy WP:NOTE. Bowmerang (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see a clear policy rationale for including material on Batra, but I question whether WP:NOTE is the relevant policy recommending against such inclusion. Rather, what seems to be lacking is a documented connection between OWS and Batra (or Reich, for that matter). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean WP:NOTE. I think my thoughts were along the line of failing WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Bowmerang (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A few comments.

First, as this is early days, the link between anybody and OWS is hard to establish. For instance, should attendance at a rally and some spoken words rate higher than a published article directed at the movement? Not all national figures could be in NYC! Second, there are plenty of references to Batra in the blogosphere, newspaper and magazine articles, interviews, etc. The problem with a scholar like Ravi Batra is that he is non-establishment and largely overlooked by the academic economist and media establishment. While he was loved as a theoretical economist, as soon as he started talking about exploitation and depression, they've only wished for him to shut up and go away. In 1988, when Batra's book had topped the New York Times Best Seller list (non-fiction), Milton Friedman said he "wouldn't touch Ravi Batra's writings with a twelve foot pole." That pretty much set the tone for his ex-communication from the establishment academia. That, however, is mentioned only to make the point that there is still precious little by way of discussion of his ideas by other economists. There are exceptions, one symphathetic economist wrote a textbook fleshing out his inequality thesis in terms of a mathematical model, but his contribution was also ignored. Does it matter that the economist establishment missed the biggest crash in US history in 80 years but Batra didn't? Of course, it does. That said, Ravi Batra is frequently interviewed and covered in the alternative community, like on the Thom Harmann show. He is also a frequent guest on grass roots level shows in the new age/neo humanist community[12], [13] and[14] Do we adjust the standard for inclusion based on a subject matter with such sociological characteristics? I think we should. Third, in 1988, political commentators worried if the Democratic Party would begin to adopt his terminology, like "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" or "wealth concentration". The concern was that it would ruin civilized discourse and embolden class conflict? How things change, as President Obama has now used the term "99%" and is aligning with the OWS movement as Batra has suggested. Batra is the intellectual percursor of the OWS movement, if there is one. It is easy enough to see and show, if the multifarious online sources are used. If he is not notable as per some hoity toity definition, then neither is the OWS movement. Should we wait until academic journals write learned studies about OWS to describe the phenomenon on WP? Of course not. Fourth, Batra is now being discussed on several places on www.occupywallst.org.

"Educational Forums as a FORCE FOR CHANGE (User Submitted) Posted Oct. 14, 2011, 8:59 p.m. EST (2 days ago) by Diogenes01. An Educational Forum should be arranged with the following authors: Naomi Klein SHOCK DOCTRINE, Dr. Ravi Batra -GREENSPAN'S FRAUD, THE MYTH OF FREE TRADE, THE COMING GOLDEN AGE, Thom Hartmann ATTACK ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, Johnson and Kwak -THIRTEEN BANKERS, Joseph Stiglitz FREEFALL, Jeremy Scahill, BLACKWATER, Michael Taibbi, various articles in Rolling Stone magazine, Paul Krugman THE UNRAVELING OF AMERICA, Michael Perino, THE HELLHOUND OF WALL STREET, Senator Byron Dorgan+ Repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 - see youtube.com, And the best documentary—“INSIDE JOB” Directed by Charles Ferguson".[15]

and

"This will be revised and rewritten several times, hopefully with more of your ideas, until it can be sent to a law firm for editing in legal term, that is, if consensus wants to use this idea. I put this together after reading an articulate and informative article (above) by an economist, Ravi Batra, who explains in layman's term how we got into this plummeting economic situation. He suggested presenting his list of repeals to Obama as an agenda,"[16]

Surely, if people in the OWS movement are seriously considering his ideas, there is a crystal clear link.

Again, I think the current entry is quite modest in its scope and should stay. Plankto (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely feel that Batra's section, though considerably improved, still contains a lot of fluff. I'd be fine with keeping the first two sentences, though I'd like to find some verifiable sources to give them credence. Mentioning Batra's book on this article looks to me like WP:SOAP. Also, we'd need a verifiable third-party source to back up this claim:

"Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions."

Until one is found, I suggest the offending sentence is removed... But that's just my two cents. I'd like to hear the thoughts from other editors and develop some sort of consensus. Bowmerang (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain the connection a bit more. The book Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions was published in 1985 and republished in 1987 as The Great Depression of 1990. It became no. 1 on the NYT best seller list in late 1987, remaining there for many weeks. As such, there is tons of material on it in all national newspapers, tapes of news hours, etc. Importantly, on the topic of wealth disparity, or concentration of wealth, there is extensive discussion on pages 7, 32, 113, 121-131, 139-140, 158 and 160. In Table 1 on page 127, there is data for the "Share of wealth Held by the Richest 1 percent" for the years 1810-1969. On page 126 there is the quote "...as the concentration of wealth rises, the number of banks with relatively shaky loans also rises. And the higher the concentration, the greater is the number of potential bank failures." The book then describes that wealth concentration rose prior to 1929, followed by a major collapse. Batra predicts the same will happen if the 1% share rises. It did and a major collapse took place, again! He says a major problem was the decision to cut taxes on the wealthy. This also happened again from the Reagan era. Batra was wrong on the timing of the major bust up, but correct in his analysis. The fact that he wrote this in a best seller and put the ideas out there in the 1980s, was not lost on Robert Reich, who republished these ideas in his 2010 book, after the big bust. But Batra's thesis is much more than this. He writes about social change following the breakdown of the capitalist system, when "the influence of wealth is swept aside" by the many harmed by the unjust system of greed and selfishness of the few. The OWS movement is such an uprising and it has now adopted this terminology. That is a fairly straight forward link. However, the recently appearing OWS movment has not been closely studied yet or its antecedents in scholarly journals. But that will come.Plankto (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a hoity toity definition of notability that we are speaking of - it is Wikipedia policy that was intended to avoid the very situation that we are dealing with here. The section is titled "Celebrity commentary" and to this time Plankto has been unable to establish that Batra would be considered a celebrity. Plankto asks if we need to wait till Batra's economic philosophy becomes more well-known, and the answer is yes we do need to wait. By definition celebrity means a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized. Appearances on the Thom Hartman show, and article in Truthout, current buzz in the blogs, and certainly an entry at the occupywallstreet.org are not enough to establish Batra as a celebrity commentator for our article. If there is not argument other than Plankto to keep the segment, I suggest it be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence for notability - which you dismiss all too lightly. Also, it doesn't help your case to distort what I have said. Plankto (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There has not been an acceptable argument to show that Batra meets the criteria for the celebrity section (a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized) and I have removed his name from that section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, if Ravi Batra is deleted as per your narrow criteria, that would require the elimination of the likes of Slavoj Žižek, Remy Munasifi, John Carlos, David Graeber, Chris Hedges, Stéphane Hessel, Jeff Madrick and Richard D. Wolff from the section. Is that where you are headed with this? There is a lot more material on Batra on the net, like [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. I have reinserted the section. Plankto (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What you forgot to mention is the fact that other than Žižek, none of those people have any copy. Žižek is not well-known in the U.S., but he is known world-side. Furthermore, he attended the protest and was the first foreign person to speak. If you want, you could add Batra's name to the list of others. Gandydancer (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one of the sources you provide above mention anything about Batra's connection to Occupy wall street, and it's a blog on DailyKos! You have not provided a single verifiable third-party source that connects Batra with Occupy Wall Street during this three day discussion. You're right in saying that we would have to delete some celebrities from the list as per our "narrow criteria" (WP:V is one of the three core content policies). But that's just it, we DO need to clean up the celebrity section. I'll get on that right after we reach consensus on Batra. I can already tell you that Slavoj Zizek [22], Remy Munasifi [23], John Carlos [24], Stephane Hessel [25], and Jeff Madrick [26] are mentioned in verifiable sources. You seem fixated to the idea that because Batra holds certain significance to you, he holds significance to the OWS protests. It sounds like consensus is building toward deletion of his section. Thoughts from other editors? Bowmerang (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I did delete it this morning, but he put it back. Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys speak from different directions. Gandydancer puts up a celebrity criterion and fails to see it excludes a bunch of others in the section. You put up a connects to OWS criterion and find that marginal figures qualify because they happened to be photographed with a guitar at the protest. I've given you guys loads of references linking Batra to OWS and him being a celebrity - but none of it is good enough because it isn't the NYT or WSJ - even if he's been in the NYT and WSJ on numerous occasions. It seems you guys have it out for Dr. Batra. What gives? Plankto (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

MY CRITERIA is WP:VERIFY. I suggest you read it. Bowmerang (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The focus is on verifiability of facts. To verify, a source must be deemed reliable. Self-published material by individuals is for instance not acceptable, for obvious reasons. However, "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". I've given plenty of sources that match this description. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." In the case of verifying a link between Dr. Batra and the OWS movement, the facts that a) the OWS website has discussion of Batra's ideas and b) he has written an article with OWS in the title and the content is aimed at the movement are in themselves proofs enough. No other fact is being checked - only the existence of a link between Dr. Batra and the OCW movement, i.e. information about "themselves". However, for good measure, other sources of this link have been given. Now my question to you: HAVE YOU READ ALL THE WP FLAGS YOU ARE WAVING? Plankto (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You say, ""Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". I've given plenty of sources that match this description." I don't think I've been asleep at the wheel, but I missed all those "plenty of sources". Could you please present them again? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources you have provided match that description. Bowmerang (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit tendentious. Tempers can flare up. As I am sure you are decent people, acting in good faith, as I am, I suggest we take a rest on this debate and ask neutral edtiors to get freshly involved and resolve the matter. All they have to do is read through the above summary and make a decision. How does that sound? Plankto (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it became a bit "tendentious" for me a long time ago. Also, in all my years of editing I've yet to see a suggestion to just leave a dispute till more "fresh" editors become involved to solve the matter. But if that's what you want, it's OK with me. Since you have had no support to keep your addition I will delete it till "more neutral" editors have a chance to voice their opinions. Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This Inside Job (film)? 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough. Extensive discussion with no support for this addition to the celeb section and Plankto now says he will keep it in the article till new "fresh" editors come along to agree with him and reverts my deletion saying "rv Gandydancer. No agreement for him to delete. Waiting for neutral editor. See talk". Since it now seems that all this time spent in discussion has been a complete waste of time and my time is better spent to improve articles rather than endless unproductive discussion, I won't waste my time with further attempts to reach an agreement with this editor. Gandydancer (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

"In an editorial titled "The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street," Celebrity Net Worth wrote, "Occupy Wall Street's slogan 'We are the 99%' is derived from the idea that they represent the difference in wealth that separates the top 1% and every other American citizen... So why are multi-millionaire celebrities showing up to offer their support and grab attention? And why is Occupy Wall Street taking them seriously?""

There is absolutely no evidence that OWS is taking these people seriously as is impleid. There is also no reason why rich celebrity person shouldn't support policies for the benefit of low income earners and cohesion within society. --Rebestein (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Net Worth appears to meet the standards for reliable sources. A better idea would be to find a source which presents a counter idea, or suggest a rephrasing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is obviously embodied in the rhetorics, not the media source as such. The rhetorical question "Why are..?" is a classic pattern of demagogy. It seems to suggest a contradiction while there is none. My suggestion is "deletion", not rephrasing. --Rebestein (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Global financial system wikilink?

The global financial system is mentioned often in association with OWS, shouldn't there be a wikilink to the wp article? 99.35.13.16 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me. Does anyone disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The words are there, but not the hypertext yet. 99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Resources from Portal:Current events/2011 October 15

Activists affiliated with the anti-corruption Occupy Wall Street movement take to the streets in numerous cities worldwide, including Times Square, Sydney, Rome, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, Berlin, and Madrid, in a day of coordinated mass protests. (BBC) (XinHua net)(Seattle Times) (BusinessWeek) (Macleans) (Wall Street Journal) Riot police clash with protesters in Rome, with at least 70 people reportedly injured after masked rioters infiltrate the peaceful protests and attack property in the city. (BBC) 99.19.46.238 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-corruption? Source? Most sources say "anti-capitalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Most? List your source here please. 99.56.123.111 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Should I say, all, rather than most? I haven't yet found a source which didn't note that it was called anti-capitalist, if not actually calling it anti-capitalist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "anti-capitalist" is a fairly accurate assessment of a very significant strain of the protests. However, it's true that we do need reliable sources to substantiate such a claim. I've seen such sources, but I certainly can't say I have found that all sources on the subject describe the movement as anti-capitalist, by any stretch. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated ... Activists affiliated with the anti-corruption Occupy Wall Street movement take to the streets in numerous cities worldwide, including Sydney, Rome, Bucharest, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, Berlin, and Madrid, in a day of coordinated mass protests. (BBC) (XinHua net) (Seattle Times) (BusinessWeek) (Maclean's) (Wall Street Journal) (Toronto Sun)(Times of India)(BusinessWeek)(San Diego Union-Tribune)

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Still unjustified and unsourced. I'll revert your incorrect unsourced description, again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears sources have been added for anti-corruption. Did you read those Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? Your comments seem extreme and unjustified. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a crowd figure for the Saturday, October 15, 2011 march in Times Square, recruitment center, New York City, from "Crain's Business New York".Dogru144 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Crain's New York Business added where? 99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi and Communist Endorsements

It is worth noting that both the communist and NAZI parties are in support of OWS. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.49.73 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a publicity stunt for the "american nazi party", which is incredibly fringe with only 400 followers on twitter. If you find reputable news articles that go further in depth, feel free to add stuff about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP cautions us to "[b]eware of claims that rely on guilt by association", and although OWS is not technically a living person, I'd say that admonition is very relevant here. I'm sure Jonathan Lee Riches would love for the world to know he supports OWS too, but that doesn't mean we should (or do) say so on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1% Wealth Graph is Original Research

I removed twice now some original research. The graph that was in the Background Section is original research. It was compiled by a WP editor. The basic information for the line of the graph is not OR, but tying the graph to points in hisotry implies that wealth disparity was a trigger for the Great Depression and the 2008 Depression. This is the very definition of original research. Taking information from two sources and presenting a new interpretation. A RS is needed to make this connection, and I have not seen anyone make the connection between the two. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (though I found the graph interesting, it lacked direct referencing to the statistics - it just went to a home page)--Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This chart was inserted with the caption "A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises", thus implying a causal connection that is not advanced by any of the cited sources. That's basic OR. Note that even WP:OI prohibits images that "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Furthermore, in terms of overall article structure, any image or graph that is used on this point really ought to be anchored to sourced WP-article text rather than just left off to the side, constituting a sort of orphan subsection. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is the new version of the graph, with references to verify the information:

A chart demonstrating growing disparities of wealth distribution— increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises

Obviously, the disparity of wealth distribution is increasing in contemporary times, and there seems to also be an historic precedent.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - See also We are the 99% article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my above comment. The caption advances a claim not made by any of the cited sources. If I'm wrong, please point out where the sources advance this claim. If they don't, it's OR that can't be in the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to clearly be relevant economic background, so I don't understand how it can be OR. It's background, as the LA Times says in their article "Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase": "Meanwhile, the income disparity between the top earners and everyone else has soared. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 1980 the share of all pre-tax income collected by the top 1% of earners was 9.1%; in 2006 it was 18.8% (federal taxation cut that share to 16.3%). In 1980, the average income of the top 1% was about 30 times that of the lowest 20% of households; in 2006 it was more than 100 times that of the lowest quintile." Jesanj (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, cause and effect. Robert Reich makes the argument in his most recent book for causation. He says the mechanism is excess cash that is not being spent fuels speculative bubbles.[27] Jesanj (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Graph references:

• “Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  
• “By the Numbers.” Demos.org.
  
• “Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows.” The New York Times
  
• Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.”

Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I already looked at the sources, as already discussed. Could you please quote any text from any source that directly advances the implication contained in the caption? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• The NYT article I guess is sufficient (ie. the protests revolve around this subject, this subject has received previous media coverage). The other reference has the same table from a journal article, however this current graph seems to be building on the work (which may be OR? or simply just extending the work. The CBPP source does the same, which all in all is sufficient for my vote for its inclusion. Just make sure this topic is directly related and sourced to be on what the protests are concerned about. I think one sticking point may be the "Great Depression" note on there, which seems to imply there is a correlation between that and the current issue, which is OR.--Львівське (говорити) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind removing the OR? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a source that argues causation to the article and removed the OR tag, in case someone didn't notice. Jesanj (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- I added this reliable source to the graph's caption:
  

Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.” Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Additions to graph - Definitely not original research

Others have been adding to the graph. Here's the current version:

The chart demonstrates growing disparities of wealth distribution— increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of income earners— in the U.S. before economic crises. Former labor secretary Robert Reich argues the concentration of wealth leads to economic crises by fueling speculative bubbles.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's both original research and a probable copyright violation, as the graph data is copied from http://inequality.org/inequality-data-statistics/ . Unless they released the data, or the graph author reconstructed the graph from US Government data (probably copyright-free), the graph needs to go. The graph labels are original research (allowed, if not polemic), but the graph, itself, is a copyright violation. The caption text doesn't seem to be supported by the references, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Data was released and freely available on the website when I created the original chart in Nov 2008, looking now its still available here. In the end it is government data and is copyright free. - RoyBoy 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Revised version of graph caption (as of 07:05, 17 October 2011), improved by other Wikipedia users:

The chart demonstrates growing disparities of wealth distribution— increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of income earners— in the U.S. before economic crises. Since 1985, best-selling author and economics professor Ravi Batra has argued that the concentration of wealth leads to economic crises by fueling speculative bubbles. In 2010, former labor secretary Robert Reich also made the claim.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are still significant problems here. The wording of the caption appearing immediately above still incorrectly implies that the first four sources advance the claim that the wealth inequality directly causes economic crises; the sources do not say this. The published claims by Batra and Reich appear to be well-sourced and notable, but there is still the problem of connecting them to OWS without conducting OR. Is there anything published anywhere saying that OWS protestors were influenced by these economists? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a gotcha matter. The data and the presentation is common knowledge for people that have been following the news and are honest. If we take the chart directly from the newspaper then there is a fair use issue. Give us a break; the chart here is the equivalent of paraphrasing. It is NOT original research. Spend a few minutes googling and you will see.Dogru144 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "gotcha matter". I've been following the news and I'm honest, but it's not even clear what you are saying is "common knowledge", and even if it were, WP articles on contentious topics are built on reliable sources, not purported "common knowledge". A good rule of thumb is that if I have to fire up Google to verify material you've added to a WP article, that material fails WP:Verifiability and should either be sourced or should not be included. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You have two left wing sources, (with Ravi Batra being a socialist), and they just both happen to say that we in the middle of a repeat of 1928? This is completely violates NPOV and destroys all credibility.

If you want to add something, how about we add a hypocrisy section that illustrates how since FDR, 80 years of bloated government spending, oppressive taxes, nanny state laws, all mostly by democrats and blue republicans, has cause the current economic crisis, and point out the irony that these OWS guys are protesting the wrong street? Logical fact (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that income inequality and whole 99% vs. 1% thing are motivating factors for this protest, a version of this graph is appropriate given that reliable sources are mentioning what the graph illustrates in the context of OWS, especially in a background section.[28] No? Jesanj (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say a version of the graph is appropriate for the article. Just not this version. Illustrating wealth inequality is relevant; but arguing that wealth inequality causes economic crises is beyond the scope of this article. Bowmerang (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So you'd be OK if we removed mention of the Great Depression from the image above? It's not like mentioning that gigantic bit of economic history makes the image argue for causation. I completely understand that it can be seen as implying causation, but that's still a subjective interpretation. Jesanj (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence about whether or not we should mention the Great Depression. What I have real problem with is the additional commentary by Reich and Batra below the graph. Any such argument that connects wealth inequality with dips in the economy more appropriately belongs in the articles Wealth inequality or Wealth inequality in the United States. Even then, they must have verifiable sources. Bowmerang (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning here, given the relevance of this concept to the OWS movement, that Ravi Batra popularised it as the "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" and developed a theory around it and then made a prediction based on it in 1985, which was realised in slow motion through the 1990s and 2000s - with the big whallop taking place in September 2008. His work and these events are all public knowledge and well cited. Reich then republished the same information in a 2010 work.Plankto (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to think that this graph is almost propaganda, in that it's proving a point, or supporting their point, rather than demonstrating something. It's not a picture of a cat in the cat article. I think that the graph should go away not because it's OR, but because it's POV. I support the movement, but I also strongly believe that this article should be neutral, and this graph isn't neutral. Hires an editor (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of another graph that would be better? Dualus (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Current graph

Here is the current version of the text under the graph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States. Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters. CBO data shows that in 1980, the top 1% earned 9.1% of all income, while in 2006 they earned 18.8% of all income.

NYT resource, by Nelson D. Schwartz and Eric Dash 15.Oct.2011 (page B1 in print) "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated"

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html
• related article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the titles

• In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated by Nelson D. Schwartz and Eric Dash October 14, 2011
• Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash by Nicholas Confessore and Griff Palmer October 15, 2011 (this one seems indirect) 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to me how or whether sources such as these should be reflected in the article. At the very least, such sources—discussing criticism of the protests by people associated with the targets of the protests—should be treated with care and not given too much weight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Class action: NYPD being sued

As per various articles, such as here: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-05/local/30261631_1_peaceful-protest-biggest-protest-brooklyn-bridge Currently there's no sub-heading for legal issues (either for or against). This should probably be added. --Lskil09 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this page requires a sub-heading for legal issues just yet. I would say this information belongs in the Brooklyn bridge section. Bowmerang (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know enough about the suit to add it there. Dualus (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added this to the Bridge section with the following text:

On October 4th, a group of protesters who were arrested on the bridge filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that officers had violated their constitutional rights by luring them into a trap and then arresting them; Mayor Bloomberg, commenting previously on the incident, had said that "[t]he police did exactly what they were supposed to do".

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Bowmerang (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Coordination with the Tea Party Patriots

I noticed on http://conconcon.org that Lawrence Lessig co-chaired the Conference on the Constitutional Convention September 24-25 with Mark Meckler, co-founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, the largest Tea Party movement group. Have there been any other examples of cooperation or coordination with the Tea Party? I am reminded of this Venn diagram from this blog post. Does anyone know how many of the 3,500 Tea Party Patriot chapters are in accordance with the OWS constitutional amendment demands? Dualus (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be relatively clear that this really isn't an example of any "coordination" between OWS and the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Dualus (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an example of collaboration by Lessig, an arguably liberal law professor, with a Tea Party group founder. Q:How is it an example of collaboration between OWS and the Tea Party? A: Unless there's something you're forgetting to point out, it's not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe that Lessig is not involved with OWS? We have a news report that says he wrote a manifesto for them. Dualus (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn that the news report contained a journalist's opinion that 'something Lessig wrote' "could serve as a manifesto" for OWS. Not the same thing by a long shot. Being a source of inspiration for a protest movement is also not nearly the same thing as being a part of it, much less a major part. So what we have here is an example of someone whom OWS protesters admire collaborating with a single Tea Party leader. Again, not even the same ballpark as saying the OWS is collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources which support the idea that Lessig is not part of the movement? Any reason to believe that the Tea Party Patriots aren't behind it? Dualus (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing is required to establish a connection, not refute one. Imagine if I asked you to find a source showing that Karl Rove is not the mastermind of OWS? The burden is on an editor wishing to add content to establish that it is well-sourced. You haven't done that and you're not going to find any sources that will support a Wikipedia statement that OWS is "coordinating with the Tea Party" because a person who is a source of inspiration for OWS happened to co-author a book with a Tea Party leader. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Co-chaired a Conference on the Constitutional Convention, the book is a monograph. Dualus (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The article on Lawrence Lessig has its own talk page, and if you create an article on Mark Meckler, that will have its own talk page too. This is the talk page for Occupy Wall Street. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Drive by deletions

I'm worried about User:Amadscientist deleting well-discussed graphs and references. I've informed them about WP:3RR but I can't fix reference 55, which currently says, "Hill, A. (October 4, 2011)" or replace the graph because of it. Please see this diff for the problem. And please fix it. Dualus (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that user could have taken a less confrontational approach, but please note the burden is upon editors wishing to add material to provide sourcing and policy justifications for including the material, and to generate consensus for its inclusion. Consensus is generally generated at the talk page, and forcibly inserting the material while it is under discussion is generally frowned upon, and tends to lead to edit-warring which in turn generates animosity and finger-pointing. It's much better that the disputes be hashed out on the talk page before edits are made. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not take a confrontational approach, I edited and was "Confronted" by Dualus in an uncivil manner who does not understand Wiki policy. It was this member who began edited warring and reverting WITHOUT reason. We have a deletion discussion on an image WITH direct context to this article and an image WITH NO context that keeps getting placed back in.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel much the same as Amad. here; I've put our interactions in chronological order at User talk:Dualus#Images must have context. Dualus (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment was not meant as an accusation. I was just trying to defuse possible hard feelings by taking a conciliatory tone and suggesting that perhaps there are valid points to be made on both sides of this dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point Centrify, but I also see Dualus making accusations of vandalism, threatening administrative action and general unacceptable behavior for a Wiki editor working in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it is uncivil to refer to another editor in any other manner than their real and full user name.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention this section accusing another established editor as making "Drive by deletions" Rude is not what this is...it's becoming harassive.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe it would be best if everyone calmed down. By the way, people refer to other editors using abbreviations all the time. I have never heard anyone suggest it is uncivil. This just looks like a relatively ordinary content dispute, with some heated comments being thrown about. Let's just de-escalate and move on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just because you never heard it suggested before does not mean it is not uncivil. Why do you think it was mentioned...because obviously the other editor didn't realize it either. If you wish to de-escalate it...maybe you should not reply this thread. It didn't help.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to offend. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't offend me.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You offended me when you deleted most of my Marketplace Morning Report reference, and pretended you knew about Wikipedia policy when you didn't. I'm sorry you don't like being called a vandal or by an abbreviated name, but can you point to one place anywere that says it's impolite to abbreviate a pseudonym? Dualus (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Conservatives" in OWS

Previous consensus has been that it would be an NPOV or Weight or similar violation to have the article say or imply that OWS is so-broad based as to include conservatives among its ranks. Please see the most recent prior discussion. Recently the term was re-inserted without apparent discussion. I will revert. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Where was that discussion? The Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator co-chaired the constitutional convention, and George Will likes it. Dualus (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to take your comments seriously. The Lessig constitutional convention was not an OWS event. And the George Will article ridiculed OWS thoroughly and squarely implied that if Democrats embraced OWS, it would be an act of political suicide which would deliver political control back to Republicans. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see in the least how this is directly related. Are there any RS's that are stating that the protesters are calling for or are in agreement with Lessig in calling for a Constitutional Convention? It is clearly undue weight for the lead, and appears to be Original Research and synthesis of material to make the connection. Furthermore, since there is no leadership, and this implies he is the leader, there is a clear contradiction of statements. Arzel (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some references in [29], by Jack Balkin at [30], and Lessig in DC. Dualus (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

POV forking concerns regarding move of Rome riot section to different article

Recent removal of material reflecting the Rome protests/riots seems unobjectionable in a narrow sense (although I question the wisdom of having a separate article for shunting off related protests), but seems to raise obvious POV-forking concerns. For example, the OWS article generally sees fit to discuss the offshoot movements in other countries, such as OccupyLSX, at least insofar as they present a positive face; why, then, should the uglier side be tucked away in an obscure side-article? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This article now deals primarily with the protests in New York, with the "Occupy" protests article the main article for the overall "Occupy" protests/movement. Leaving aside the fact that many sources state that the Rome protests were as much or more influenced by Spanish protests as the "Occupy" movement, having a very detailed paragraph about the events in Rome in this article is completely incongruous. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism section

I deleted the recently added Antisemitism section. It solely based on the quotes of two individual protesters, and because of this, did not represent the character of the OWS protests at all. I think was just added for the sake of stirring up controversy. 2 people doesn't even justify saying "some have expressed antisemetic views" in the article. It's irrelevant and has no traction at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Worse yet, this was already discussed. It should have been clear that consensus was against including anything of the sort. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue in that other article was a lack of reliable sources. That is not the issue here.

Given that the article Tea Party Protests cites several examples of alleged racism without having any proof (such as video recordings), how can real examples with real video evidence of proof not be included in this article?

Mk2z0h (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If two people in the crowd at a Nicks game said some anti-semetic comments, would an antisemitism section be allowed on the NBA article? A couple people does not represent the OWS protests, or their character at all. If the were groups of people doing this, and the media was reporting on this, then sure. At this moment you're just cherry picking for sensationalism--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, these examples have been reported by reliable sources. The previous discussion merely concluded that YouTube is not a reliable source.

Secondly, Tea Party Protests cites several examples of alleged racism, without any video proof. In fact, an offer of $100,000 for such video proof has never been claimed. But in this case, there is video proof. A claim with video proof is far more notable than a claim without video proof.

Mk2z0h (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS--Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Video proof, or indeed any form of "proof" is not necessary for an included section on this article, but rather our concern is with giving undue weight to this concern, which could give a reader a misinterpretation of the nature of OWS. In the case of the Tea Party, undue weight would also be a concern, and while that article should not state that the nature of the Tea Party is one of racism, it can be reported that commentators have referenced this as an accusation against the Tea Party, and that the media has concerned itself with this issue. As the media has given more measure to the celebration of Yom Kippur at Zuccotti Park, should we instead present a section on OWS being a Jewish movement? Hardly, though perhaps that celebration may be mentioned in the demographics section. All things added must be put into perspective. Please do not misunderstand our concerns. --Cast (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum Just to be clear, there is photographic "proof" for racism at Tea Party events.^{Tea Party Leader Dale Robertson Ousted for N-Word Sign} That has led to several of the allegations of racism at Tea Party events, but in the case of that article, the section was not titled "Racism" as you have titled the section you wish to include in this article "Antisemitism". Rather, it has been titled "Racial issues" and room has been provided for inclusion of comments and reports from defenders of the Tea Party. You have not attempted to include any defending commentary for OWS. --Cast (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Figured I'd Google around and see if better sources exist on this (in honestly, I'm not following the protests much out of headline news). Anti-Jewish protesters at Occupy Wall Street ("A conservative group has highlighted incidents of antisemitism and anti-Israel activity at the Occupy Wall Street protest.", " the right-wing Emergency Committee for Israel, there have also been several incidents of visibly anti-Jewish behaviour") Anti-Semitism tainting Occupy Wall Street protests ("Several anti-Semitic incidents have been reported during "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations in New York as Jews were blamed for the turmoil in America's financial markets. In addition, anti-Israel signs were raised against "Israel's occupation of Gaza".), Anti-Defamation League keeping an eye on ‘Occupy Wall Street’ (" the ADL is not prepared to charge the movement as a whole with anti-Semitism.")--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought this issue was settled. If this editor is concerned about similar information at the Tea Party article s/he should fix that article, not play tit for tat and put it in this one as well. It should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. (I just don't want to get into an edit war so I figured we'd get consensus for these 2 sources as well) (I have no idea what the tea party has to do with this)--Львівське (говорити) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the protests against large banks in a major metropolitan city with a large Jewish community, numerous antisemitic stereotypes are bound to be made by some elements of a protest. It would be interesting to know what other Occupy protests around the country have had to say on the matter. The issue is too new for it to have been fully addressed, but it should be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in the weeks and months to come. For now, we should be clear that having anti-zionist and anti-Israel (in regards to Gaza and the West Bank) should not be automatically construed as antisemitism, as these are criticisms of ideology and national policy. The Ynetnews.com article features a video which contains clip of a discredited YouTube "character" who seemed to be interested in gaining negative attention at the price of making both antisemetic and racist attacks and jokes, and was being attacked for this by other OWS protesters, and juxtaposes that man with people holding up signs protesting the occupation of Gaza. Its a pro-Israel perspective attempts to lump policy criticism with wingnuttery. We'll need to be very careful about how we use some references for just this reason. Not all media reports will be equal in value.--Cast (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum As I write this the issue has already been settled. However, I can see this issue coming up again at some point, so I'd just like to follow up on that video ad we've linked to. Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks have produced a response: Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitic Say Conservatives. Uygur addresses this ad concisely, and if this ever comes up again it would be good to recall this rebuke. --Cast (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you--Львівське (говорити) 16:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete this section. It does not belong in this article. Its very misleading to this movement. A couple random protestors doesn't warrant this section being here, it needs to be notable people who are inciting antisemitism for this to be relevant. Not to mention the section was added by a Wikipedia user with a history going back only a month and no user page or info which leads me to believe this is a personal agenda of the user who added it for personal reasons and not because its relevant. Lets give people the actual information about whats happening with this protest folks and not mislead them. RazorBrainsAndWisdomStains (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, you've only been here a month and also have no user page...pot/kettle?--Львівське (говорити) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also in fairness, there's nothing wrong with being a newbie and having no user page so long as one is not engaged in combative POV-pushing editing. Not passing judgment on whether the other user is in fact doing that, but if he is, other rednames have every right to call that out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are to include any of these claims, we should also include this Al-Jazeera article, which discusses the political background to these allegations. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As an op-ed piece, would that count as a reliable source?--Львівське (говорити) 16:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting everyone. Since the consensus is against including the section, I won't add it back in. Mk2z0h (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus. The charge has been made by columnists in WP:RS like The Atlantic and the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/occupy-wall-street-does-anyone-care-about-the-anti-semitism/2011/03/29/gIQA43p8rL_blog.html the charges have been clearly rebutted, and it would be useful to have a summary of the charges and rebuttals in the article when people do a Google search to find out more about OWS. --Nbauman (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, David Brooks made the accusation of anti-Semitism in his New York Times column, somebody else made the claim in the Wall Street Journal, so it's a (false) charge that's been made in many WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please edit the section "reaction by NYC locals"

and add something about this http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-protests-idUSTRE79G55O20111017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and removed by someone who apparently can't read WP:LEAD#Length. #$@%&%. Dualus (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Context in article to include images

Where is the context in this section for the image used?

Background

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States.

In mid-2011, the Canadian-based group Adbusters Media Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, address a growing disparity in wealth, and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis. According to the senior editor of the magazine, “[they] basically floated the idea in mid-July into our [email list] and it was spontaneously taken up by all the people of the world, it just kind of snowballed from there.” They promoted the protest with a poster featuring a dancer atop Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull. Also in July, they stated that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America." Activists from Anonymous also encouraged its followers to take part in the protest which increased the attention it received calling protesters to "flood lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street". Adbusters' Kalle Lasn, when asked why it took three years after Lehman Brothers' implosion for people to storm the streets said:

"when the financial meltdown happened, there was a feeling that, 'Wow, things are going to change. Obama is going to pass all kinds of laws, and we are going to have a different kind of banking system, and we are going to take these financial fraudsters and bring them to justice.' There was a feeling like, 'Hey, we just elected a guy who may actually do this.' In a way, there wasn't this desperate edge. Among the young people there was a very positive feeling. And then slowly this feeling that he's a bit of a gutless wonder slowly crept in, and now we're despondent again."

Although it was originally proposed by Adbusters magazine, the demonstration is leaderless. Other groups began to join the protest, including the NYC General Assembly and U.S. Day of Rage. The protests have brought together people of many political positions. A report in CNN suggested that protesters "got really lucky" when gathering at Zuccotti Park since it was private property and police could not legally force them to move off of it; in contrast, police have authority to remove protesters without permits from city parks.

Prior to the protest's beginning on September 17, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a press conference, "People have a right to protest, and if they want to protest, we'll be happy to make sure they have locations to do it."

It has been compared to "the movements that sprang up against corporate globalization at the end of 1990s, most visibly at the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle" and also to the World Social Forum, a series in opposition to the World Economic Forum, sharing similar origins. A significant part of the protest is the use of the slogan We are the 99%, which is in part stated in defiance of recent trends regarding increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of income earners in the United States. Former labor secretary Robert Reich argues that the concentration of wealth leads to economic crises by fueling speculative bubbles.

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The very last sentence is the only context. I would say the argument that is trying to be made is that when the top 1% make a certain amount of total income the result is a speculative bubble (per Reich) and that speculative bubble is a direct causation of these protests. Reich makes the first argument, although it doesn't explain all of the other speculative bubbles that have crashed, and I am not sure I understand the direct link between the two. The housing bubble burst isn't very similar to the market crash of 1929. It is a causal link that editors are trying to make. Arzel (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

While I'm uncertain if there is sufficient context for the chart to be in this article, the direct link is explained in the Great Depression. To clarify, this isn't simply about "speculative bubbles", when the economy becomes top heavy it fundamentally cannot function; and whatever bubble happens to be active becomes the scapegoat. However, the lasting instability (ie. lack of recovery, leading to depression) for a developed economy is rooted in inequality. There are details to the story, but the chart offers a clear lesson from history. - RoyBoy 01:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000's most recent edit introduced the obviously false claim that the top 1% of US income earners earn more than the remaining 99% combined. Can we please hash these disagreements out on the talk page and fashion a consensus text instead of engaging in drunken-commando-style editing? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any context to qualify this image use on this page and it appears to be original research with no references. There is also a problem with copyright.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: See above: Talk: Occupy Wall Street: Additions to graph - Definitely not original research. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, I think it's relatively clear that many (if not most, or all) OWS protestors are upset about wealth inequality. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that is not context. That's called a "Given" and we don't do that on an encyclopedia. We need to establish true context or the image has no legitimate reason for use.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If sources supporting that claim have not been specifically cited, it shouldn't be too hard to find some. I'd guess that numerous sources already used will show that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I added some context.[31] Jesanj (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jesanj. Would anyone object to the added information and references being added directly to the section prose and not just in the image summary. In this way, should the image be deleted (there are some copyright issues), the information will remain.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Here's the current version of the graph and its caption (as of 21:29, 18 October 2011), with context. Copyright concerns regarding the graph itself are being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States. Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters. CBO data shows that in 1980, the top 1% earned 9.1% of all income, while in 2006 they earned 18.8% of all income.

• Comment - Here's another reference I recently added: Stieber, Zack (October 7, 2011.) "Media-Savvy Protesters Join New Era of Unrest." The Epoch Times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to add link, 17 October 2011

Add the following link to the External Links, Related websites section. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N with the text, Occupy Wall Street Survey Michael.Moosman (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Denied. Whatever that's for, it is not in the spirit of an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Add additional source to statement about voting for specific agenda items, 17 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add an additional new source to the following statement "Participatory online discussion forums have been emerging for citizens to submit and vote for specific agenda items."

Link https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N Text "Occupy Wall Street Survey". surveymonkey.com. October 15, 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-17.

This source is a place that Occupy Wall Street members go to vote for specific agenda items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Moosman (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Michael.Moosman (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  04:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)  Not done

References and using youtube

There are a number of youtube videos being used as references. The Wiki guideline on user submitted videos is pretty simple. [32] [33] [34] I think we need to make sure all these videos are being correctly used here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To which videos do you refer? Dualus (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Occupy Philadelphia

RGPatterson (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See List of "Occupy" protest locations--JayJasper (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source.  Chzz  ►  04:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)  Not done

The link to Occupy Philadelphia was added to the "See also" section, if that was the intended request.--JayJasper (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Add Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wikilink

Add Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wikilink, as related to ...

• Political_action_committee#Super_PACs
• Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added the first one. Where do you think the others should go? Dualus (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regional turnout counts

This FiveThirtyEight blog post is interesting, with numbers suggesting the movement is more popular in the Western US, but not in the South. "The true overall figure might have been somewhere on the order of 100,000 protesters. That’s pretty big, but not as big as the largest day of Tea Party protests in 2009." Does anyone have good international numbers for the weekend? Dualus (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post says, "Rallies were held in more than 900 cities in Europe, Africa and Asia, as well as in the United States, with some of the largest occurring in Europe. The demonstration in Rome turned violent, and more than 70 people were arrested in Manhattan on Saturday night, but crowds elsewhere were largely peaceful." But that was on Saturday the 15th. This followup from the 16th has the same count. Dualus (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the intro says only 600 cities, someone should update it to say 900. Should the 100,000 figure be included as well? Dualus (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing 600 cities to 900 is fine. My only problem with the 100,000 estimate is that the blog post states that the median estimate was 70,000. It's probably an underestimate, but the 100,000 figure is a guesstimate. I would change the statement in the lede to say "at least 70,00" or "estimates range from 70,000 to 100,000 protesters". Bowmerang (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The article specifically says 70,000 is likely an underestimate and a more accurate figure is 100,000. We have to remain true to the sources. Dualus (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ugly errors in references

Ten of these in big red font: "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "truth-out" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page." DS Belgium (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Somebody deleted the original full reference and link, and left the subsequent reference. Somebody else will have to go through the earlier drafts and find the original reference. If there are any copy editors who enjoy doing things like that, they will be useful and appreciated. --Nbauman (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a bot for that. Someone should ask at WP:BOTREQ. Requested. Dualus (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Time (magazine) resource

• Why You Shouldn't Compare Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party posted by Ishaan Tharoor Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 5:00 am
• How Marketers Would Brand Occupy Wall Street by Brad Tuttle October 18, 2011
• Taking It To The streets by Michael Scherer Monday, Oct. 24, 2011

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt from graphic accompanying Taking It to The Streets on page 24 ...

Occupied Territory. A TIME poll shows more voters support the protesters than the Tea Party

with a source: This TIME/Abt SRBI poll was conducted by telephone October 9-10 among a national sample of 1,001 Americans ages 18 or older. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/-3% points. The full questionaire and trend data may be found at www.SRBI.com.

This appears to be the poll mentioned: http://www.srbi.com/Economics_2011_Poll.html 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fringe views" section

Out of curiosity, why do we have a section devoted to the anti-Semitic gadflies and other fringe views? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a lot of press stories about fringe views among the protesters, but I'll leave it to others to decide whether to take it out. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can find a lot of press stories accusing OWS of anti-Semitism in major conservative publications, like the Wall Street Journal. They are influential, and heavily-quoted. These charges are going around, and it's important to give the actual facts. --Nbauman (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

agreed. i heard a brief mention on the radio in the car yesterday and was glad to be able to find a fuller version of the story here when i got home. i think the presentation in the article is good, npov, and important.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been deleted "as per previous consensus". My impression is that the previous copy was not appropriate (I agreed), but I felt that the new addition was excellent and I'm sorry to see it gone. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Two paragraph intro much shorter than prescribed by WP:LEAD

WP:LEAD#Length says an article this size should have at least four paragraphs, doesn't it? About a week ago it had a decent intro before the "Background" section was created, but now it's scrawny. And out of date: It says 600 international cities when the Washington Post, cited above, says 900. Would someone please make a decent intro for this thing? Hint: Summarize the important parts in the order they appear in the article. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I fleshed the intro out a little. Is everyone okay with this? Dualus (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource

Why 'Populism' Shouldn't Be Obama's Battle Cry; A leftward tack could appeal to protesters but leave voters cold in Politics & Policy BusinessWeek October 13, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Devin Leonard 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Forward-looking prescriptive op-eds are not the most reliable sources. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New York (magazine) resource

Surviving Zuccotti Park: How the Protesters Stay Warm, Fed, and Cheery 10/18/11 at 08:23 AM by Tim Murphy 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting addition, thank you Dualus; WP:Tea 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting it, but you're welcome anyway. Dualus (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Chicago Occupy Austin, and Occupy Kansas City (wp article?) are also mentioned. 99.56.120.237 (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and George Will

The Signpost is reporting that Jimmy Wales has expressed support. Should this be added to the article?

Added to list at end of "Celebrities" section. Dualus (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

George Will has expressed his support. How many other conservatives have? Dualus (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

uh, maybe i'm missing something, but that sure doesn't sound like an expression of support to me; more like a cackle of disdainful glee.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this guy. Dualus (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"a cackle of disdainful glee" - good one! yeah, I think so... Gandydancer (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

However you interpret the reasons he offered, Will clearly states, "Conservatives should rejoice and wish for [OWS] long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates," under the headline, "George Will: ‘Occupy' is good news for conservatives." Will correctly states that OWS will lead to greater fiscal conservatism. However, I added it to the section on critical commentary. Dualus (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

i think that the quote you put in is at least in the right section, although i think it makes little sense without some context, and i can't think of a way to provide it any context without original research, a sin i'm loathe to commit because the upside is so miniscule. on the other hand, i think george will should rejoice and wish for glenn beck's long life, abundant publicity, and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates. it's not everybody that can make george look so darn sane clever in contrast.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize Will was ridiculing OWS and suggesting that conservatives should embrace OWS because if Democrats adopt an OWS platform they will be voted out of office... right? We don't misrepresent sources by taking sound bites out of context and presenting them in a misleading fashion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this compromise wording agreeable to you? Dualus (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It doesn't do justice to the sharp criticism of OWS that Will offers. And if we were to reflect that criticism accurately, there would be no reason to include the quote that has been misinterpreted as praise, unless we really wanted readers to misinterpret it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)it isn't agreeable to me. george will was being sarcastic in that piece, and it seems to me that (a) that must be made clear for the quote to make sense in the article and (b) that there is no way to make that clear without doing original research in the sense of interpreting will's tone. i don't think anything from that will piece is useable, and think that we should wait until either a reliable source summarizes what will said or else until will says it directly (although knowing his work, i'm guessing godot will show up before that happens).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How would you prefer it be phrased? Dualus (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Alf.laylah nicely summarized the core concerns. We probably shouldn't use it at all. There is already plenty of criticism of OWS without making a labor-intensive and probably ill-advised attempt to find some way to include this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, would you mind removing your "compromise" language while this is under discussion, especially since you seem to be the only user who thinks it should be included? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, until anyone can articulate cogent objections to it. Do you honestly think that George Will should not be cited in this article? Dualus (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

exactly what about the two objections articulated so far do you find to lack cogency?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you "do justice to the sharp criticism of OWS that Will offers"? Dualus (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

as i said above, i don't actually think that it's possible to do so. that was my objection to including the material.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary of polling in intro

I was planning to try to summarize all the sections for the intro, but I'm very discouraged that people keep deleting a legitimate summary of the polls. Maybe I'll try to summarize more for the intro tomorrow. WP:LEAD is clear that the intro should be a summary of the article, and polls capture the many "reactions" in a way that summaries of non-aggregate facts can not. Moreover WP:LEAD#Length is clear that only two paragraphs is way too short for an article of this size. Dualus (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The polling data is transitory. (How many article leads include recent poll data?) The lead is not where you place an update section. TheArtistAKA 06:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of summarizing the article is to make a quick, concise overview of the overall article. By trying to summarize polls you are giving undue weight (possibly how it is perceived) to a specific portion of the article in a way that may not have the consensus of editors, or as mentioned above, objection may be to that portion which changes too rapidly.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ALso WP:LEAD#Length is not truly clear about that...it's a suggestion that may be used. The article is very long...and the lede could be much longer....but it also shouldn't have references. If the lede is a summary of the article then the references will be in the body of the article. But even that is a consensus matter. While it won't make Feature status as is, GA is far more forgiving if that is your goal.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:LEAD#Length gives a precise mathematical guideline which clearly indicates that the intro should be at least three paragraphs. How exactly is summarizing the most recent polls giving undue weight to anything? My summary of conditions at the protest was also removed, so your argument is disingenuous at best. Dualus (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying an editor has been "disingenuous at best" is unfortunate. (And, yeah, saying the argument is so is same the same as saying the editor not on the up and and has not been genuine.) The accusatory editor has assumed bad faith and should consider a retraction. Then the editor should proceed to discuss the issues only.TheArtistAKA 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The section being directed to is not a bright line rule. It clearly states that this is a suggestion...and uses that phrasing right next to the mathematical guideline. Undue weight may be the perception of some editors in that it attempts to give weight to ever changing facts. Not something generally done in a lede section. However if consensus moves in that direction in the future it can be added back.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the entire third paragraph of the lead is unnecessary. The opinions of a single law professor does not reflect the diverse opinions of the whole OWS movement. Poll numbers in the lead does not represent an impartial tone, and is a violation of WP:NPOV. Bowmerang (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think are the most important points to summarize? WP:MOSINTRO has some suggestions. Dualus (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Be so kind to do more than link to a policy, let us know what aspects of that policy apply. TheArtistAKA 00:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I filed a 3RR on Dualus after the editor reverted despite on on this ongoing discussion. TheArtistAKA 03:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to self-revert, but the 4th URL given was a null edit. Dualus (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You could make at least one more attempt to make your correction. TheArtistAKA 03:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

These are the comments from the 3RR report:

Editor has reverted without adressing many issues brought by three other editors, mainly, are the latest polls on sentiment towards Occupy Wall Street suitable for the lead, especially in regards to weight - a point the Dualus has not responded to once. I have stopped reverts on my part ( I think two are mine) to keep from escalating the matter. Dualus is also accused one editor, Amadscientist of being "disengenous at best" when, to all appearances, the editor has acted in good faith. Here's a diff that shows Dualus being told of the unwanted incivility by Amadscientist.

I tried to revert the "4th revert" link[35] so I could be on the safe side before looking in to this, but it's a null edit. If in fact I have violated 3RR I agree to revert myself. Dualus (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is directly contradicted by Dualus' prompt restoration the text in dispute immediately after the link Dualus just provided and has not taken any steps to correct and has not joined in further discussion.TheArtistAKA 03:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have. I have commented on the article's talk page and stopped making reverts. Dualus (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The last revert listed above (Wrong diff used, see below for correction) was made by Dualus, who has engaged in no substantive discussion to the discussion at that time or since. TheArtistAKA 03:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The 4th edit was, as Dualus has pointed out, a null edit. However, the immediate next edit was an acutal revert. I have made correction to the 3RR report of this error.

Taking Dualus at face value, I offered to fix the null edit, but this has been objected to TheArtistAKA 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not fair. If you think I really violated 3RR and have a revert you want me to make, then tell me what it is. What I told you is that you could do it, not that I wouldn't object if you do. Dualus (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried but someone took out the references conflicting so I'll just let other people take care of it. Dualus (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Three editors have spoken against the polling data in the lead, Dualus has apparently agreed to its removal. I'd like to remove it, but I think it best to wait another day to allow for more comments in case consensus is not at as it stands 3 to 1 to leave polling data out of the lead. TheArtistAKA 17:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think should be the third paragraph in the lead? The article is over 100,000 bytes. Dualus (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What do I think? This is not an either or discussion is what I think. I'm sticking to the single issue I brought up. TheArtistAKA 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect discussion occurring for many "Occupy" articles to redirect to this article

• There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect many of the "Occupy" articles to this Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Organizations

My inclusion of the fact that the American Nazi Party has publicly supported OWS under an "organization" section was reverted on the basis that it wasn't notable enough. [36] However, this has been reported in several mainstream news sources and has a lot of hits on Google, so clearly people are interested in learning about it. The Daily Caller, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times and others have all mentioned it. What is it specifically that makes the support of this organization "non-notable"? The ANP not having its own Wikipedia article does not seem like a good reason. If it should not have its own section, is there a better place in the article that it could go?Boothello (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are over 35,000 hits in Google News for "Occupy Wall Street" and less than 300 of them mention Nazis. Please read WP:UNDUE. Dualus (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is faulty logic and hardly suprising since the ANP only anouced its support publicaly over that past few days. If such a standard were applied evenly, much of this article would have to be removed. Is it your belief that everything need to be repeated or mentioned in every article about OWS before it is included in the article? Or should we start going through the article and remove everything that doesn't meet such an impossible standard? Arzel (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus discussed above to remove fringe antisemitism. Dualus (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From my understanding, that is because the claims of antisemitism in OWS are based on several reported instances of individual protestors expressing antisemitic opinions, which do not represent anything significant about the group. That's considerably different from wholesale public support of an entire political association. I understand if you think it's undue weight to create a new section for the ANP alone, but that doesn't mean the article shouldn't mention it somewhere.Boothello (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, reading the discussions above it seems like a stretch to say that a consensus has really been reached about the antisemitism issue. Nevertheless, it is not applicable to the question of the ANP.Boothello (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't already, please take a look at my comments above regarding guilt by association. I'd say this sort of material can go into an article on the ANP, but not here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that discussion. I think that WP:BLP does not apply to groups of people or protests but even apart from that, the association fallacy also does not apply here, because no one is trying to insert specific claims about OWS into the article based on the support from the ANP and the CPUSA. Making claims about the intentions or integrity of the protest by virtue of what groups support it would be POVish and undue, but that's not the issue here. The fact that recognized organizations support the protest is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article. I think both of these associations are clearly notable. [37] [38] Are there any other (non-union) organizations that have publicly announced support for OWS?Boothello (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying that fringe nutjob group X supports article subject Y implies some connection or similarity btwn. X and Y. The article on fringe nutjob group X can self-source all the statements of support for OWS it wants. On other pages, RS/NPOV/WEIGHT and a whole host of other policies counsel against inclusion of crap like this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So the article implies an innate connection between OWS and Hugo Chavez and Gorbachev, well-known socialist and communist? Or an innate implicit connection between OWS and myriad miscellaneous celebrities, like Radiohead and Jimbo? No, the article does not intend to imply such connections, because it is merely reporting notable people who have publicly announced support for the movement. It is not our job to pick and choose what the available information "implies" about the subject of an article. The support the ANP and the CPUSA have shown for OWS is well-documented in reliable sources and it would not be an undue weight issue to devote an entire sentence to them. And it certainly seems like it would be more of an NPOV violation to omit them rather than to include them.Boothello (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense - to give any mention of fringe groups like this is a clear breach of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, and you know it. Stop wasting peoples' time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone should add a fair use rationale and upload a copy to enwiki while Commons admins try to figure out the implications of Feist v. Rural in Lower Elbonia. Dualus (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia there may be an argument for deletion as original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and the image-specific section is WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupy Wall Street spreads to Portland.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Occupy Wall Street spreads to Portland.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff edits

Somedifferentstuff is making massive deletions of WP:RS material like this [39] without giving reasons in the Edit summary, and without any discussion at all, in the article's Talk or in his own Talk page.

It's often useful WP:NPOV material. He's not just adding information, he's making major changes in the focus of the article.

He's the major contributor to this article, basically a single-topic account, and he's taken it over.

I and other editors have asked him on his talk page and he ignores us.

What should we do about this? --Nbauman (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been very PO'd at this editor in the past and complained about it - he came back with a FU and finally made his first edit on the talk page advising that any further edits to that section must be discussed before being added! He does a lot of good work here, but he seldom bothers with edit summaries and, as far as I remember, never discusses anything here. grrrr Gandydancer (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that part of the info has been put back (which I BTW think is a tad long and too involved) but my edits with the Times poll and another that I added today are still gone. Very frustrating when a know-it-all editor takes over an article - though someone else may have deleted my edits - I don't have time to look right now... Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In theory, two editors could out-revert a third editor, until he ran into the 3R rule, and making a change without a reason in the Edit summary is a good reason for reverting.

But I'd rather solve this problem in a less confrontational and more educational way, by showing Somedifferentstuff how to better follow WP policies. --Nbauman (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the out-reverting tactic you describe would seem to be a clear instance of WP:TAGTEAM, which is frowned upon (and I suspect it would be treated as edit-warring). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't like it (although it goes on all the time). But what is the WP procedure when an editor just takes over the article and edits it as he pleases, ignoring everyone else and not discussing it? --Nbauman (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say — Informal request to the user to stop --> Template warning for edit-warring on user talk page --> Informal request for an admin to step in and try to resolve the disputes --> open a Request For Comment on the user; in more or less that order. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravi Batra para - request for opinion

The following entry in the Celebrity support section has been opposed by Gandydancer and Bowmerang but supported by Plankto. See discussion above "Edit conflict - request for oppinion", which unfortunately develoved into an intractable situation.

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal. Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions. In 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".

To avoid an edit-revert situation, neutral editors are asked to opine on the legitimacy of this entry. The two opposing editors have put up the following two arguments against the entry:

1. 1. There are no WP:RS for considering Ravi Batra a celebrity.
2. 2. There are no WP:RS for considering Ravi Batra as being linked to the OWS movement.

Other arguments have been advanced that the entry is longer than the other entries or is a WP:SOAP. However, the editors making those comments have not argued to delete the entry, only to edit or shorten it.

The problem with argument #1 is that many of the "celebrities" mentioned in the section are less notable than Ravi Batra. Equal treatment would result in their deletion from the entry. Batra has been a progressive national commentator since the late 1970s. He has been featured in countless local and national newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, and also abroad. He has testified before Congress, been awarded a medal by the Italian Senate, as well as receving the IgNoble Prize. He is not considered an establishment economist and his standing in the academic community is not high. However, he is considered a leading commentator in progressive circles on the ills of modern capitalist society. He is therefore very controversial and people seem to either love or hate him - hence this debate. His books have reached #1 on the New York Times best seller list and been translated in many languages. He's had highs and lows in his career, but peak years for coverage are late 1980s, early 1990s and late 2000s and 2011. As for the strict RS concerns, as an indicator of celebrity, there are newspaper stories about the subject on the net, but hundereds of blog entries, etc. The above editors apply an unusually narrow rule-based approach when it comes to Batra but close their eyes to such concerns when it comes to other less controversial subjects.

The problem with argument #2 is that a Google search of "Ravi Batra" & "Occupy Wall Street" yields 2,390 results. Not least due to the proposals in Batra's article being discussed by members of OWS on their web site.

It is my hope that the entry receive a more balanced evaluation.Plankto (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Plankto, you are not helping your crusade by mentioning that he won the IgNoble Prize. He "shared the stage that night" with Ron Popeil - do you understand what the Ignoble Prize is? Here is his achievement: ECONOMICS: Ravi Batra of Southern Methodist University, shrewd economist and best-selling author of "The Great Depression of 1990" ($17.95) and "Surviving the Great Depression of 1990" ($18.95), for selling enough copies of his books to single-handedly prevent worldwide economic collapse.

Actually I do not hate this guy at all and I find his opinions quite valid and believe that his popularity may again surface. But for now, he is not in the "celebrity" circle, period. I have suggested that perhaps Plankto could include him in the list of the many names that are listed without copy, but he is not willing to budge an inch and instead insists that Batra have more copy than any people mentioned in the celebrity section. Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your insights. Now let's step aside and let others express their views.Plankto (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The excerpt should be added to the "Background" section, assuming the facts check out. Dualus (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know.....I have always been of the opinion that "Celebrity" sections in articles of this nature are POV. The above discussion kinda points that out. Celebrity status is merely a point of view of individuals. It's easier to say...Tom Cruise is a celebrity....not so easy with others.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly, "in popular culture" items continue to persist. Dualus (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposed solution by Dualus and could accept modifications to the text.

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal. In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".

Are these changes to text acceptable? Plankto (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good; someone else added it to the end of the "Background" section. Dualus (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Plankto, please don't add the material again until consensus has been established. Let's continue to work out our disagreements on the talk page. Bowmerang (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your principal objection was to the explicit mentioning of a link between Batra and OWS. This issue was addressed. The entry actually fits well in the Background section by providing context to the graph, without broaching on the copyright issue. What else do you not like? Plankto (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Using this [[40]], and this [[41]] to argue Batra's importance to OWS is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The sources are nothing but a list of 1987 NYT bestsellers and a book catalogue. His other book [[42]] mentions ZERO, ZIP, NADA about occupy wall street. Including it is blatant advertising and violates WP:SOAP. What we're left with is Batra's commentary on OWS and does not provide any background on the actual growth of the movement itself.

You are taking the refs out of context. They were brought out to establish notability and the existence of what became a #1 best selling book on the New York Times Best Seller list - Non Fiction in 1985. The link to OWS was argued separately, based on the title in Batra's article, the multiple discussions of this article on the OWS web site, and its presence all over the net - resulting in 2390 Google search hits. The third reference was to establish the 2007 book, which has in its title a message that relates directly to the OWS movement - and predicts it. Batra has a long record of socio-political prediction and has a had a national presence for a long time, whether you agree with it or not. Plankto (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Am I mistaken in believing that self-published articles (which don't make claims to popularizing the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions)[43], user submitted posts on forums [44], and number of google hits, are not verifiable sources? Someone please point me toward the proper WP guidelines if I am mistaken. Bowmerang (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal."

This sentence would be more appropriate in a celebrity commentary section. But it's merits for inclusion in that are still lacking. Multiple editors (including Gandydancer, LoveUxoxo, Centrify, Amadscientist, and myself) have agreed that Batra is not significant enough to deserve his own subsection in the celebrity commentary section. Out of fairness and respect, I will leave Batra's sub section in the background for now. But when other editors come to remove it, don't make the false argument that there is consensus for its inclusion. Bowmerang (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your summary is a stretch. Gandydancer was concerned with celebrity status. Amadscientist expressed doubts about most people warranting the term celebrity. LoveUxoxo was concerned about the relative length of the entry. Centrify was concerned, as you were, about the special relevance to the OWS movement. You then fail to mention Nbauman, who thinks Batra notable, and Dualus, who is for the entry and its present placement, in agreement with me. Given that the two key concerns were addressed, by not mentioning explicitly the link to OWS and not placing the entry in the Celebrity support section, there is now a concensus for the inclusion of this entry in the article. While it is not unanimous perhaps, it is a consensus nonetheless.Plankto (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that WP:CONSENSUS is based on the merits of policy arguments, not the number of editors in favor of a given action. Not that this aspect of the policy helps making decisions any easier. Most editors feel that the policy arguments they agree with are the correct ones. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the changes were made to align the text with policy concerns of several editors. I would like to hear if the inclusion as now formulated in any way violates WP rules. I don't think so. By the way, an editor The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous just now reverted and took the entry out without participating in the discussion on talk - just stating "after 5 days of talk -is clearly against this edit. Unless other editors besides just one wish it back it needs to stay out". That is not acceptable behavior and without basis. He is imposing an arbitrary time limits on the discussion. In view of the changes already made today, and despite his failure to observe WP protocols, I don't want to risk overstepping 3RR by reverting his changes. Plankto (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please also recognize that it's the burden of an editor wishing to add material to generate consensus at talk—not the other way around. This means if consensus for inclusion has not been found, the material can be deleted. The Artist doesn't need consensus for the deletion of material for which there has been no consensus for inclusion. What's more, this does not appear to be a case of one or more editors simply filibustering without valid policy objections. Thus in this editor's opinion, you should leave the material out until this dispute is settled. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Centrify, the discussion became a bit tendentious, which is a drain on everybody. Then it becomes harder to ask people to review a revised text on its own merits.Plankto (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

5 days is a reasonable amount of time to get a consensus. But never mind. What is edit is being proposed? This is the place to hash it out. TheArtistAKA 22:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Artist to the discussion. We have given a good faith effort at hashing it out here and what appeared to be a conclusion to a tedius, drawn out process, finally looked in sight. There have been objections, debates, changes and some novel suggestions. Feel free to review the proposed entry and, if you deem it necessary, to also run through the discussion from the top, in order to form your oppinion.Plankto (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is this consensus for including Batra in the Background section? You have not addressed any complaints by simply moving the subsection. You have not responded to my reasons above as to why the text violates WP rules. Bowmerang (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit rich. I have now responded to your belated additions above. My conclusion is that you are not accurately associating the refs with what they are supposed to provide a factual basis for. Please review the text in its present form and present us with your reasons for violations.

Am I mistaken in believing that self-published articles (which don't make claims to popularizing the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions)[45], user submitted posts on forums [46], and number of google hits, are not verifiable sources? Someone please point me toward the proper WP guidelines if I am mistaken. Bowmerang (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Ravi Batra paragraph

(I took the liberty to move this to on new contiguous section to make the discussion easier to follow. TheArtistAKA 23:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)) Here's what is being proposed:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[47] In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions [48][49] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[50]

This is as it now stands.Plankto (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved in too many debates at the moment to wade back into this one, but it seems to me you are wrong to refuse to wait for a resolution via discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)\

You misunderstand. I thought a fair solution had been arrived at. Now, going through further discussions is fine. At the same time, the process needs to be respected such that involved editors just don't wander off without resolving the matter.Plankto (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you had re-inserted the material. At the same time, remember that complex disputes regarding WP policy can be very draining and take a long time to resolve. Sometimes an editor may just be taking a breather.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my problem with the paragraph: what influence has Batra had on the movement? Not what influence is he trying to exert. It seems like he's just another econ prof/minor media figure to jump in the wading pool of OWS opinion. What makes him more important than Paul Krugman, or Matt Taibbi (the later who, if anyone has a right to steering up the the anti Wall Street sentiment felt by OWS, has had more effect on the movement). I think if we have to give Batra views/kibitzes weight, then we have to allow weight given to all the other notable and not so notables. Bloat would be the result. Actually greater bloat. The article is too big as it is. TheArtistAKA 23:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, one of my biggest sticking points is this sentence:

"In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and none have been provided that substantiates the above claim. Also, Batra's book published in 2007 has no relation to the OWS movement, and is clearly an attempt to advertise Batra's talking points. Bowmerang (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland in the Polls and surveys section

I believe that the information from this source is way too extensive. It is so long that it gets complicated, confusing, and hard to follow - perhaps too little for understanding but too much to really understand the more complicated version? I have purposely not gone to the source because I believe that we must figure out a way to condense information into a compact form and readers that have interest can go to the source to find more detailed information. Saying this, I want it understood that I generally do look at source material for further information while many readers perhaps do not. So, it may just be my way of looking at things... Gandydancer (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I added it, but I can understand why you feel it's too long and complicated, and I would have liked to make it shorter.

However, Shoen's WSJ op-ed was very important because it is, in effect, the heavy artillery of the DLC "moderate" Democrats' attack on OWS. The *one* thing that OWS agrees on is that the wealthiest 1% is too rich and powerful; the DLC represents the Democrats who are rich and powerful. Schoen is making their strongest argument against OWS, and as other WP:RSs say, he's distorting the facts and wrong. It's a critical part of the debate.

What do the OWS protesters believe? It's hard to tell, but Shoen actually gave a good, detailed answer by a skilled pollster, however much he may have used that poll to distort their views. And that's why I gave so much detail.

If you think you can preserve the most important of those issues in fewer words, go ahead (not that you need my permission). --Nbauman (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nbauman, Yes, I don't know that I could do it better! If the truth be known, I'm just terrible at trying to condense stuff. Perhaps someone with the "gift" will come along and do it? Gandydancer (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a shot but I may not have condensed it enough. There's a tradeoff between condensing and misstating the source. --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Read my edits and see what you think. The reason that I combined paragraphs is that when I see a new paragraph my mind thinks I will be jumping to a different set of information, and it takes a moment to combine it to the previous line of thought, if that makes any sense - maybe it's just me... Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

the new thing: Bank transfer day

On November 5, there is going to be people at Occupy Wall Street wanting to transfer their money out of banks to credit unions. Bank Transfer Day: A Good Time to Be a CU Bank Transfer Day and Occupy Wall Street: Marx on Capitol Students: It's Our Money. Let's Take It Back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrpf22pr (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We already have a Bank Transfer Day article. Where do you think it should go in this one? Dualus (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

well if there is already an article then these could be used as reference on week 6 once the news comes in.--Nrpf22pr (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That article is nominated for deletion. LOL. Dualus (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Mostly young"

The article currently implies that while the protests were initially made up of "mostly young" people, that is no longer the case. My impression is that the sources continue to identify OWS protesters as mostly young, and thus that the current article text is misleading. Does anyone dispute this? If I come forward with sources establishing that this is the case, will anyone object to changing the article to indicate that the protesters are mostly young? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I predict the protesters reached median age 32 on the morning of October 15th. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see that information as well - looking at the videos one can see that the protesters are getting older. As one of the "grey hairs" myself, we are not accustomed to how fast a movement may become with the addition of Facebook, etc., for communication. My friends and I protested the Iraq war for several years (we "occupied" bridges in Maine) and there was no one over 40 with us. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I read through the discussion on Talk about the anti-Semitism section several times and I still can't find the reason why it was deleted (without discussion).

Did you delete it because you don't believe there is anti-Semitism at the demonstration?

Or because you didn't think there was a WP:RS saying that there was anti-Semitism?

Or some other reason? --Nbauman (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

i don't see any reason anywhere why it was taken out. as far as i'm concerned, it should go back in there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the second version was excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Diff URL please. Our article is named Antisemitism. Dualus (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&action=historysubmit&diff=456291906&oldid=456291420 Bowmerang (talk | contribs) (→Fringe antisemitism: Deleted as per previously established consensus)

I don't see any previously established consensus.

There is no consensus. Some of us disagree. We disagree because we have objections that nobody has answered. We disagree because nobody has given us a good reason that doesn't violate WP:POV for removing it. When there are unanswered questions, there is no consensus.

In the previous discussion editors said that it should be removed because they didn't think antisemitism was significant at OWS. I don't think so either, and neither does the ADL, but that's not the point according to WP rules.

The point is that there are many WP:RS, for example David Brooks of the New York Times, who have accused OWS of antisemitism. The way to deal with that is not to delete all viewpoints, but to include all viewpoints, which I think clearly show that there is no antisemitism.

For conciseness, this section doesn't give a long list of WP:RS of newspaper columnists in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and elsewhere who had charged OWS with anti-Semitism, but if the problem is WP:RS I could add them. It's clearly notable because of the many WP:RS claims of antisemitism.

Unless somebody can give us a good reason under WP rules, I'm going to restore it. Which is the way WP is supposed to work. --Nbauman (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this deletion of the antisemitism section was legitimate, IMO, because videos like this aren't WP:RS. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=prev&oldid=456032177

You may have gotten consensus on that deletion, but that's a different issue. --Nbauman (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to restore it. Going once .... --Nbauman (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

as i said, i think it should go back in.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Going twice .... --Nbauman (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To establish WP:WEIGHT, here are some WP:RS that endorse or repeat the claims of anti-semitism.

This article from Commentary looks like one of the first and clearest WP:RS calling the protest anti-semitic.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/ Occupy Wall Street Has an Anti-Semitism Problem Commentary Abe Greenwald | @abegreenwald 10.11.2011 - 2:29 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/us-occupywallstreet-idUSTRE79H8DE20111018

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/charges_of_occupy_wall_street_anti_semitism_find_audience_on_the_right.php

coverstory resource

From Occupy Wall Street to Occupy Everywhere by Nathan Schneider October 11, 2011; This article appeared in the October 31, 2011 print edition of The Nation. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"On July 13 Adbusters magazine sent out a call to its 90,000-strong list proclaiming a Twitter hashtag (#OccupyWallStreet) and a date, September 17. It quickly spread among the mostly young, tech-savvy radical set, along with an especially alluring poster the magazine put together of a ballerina atop the Charging Bull statue, the financial district’s totem to testosterone." Nice ref! Dualus (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Should the existence of manifesto-style books be indicated in headers?

My inclination is to shorten headers unless there is a specific reason to lengthen them. Dualus (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shorten. --Nbauman (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny; the book whose existence you think should not be mentioned in that section header is the only thing even remotely linking Lessig to OWS, in that a single reporter suggested it could serve as a manifesto for the group. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh brother. I've never read it till now, but I guess that this line should send a red flag up: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters would arguably support... I'm going to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall I also remove the other material that lacks any established link to OWS? Never mind, I see that's what you actually did. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's now been restored by Dualus — without the contextual hook I had previously added. I notice he also moved it back up within the section, so that it now appears before actual discussion of OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "contextual hook" (many protesters would arguably support...) was not very encyclopedic, and it's misleading given the source showing Lessig's direct involvement as an Occupy DC speaker. Dualus (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cart before horse. Without a contextual hook, the material does not belong in the article at all. The material you're edit-warring over is also, itself, quite misleading. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the section in proper chronological order showing Lessig's direct involvement in Occupy DC (where he spoke) and with the missing references replaced. Dualus (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior on this and the George Will bit amounts to edit warring. You're forcibly adding POV-pushing material that is either poorly sourced, misrepresents the source, lacks a connection to the article topic, or has other substantial problems that other editors have raised. You have ignored all these objections, and the editors raising them, while edit-warring to keep the material in the article even though you appear to be the only editor that supports inclusion. Please stop. Dropping a template on your talk. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the above, but there's a source which shows Lessig speaking at Occupy DC and there are other sources with him speaking in New York and Boston. How do you think which source is misrepresented? I've discussed every edit. What problems do you have with the current state of the George Will quote? Dualus (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? The objections by other editors that you ignored are in the exact same place we were previously discussing this issue; they haven't moved. Also, simply mentioning on the Talk page that you are making an edit that every other editor discussing the subject has objected to is not what is meant by discussing edits at the talk page, nor does it reflect any attempt to achieve consensus prior to editing. That's great that Lessig has spoken at an OWS event (if you're not somehow also distorting that source); but this doesn't mean that everything Lessig does that could possibly be of interest to OWS protesters becomes part of this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Be careful deleting material

The reason the References section of this page is full of red error messages saying for example "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named alternet; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text" is that people are making indiscriminate deletions.

Repeated Wikipedia citations are in the format <ref name="REFNAME">FULL CITATION GOES HERE</ref>, and then the subsequent citations are in the format <ref name="REFNAME"/>.

When you delete the first reference with the full citation, you screw up all the subsequent citations.

I think people are violating WP guidelines by deleting properly WP:RS cited material, sometimes apparently because they don't agree with it (which violates WP:NPOV).

But at least when you delete material, make sure you're not deleting a footnote that appears in other places throughout the article. --Nbauman (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the edit which destroyed the references. [diff fixed] There are some references in [51], by Jack Balkin at [52], and Lessig in DC supporting just putting the constitutional convention back in the intro. Dualus (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. How about people stop using refnames until the article settles down. Arzel (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

sigh. i fixed a bunch just now, and minutes later there are a bunch more. perhaps we could find a way to bring some of the much-touted spontaneous self-organization of this movement into the referencing system?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep it simple! Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

99% Declaration

Does anyone know the provenance of this document? Dualus (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's good for a laugh. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We need a list of the documents being put forth with some indication of who is supporting each. Dualus (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna

I agree with this edit.[53]. We need to scrupulously adhere to BLP in dealing with this sensitive issue. However, perhaps I've missed it in this long article, but I see no reference to media reports that Bologna is being disciplined and may be docked vacation days. That is relevant and belongs in the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that edit. WP:BLP allows accusations of crimes and misdoings as long as they are well-sourced to WP:RS. The Guardian is clearly WP:RS. There have been lots of articles about this in the New York Times and other major WP:RS, which you can easily find with a search of Google News. The police department said that Bologna was suspended from his duties (with pay, as I recall), and that the department of internal affairs was conducting an investigation. The Patrolman's Benevolent Association issued a statement defending Bologna. And one of the civil liberties law firms has sued the city for Bologna's actions. The legal documents are public records, and the news stories based on them are WP:RS. Google those sources, insert the links, put it back in the article, and there are no problems with WP:BLP. In fact, WP:NPOV requires it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of events

I think the chronology of events should go at the end.

I can't imagine anybody getting through it anyway. In my understanding, it's a collection of material that we should try to move elsewhere where it belongs.

Any objections? --Nbauman (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy_Wall_Street#Further_reading

the one book listed in there seems inapropos to me. possibly it was placed in there as a source for the reasons the protestors have for their protests? if that's the case, its inclusion seems to me to violate npov and/or to constitute synthesis of some kind. given the date it can't actually contain material about the protests. thus i propose that it be removed. opinions?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Dualus (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention

Dualus, would you please stop putting that section into the article until you can find some reliable sourcing to back up both the connection to OWS and that it is actually going to be anything. Treehugger, among others, is not a reliable source. Much of the section is synthesis of material simply referencing books on the topic without any context to the current event. None of it seems to make the connection to OWS other than a tenious connection which takes synthesis of material to reach. Arzel (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are referring to this section:

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, and others.

which both you and Gandydancer have deleted. You claim the sources are not reliable, but TreeHugger is an established Discovery Communications blog with a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I will ask on WP:RSN. Dualus (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Treehugger article is not written by a journalist, but by their Social Media editor - the guy who pimps the site via Twitter, Facebook and whatever else in the social space can help promote Treehugger. His writings are hardly serious journalism: one of his articles such as as this one of which the lead sentence is "What's your favorite pair of old shoes?"|, and is essential a shopping guide for the green minded. Mr Tackett's makes it clear that he has never worked as a reporter. Their is no way the Treehugger article can be seen as reliable. TheArtistAKA 19:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Tackett is not a journalist? The link you say says he's not a reporter begins, "After earning a degree in Journalism...." I've asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Lawrence Lessig part of the Occupy movement? Dualus (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"...and Strategic Communications" is what the degree is , which the Universtiy of Kansas tells us includes marketing. Again, I'm am not able to find anything that indicates that Tackett has been a professional journalist, nor is he now one. TheArtistAKA 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with Arzel, Gandydancer, and TheArtistAKA on this one. Bowmerang (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just absurd, and further evidence of WP:TAGTEAMing. If you have a degree in journalism and underwater basket weaving and you work for Discovery Communications as a daily blogger for a site ranked better than 1,600th in the US then you are a journalist. It is unbelievable and petty that people are seriously trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Froomkin and Shane have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You have offered no proof of meatpuppetry, and have only shown nothing more than baselesss suspicions of it. Do have anything to show that Tackett has ever been a professional journalist, such as articles with real reporting, not agrregating? TheArtistAKA 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note also Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin's comments, "Occupy the Constitution." Dualus (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Linking is not a substitute for discussion. What are we supposed to see here? We are not obliged to guess what is obliquely referred to. TheArtistAKA 21:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. The second paragraph of that piece, posted yesterday, is a single sentence which states:

So far, at least, Occupy Wall Street protesters have not made claims about the Constitution central to their mobilization.

These are the same OWS protesters who you seem to think are responsible for Larry Lessig's proposed constitutional convention and book about political reform, right? And I suppose the book, published on October 5th, was dashed out and fast-tracked through the publication process after three weeks of intense collaboration with the leaderless resistance movement? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if that out-of-context quote was representative of the entire piece, you still have not addressed Dan Froomkin[54] and Peter M. Shane[55]. Dualus (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please address at least one thing we are supposed to get not "out-of-context" so we know what your point might be. We can't read minds. We are not inclined to go on what may be wild goose chases. TheArtistAKA 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Two other sources that also don't say that OWS was somehow responsible for Lessig's book and conference? What is it I'm supposed to be "addressing"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are three more news sources mentioning the constitutional amendment: [56], [57], [58]. Here's a Politico story devoting four paragraphs to Lessig and OWS, including, "Lessig suggested that a constitutional convention, which would require states to force Congress to call one, would be an appropriate vehicle for fundamentally reforming the nation’s campaign finance system." Here's Greg Mitchell's "OccupyUSA" blog: "Cenk 'Young Turk' Uygur launches his WolfPac, which asks citizens to occupy their local state houses to force the states to call for a Constitutional convention to pass an amendment that bans corporations from buying politicians. Also at www.Wolf-PAC.com," with confirmation from ThinkProgress. And here's a story, "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" mentioning, "a ban on private contributions to politicians seeking or holding federal office and instead public financing for campaigns, and a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision." Dualus (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard discussion as to whether to mention the support of the Nazi Party

Please see this discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

4th and 5th discussion of Larry Lessig and whether his conference and book are attributable to OWS, at 2 noticeboards

This issue has previously been discussed here, here, and here.

Dualus has now initiated discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard as well as the original research noticeboard. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Running to the other parent seems to be going on. TheArtistAKA 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to take it to RSN above. The one uninvolved respondent at RSN said to take it to ORN. Dualus (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage analysis through October 14

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/20/8415478-internet-talks-about-occupy-wall-street-media-listens Dualus (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)