Talk:Occupy Wall Street

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

Criticism Section

Why even bother mentioning what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have to say in this article? I suggest getting rid of that, they have no relevance to this movement. --Caute AF (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's to help build solidarity, so the page could grow some momentum. Now that we're past the critical "hump" of needed momentum, it's fine if you remove it. We initially put it there to make them look bad, but we don't have to let their comments litter our article. Kinda like the "recycled watering of plants" which was a good idea early on, but outlived its usefulness and relevance. 완젬스 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reread it again. It's not even valid criticism, so I removed it. 완젬스 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I will not argue the point, however I have felt all along that critics such as Limbaugh and Beck are as important to the article as the supporters are. Keep in mind that they have the support of millions of Americans. As for being outdated, isn't that what we basically do - document the past? Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was cherry-picked and does not honestly reflect them. It's just like if you used this abortion comment by Obama which some right-wingers also cherry-picked to try and sum up Obama's view on abortion. It's flatly dishonest to aggrandize people who do not agree with us on OWS, and it undermines our integrity to this article if we overlook these subtle points and hold a double standard for certain points of view. 완젬스 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It astounds me and you people ave the audacity to admit your blatantly deceitful tactics in this discussion page.So you added useless information that your admittedly cherry-picked just to make Beck and Limbaugh look bad? And now that it has served your purpose it is OK to delete it? The editors of this article should be ashamed of everything they have done. This has passed the point of ridiculousness. It is amazing how this extremely controversial movement that, according to gallop polling, has less than 20% support from the overall American population has next to no mention of any criticism at all. And the criticism it does have is half-baked, not real criticism about irrelevant things from irrelevant authorities just so you editors can say "look, we are NPOV". Then when anyone brings this forward you get all your friends to log on and give opposing "consensus" and the same 10 editors are the only ones giving consensus.I am appalled.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I undid this edit before reading the comment here. (When the edit was made, the editor should have written "see discussion page"). I agree and I put Beck and Limbaugh's criticism back in there. It is relevant since it is both of their initial comments made about the movement. They said little or nothing about the movement when it started and when they TOOK the opportunity to make a statement (the movement was growing and they couldn't ignore it, apparently) this is what they came up with. They do speak for millions and here's their opening sally. Gandydancer is right on both accounts. They represent millions and wikipedia does "document the past". Christian Roess (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to have a criticism section, then Beck and Limbaugh should be in it. I don't think we need to put inflamatory quotes in, however.--Nowa (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources that discuss criticism towards the movement not from the far right or conservatives??? User:Morrison1630 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't these Occupiers claim to have no political leanings? So how is that relevant? If they were all from "fart-right sources" would that make them not notable or somehow inaccurate because they don't agree with your world-view?--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to avoid the Limbaugh etc. quotes. They are criticisms from influential sources on the Right. Whatever we may think of the quotes, if well sourced they are notable criticisms. B^e——C_ritical 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes Wikipedia look bad if the temporary agenda we had over-extends the original purpose, in our shaping the article into its future & current form Think of an architect building a tall structure--you put temporary scaffoldings until the article reaches the optimal pov. Then you remove the scaffoldings and now the article is "invisibily pov" through subtle tactics like the direction we took early on, to help set the tone of a very progressive-leaning article which is very facilitative to the OWS movement. I wouldn't be here on this article unless I knew it could make a difference to the readers who need an encyclopedic alternative to the propaganda machines known as cnn, fox, abc, nbc, cbs, new york times, etc... 완젬스 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes WP look bad is when agenda driven editors like yourself try to manipulate the process in order to present your own biased propaganda. What makes you different than the MSM that you seem to deride? Your personal bias is worse if nothing else, and you should be banned from editing this article. Arzel (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The process is WP:CONSENSUS and most of us are left-leaning. I've been a hugely positive help to the article, and review my differences if you like. I've made 41 of the last 500 edits (so about 8% of all edits to the OWS article) and I challenge you to find a single diff from the OWS article which I should be banned for. 완젬스 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sympathetic to the OWS movement but this is not the place to support it. Wikipedia's credibility suffers when editors push a POV, especially in terms as you outline above. It's ironic that Arzel is lecturing you about this, as he/she pushes from the opposite direction. -A98.. 98.92.184.64 (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Null edit to prevent archival.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How come the first part of the Criticism section, "A group of bloggers, led by political commentator Erick Erickson, organized a website criticizing the movement entitled 'We Are the 53%,' referring to the 53% of Americans who earn enough income to pay federal income taxes.[196] Although the conservatives of the '53%' have felt the effects of the recession as much as the liberals of the '99%,'" is allowed to imply that everyone that agrees with the 53% argument is a conservative and that everyone who agrees with the 99% Movement is a liberal? In the cited article, it never states or even alludes to this. Additionally, under the Public Opinion subsection of Reaction, it is stated that "National polls over October and November 2011 were mixed, with agreement/approval ratings for Occupy Wall Street varying from 59% to 22%, but approval was fairly consistently larger than disapproval, with large numbers often not giving an opinion." This seems heavily biased, as it only cites TWO surveys prior to this, only one of which is positive, and gives no criteria for what qualifies as "approval [is] fairly consistently larger than disapproval". Also,that first poll cited was taken within the first week of the Occupy Wall Street movement, before it had even spread globally. I find it hard to believe that one's opinion of a protest after two months would be the same after it for "THE PAST FEW DAYS", as quoted in the first survey by TIME. This seems further supported by the later mentioned and cited Gallup poll stating that 61% of Americans felt "they [didn't] know enough to decide" how they felt about the movement. Additionally, the last cited source in the Public Opinion subsection compares the popularity of Occupy Wall Street movement with the Tea Party movement for emphasis of popular support, even though they are completely unrelated. (For what it's worth, I'm a moderate with no particular backing of either association.) Has this article ever been checked for Non-NPOV or Weasel Words violations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.50.252 (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked that, friend. The NPOV Warning tag has been placed and reverted on this article many times, because the article is POV but if it's your POV, you don't see it that way. If you can tell me specifically how you want the wording to be changed or if you think material should be moved or removed, please let me know and I'll see if I can help you out.--Jacksoncw (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the fact that the American Nazi Party & the American Communist Party have endorsed the OWS be mentioned in the article? Here are some sources showing how widespread this has been reported. Town HallSunshine State NewsDrudgeThis one is amuseing, Occupy ResistenceCharleston Daily MailThe GazetteWAPOIB TimesFox NewsSF GateThe HoyaNewsmaxFuse TVFox againLife NewsWashington TimesMedia Matters for AmericaMichigan MessengerNew York PostDelaware County Daily TimesBoston HeraldLA TimesJacksonville CourierA Belgian paperTehran timesIsrael today MagazineFox NationThe BlazeDaily CallerIrish centralAugusta ChronicleFlorida Time Union

Should the fact that antisemitism has also been widely reported be reflected in the article.513 hit on G news The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazism discussion

• No, not until the Nazi Party supports OWS with money or man hours, and the fact is widely reported. A simple endorsement without concrete support is an empty endorsement. It is WP:Undue weight to list empty endorsements. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, the sources above are widespread, but I wish you'd point out the best ones per WP:RS. Even those I looked up thinking they were the best like the Boston Herald turned out to be crap [1]. Is there anything good in that list? B^e——C_ritical 01:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had the same experience - I picked three I thought must be the "best" and they were total crap. Then I quit looking... Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - The Nazi Party and Communist Party are fringe - but the coverage of their support is not. This is widely spread, and there is no reason to keep it off. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No: The ANP has done nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support". Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable, and should not be mentioned at all. It serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. We don't mention Hitler in the article on vegetarianism, do we? Same rule applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. This is little more than a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Wikipedia should have no part in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I see that TLAM is still citing 'Media Matters' on this, in spite of the headline in the linked article: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not yet It may yet become evident that those in the movement share those views, but simply being supported by them would be a guilt by association. Also, I fail to see this as a "smear campaign" as ATG would say since the media has by and large not reported on any of the transgressions committed by OWS participants. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - Seems like an obvious case of guilt by association. Hundreds of "groups/parties" have mentioned support for OWS. Why just mention these two? NickCT (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - Mention these two because it is widely covered and they are fairly significant. It's also covered that the Black Panthers support the group so we should add that in there too as controversy because that's what it is. AndyGrump is nothing more than an apologetic propagandist come on here to do damage control for his OWS buddies.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, because it's not true, apparently. I think it's just a false meme. Looking at the sources, I'm skipping the one likes Drudge and the Tehran paper and a lot of the rest of them because they're obviously not reliable sources... looking for entities with some kind of reputation, I come to the Boston Herald. It's an opinion columnist, and he says that OWS is endorsed by a list of entities including the American Nazi Party and the government of the People's Republic of China... this seems unlikely to be true, so I can't trust this source... next, the reputable LA Times... but its a gossip column (the "Ministry of Gossip")... it says "Meanwhile, the American Nazi Party on Sunday issued a statement of support for the Occupy Wall Street crowd" and they have a link. But the link is here, which has says nothing of the sort, is not any kind of official statement, and doesn't mention Occupy Wall Street or come close... so this appears to be false. (There doesn't seem to be anything about Occupy Wall Street on the American Nazi Party website, that I could find.) Moving on, we have to drop a little in reliability, let's look at the Jacksonville Courier... it is not a news story but something called "Open Line", which may be an opinion column but is not signed and, inferring from its name, is just a place where readers can post stuff... whatever it is, it appears to be a stream-of-consciousness post by a stoned or deranged person... it says ""The Wall Street Mob has gained some interesting supporters. Among them, The American Nazi Party..." with no support for that. I have zero confidence that the writer is reliable or even sober. How many more of these do I have to look at? And these are the best ones. My patience is exhausted with this subject and with the the editor initiating the RfC, who appears to be a troll. (FWIW, even if it was true it's trivial, of course.) Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[2] The ANP report was archived, so yes they have endorsed OWS. You appear to have missed a great many of the reliable sources which were posted, such as Fox, Politico, Washington post. Perhaps you ought look again at the sources presented? The point is this is widely reported on, millions of people will have read about it and then look here and see not a word, this damages wiki`s credibility. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine, but still. Who is the American Nazi Party and what is their organizational structure? Does that page constitute an actual endorsement by vote of any central committee, or is it basically some blogger who has discovered the wonders of the CAPS LOCK key? How many members do they have? What is there notability in the public discourse? If their name was "American Committee for Public Knowledge" instead of the inflammatory word "Nazi" how notable would this be? The fact is that I could convene a meeting of myself and my cats, call ourselves the Trotskyist Front, create a blog and endorse OWS, and if this was picked up by Drudge and Fox News and the Tehran papers, so what? This is maybe one step above "OWS was endorsed by Mrs. Pinckney Pruddle of 27 Hummingbird Lane, Sandusky, Ohio". It's not a notable event, at all. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your fallacious argument of a meeting with your cats doesn't do a very good job at hiding the fact that you are clearly biased, nor does the equally fallacious comparison with a fictitious other statement. Whether or not *you* think a party is relevant is irrelevant. The fact that it was so widely reported makes it relevant, which is what people have been correctly arguing here.

• No per NickCT. Why not start a List of individuals and organizations that have endorsed Occupy Wall Street? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Townhall has a full editorial staff and meets the criteria as [[W{:RS]] The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No because it's just guilt by association. Nothing could be more opposite from how these protests really are, than by linking them to Nazism. 완젬스 (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No ANP is not relevant, their support is not relevant. Connecting them and their alleged support to the OWS is WP:SYN and even throwing the ANP, nevermind Nazism in the article is WP:UNDUE.--Львівське (говорити) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Support is reported in WP:RS. WP is not censored. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• yes widely reported as fact. supports OWS with money or man hours, that is a benefactor/volunteer, not endorsement. Boston Herald turned out to be crap, http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 Oct 18, Todd Gregory. non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement, none of which are requirements for notability. a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Few members of the ANP can actually read, no chance in hell they are members of the press. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No It's a poorly-sourced fringe issue attempting to link the movement to the Nazi party. I don't see this sort of accusation in the hundreds of articles that have been written on the protests in the mainstream media. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) poorly sourced? The American Nazi Party chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Absolutely not. Not only are the groups fringe, but there are no reliable sources reporting any connection whatsoever. Beyond the reporting that this is a right-wing attempt to connect the groups to the group this article is about, there is no sourcing at all. Seeing as there is definite sourcing about the attempt to connect these groups to these protesters, perhaps we should look at the attempts to enter the information in the same manner. The editor/s who are making these attempts all seem to have the same goals. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No We don't serve as the mouthpiece for the American Nazi Party. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Obvious fringe problem but inclusion is also a weight problem: there is not any indication why this is a significant item that merits inclusion. The import of information should be obvious to our readers, but at the very least we should be able to explain its inclusion to our readers. Saying "Nazis support OWS" leads to the question, "So what?" and there is no good answer. The opinions of Nazis hold no value in any society. wp:GHITS and politically-motivated Op-Eds aren't persuasive. This is the same guilt by association nonsense that Americans saw in the 2008 election with Hamas endorses Obama; Al Qaeda endorses McCain. --David Shankbone 23:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Lots of groups are trying to co-opt this movement, but it is a de-centralized, non-hierarchical movement. That gives it a low Drag coefficient that, miraculously, attracts many groups whose own agendas are floundering. For example, why is there widespread union support for OWS? The Union leadership announces their support. So that must mean everyone who belongs to such-and-such union needs to fall in line. Right? But then read the fine print. Because the bottom line is the "Union bosses" realized they were losing their own Rank and file to the movement (ie., their people were showing up at the occupy locations). Let's just say it was "expedient" for the unions to show support for the Occupy movements. But Unions are part of the OWS mix. They aren't dictating anything to OWS. OWS is not part of the Unions. Unions need OWS alot more than OWS needs them. (I would guess that the Nazi movement needs help with their own "rank and file", not to mention a HUGE credibility gap. Again, NO. If you need more examples of groups or individuals claiming support, I can name many more. How about Elizabeth Warren taking credit for providing the philosophical underpinnings and ballast for OWS? That's interesting Ms. Warren: if that's the case, then Warren is an anarchist in her roots, and is only (oh by-the-way) incidently running for public office. Could go on and on with examples of many groups and factions wanting a slice of the "OCCU" - pie. Christian Roess (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Based on what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any actual tangible connection between the ANP and the OWS movement (not even a diminutive one). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• No unless we specifically mention all other groups as well that have voiced support. The list mentioned above, if it's started, could be a place for this information. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• No (My unelaborated !vote) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes There's a discussion of the response to OWS from several other political bodies (the White House, Congress, 2012 political candidates) as well as the reaction from the public, celebrities, unions, Venezuela, etc. Of course a list of people and groups who support OWS is pointless and uninformative, but if and only if 1.credible sources are used and 2.those sources talk about the response more specifically than saying "the American Nazi Party supports the OWS movement" then just because you don't like the group doesn't mean their reaction is less deserving of mention than that of the Vatican. At a glance it doesn't look like many of the sources above are non-pov but that isn't fatal (to including the ANP's response, not to using the sources!). Re: the fringe problem, I have to agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that while the groups themselves are Fringe their response may well be poignant. And, frankly, if the only unifying feature of participants is membership in the 99% then why should the ANP be excluded? --68.149.110.63 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Does not seem to be notable enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes There is no reason not to mention position of ANP. But, of course, this mention should not be ambiguity or impression that the Nazis supported this movement through their actions or money. --Luch4 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-semitism discussion

• Yes - Widely covered, notable. Anti-sementism is an element of the views of many OWS campers, and as they have no real leadership or manifesto, it warrants coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - again, it seems to be a smear campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No:There is no evidence that anti-semitism is shared by a significant proportion of OWS participants outside of a tiny minority. The fact that the movement has a few kooks in it is not surprising, nor is it notable enough to warrant mention here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - Widely noted with many examples. No sense in hiding it under the rug. There is no requirement that it be shown to reach some magic number of people to be incorporated. Such faulty logic would dictate that nothing bad ever be reported because one could simply say that none those that do bad things don't represent the movement. If it was one or two incidents then probably not. It is clearly far more than that. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - ...with requisites. The article on the Tea Party solved the issue of reporting on alleged racism by not trying to account for how widespread racism was, or by simply stating the Tea Party movement was racist. Rather, it focused on the discourse of some accusing it of racism while others defended it, and it focuses on a few major events. Similarly, this article need not state that the Occupy protest movement has an antisemitism problem, but rather has been accused of it, and it could include references to supposed events and counter arguments. This should likely fall not under goals, or philosophy, but rather as a sub-section on reception. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - I scanned the list of articles that came up in the nominators link. The two serious sources that appear (i.e. the New York Times & Washington Post Article) refute the anti-semitic charge or point out that it's marginal. If we do want to add a sentence about anti-semitism it would have to be so heavily qualified that it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning. NickCT (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, per NickCT. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• 'No. The nominator's link produces nothing of value. Doing my own search, I find (in reliable sources as opposed to polemic blogs etc.) only the same stuff that NickCT finds, to the effect of "some bloggers have claimed anti-semitism, but it appears to not be true". Not notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No per NickCT. I would just point out that the Washington Post link is an op-ed column, not a news article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  re the op-ed column - Duly noted. Apologies for not stating it as such. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No But I think maybe 1 sentence, with a response as user Cast has proposed, but not a whole entire section, which I'm against. 완젬스 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• yes, if the tea party can have a "racial issues" section, so can ows. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  There's no way an entire section will ever get consensus over here, like over at the tea party article, so 1-2 sentences, take it or leave it. If you're trying to divert attention away from the issue by comparing it to the tea party, you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone. 완젬스 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  See WP:CONSENSUS to brush up on what it says, because that's what is common (and applied) to both articles. 완젬스 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - seems WP:UNDUE to me to use individual comments and turn it into a standalone section. Unless this becomes a relevant part or chunk of the protests, then no. Unless it gains traction in the media in some form, then no. Until then, all of this can be summarized into a single sentence - a section is too much weight.--Львівське (говорити) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes The incidents are being reported in WP:RS. Ironically racism by Tea Party members is only alleged. OWS members actually went on anti-semitic rants on TV! I saw it! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  There are plenty of references for Tea party members shouting racial epithets (see [3] for example). The question isn't whether one or two guys within a much larger movement are racist/anti-semetic. The question is whether racism/antisemitism is a pervasive theme within a movement, or whether it represents a viewpoint pushed by a significant portion of a movement's members. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  The question is not if ows is racist, rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  What's the difference? It's still guilt by association, and will attract edit warring & make the article unstable. Can't anyone else see that? 완젬스 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Typical wikipedia mob rule, published racism undue here, not undue at tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  If you're not in the majority, then just wait your turn. You're trying to change an OWS article during the height of OWS popularity. If you bring up a proposal (an entire section!!!) on antisemitism knowing it will fail, is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point which everyone knows nothing good will come from it. It just creates division between editors when the article still has plenty of peaceful improvements we could instead discuss otherwise. If you know an entire section will never gain consensus, then propose something more popular so that the "mob" will agree with it. When you're on the side of the minority, the burden is on you to work with the majority (unless you're like Dualus who bypasses consensus) because without consensus, even the most noble & well-intentioned edits will never stand, and you know that. The tea party is de facto racist whereas only 2 reliable sources have barely said anything usable about OWS being antisemitic (because as user NickCT said) the statement would have to be so heavily qualified, that it wouldn't be worth mentioning. 완젬스 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  re "rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable" - I think you should be posting your comments in the section above, but as I said above, OWS has reportedly gained the support of the latino community,former leaders of ACORN,labor unions,Kayne West,the mayor of Richmond, California, Jay-Z, vetrinarians, Canadians, etc etc. Should I go on? Get the point? You want to mention all of these groups? If not, why are you so focused on the ANP? NickCT (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Jayz, vets and acorn, you left out Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, CAIR, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Hugo Chavez, Revolutionary Guards of Iran, The Govt of North Korea, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah, a regular who's who of obscurity. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Ok.... But you're missing the point. You said we should mention ANP b/c their support has been noted in RSs. I pointed out that an endless slew of folk's support has been noted in RS, and that it's not piratical to mention them all. Again, why are you so focused on highlighting support from particular groups? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Absolutely not. There are no reliable sources reporting any connection of this accusation whatsoever. Beyond the reporting of anonymous people who have shown up at some protests, there is no sourcing at all. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which mention it, your saying there is not is pointless. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Again, Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece for the far-right Wurlitzer. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor is it a mouthpiece for the leftwing nutjobs of the OWS, wiki reports on what reliable sources have written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• NO - This is more desperation from the Far Right. It's a story generated just like the recent ACORN connection given by an anonymous source to Fox News in the last few days. Christian Roess (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Seems to have generated a great deal of controversy and has been covered in a great many reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, per NickCT and Dave Dial. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to admin who closes

Please take into account the lack of actual policy based reasons for excluding this content. Several editors have said there are no reliable sources regarding the antisemitic remarks being made. This is patently false, it was deemed a serious enough matter by the Anti Defamation League[4] to release a statement on the matter. Some say no as they believe it is a smear campaign, this is not a policy that i am aware of, nor have any sources made this claim that I know of. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the antisemitism discussion? Or the Nazism discussion? (or both?) 완젬스 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The antisemitism discussion, I will create a subsection for the ANP discussion as basically the same arguments have been put forth there as here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention: Adbusters "Accusations of antisemitism". I think this makes any antisemitism remarks at OWS extremely relevant. Especially in light of the opening paragraph of the Origins section: "In mid-2011, the Canadian-based Adbusters Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters..." 74.101.47.220 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Null edit to prevent archiving The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei discussion

Ayatollah Khamenei on Occupy Wall Street: "It will bring down the capitalist system and the West". Should it be in the article? --Luch4 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all or nothing: presenting a 3rd option

So do the yes's and no's agree to compromise and just have a single, well-written sentence, as myself and others have said can be summarized? If so, then let us work on that sentence here, so we have something to look at from those who voted "yes" and we'll see their proposal below. 완젬스 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At one time we did have a short discussion with a good ref, but it's long gone. This situation is similar to the incident when a "protester" took a dump on a police car...or so it was said. I believe that we need to remember that there are thousands of homeless in NYC, and most of them live in the very same area that the protest is being held. Not to paint all the homeless with the same brush, but many of them are addicts and/or have serious mental problems. These people have been doing such things in NYC long before the movement established their occupation of the park, but it did not make national news. Same thing for racists - there's nothing new about blaming the Jews for our financial problems - and I can imagine that the protest would draw this sort of racist to the occupy site like bees to honey. Rather than report that the protesters are Nazi, Jew-hating, Commie, dirty hippies, etc., I believe that the information could be covered in an unbiased manner. If we had a reference... Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, and the onus is on people who want to include it. Quick question though--are you saying the "good ref" is long gone? Or the discussion is still in archives or had been deleted? I think a single sentence, in context (with how rare that antisemitism is) can be added, as long as it is put into the proper perspective. There's no way an entire section on antisemitism will ever see the light of day here, and I think the nazism has even less of a chance than antisemitism. 완젬스 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it. For all I know my memory could be wrong. I know we both agree that the task of any editing at all in this article was such a hellish experience till Dualus was banned that it was hard to keep up with what the hell was going on. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if these are the refs from the inclusion I remember, but these two turned up from the past article. [5] and [6]. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source, Media Matters, that explains the issue, "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them]". We could use that story for the article. TFD (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good finds, Gandy, I'll check it out it. Thanks for link thefourdeuce but not quite controversial enough! ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source. It is like asking the arsonist who started the fire. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I would go that far, lol. They're a private non-profit, so they can allow their editors/bloggers more unrestricted and "no strings" journalism & blogs. It's a good site, has lots of recaps & summaries of what the other sides are saying. Each video is like a miniature documentary--highly recommended and very informative for any Wikipedia editor who works on poli-sci articles. 완젬스 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MMfA has come up many times at RSN and is rs. You are confusing the neutrality of a source with its reliability. Certainly it is true that right-wing blogs are playing up the Nazi Party story. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are multiple reliable sources for the Communist Party Support: http://www.cpusa.org/communist-party-heralds-occupy-wall-street-movement/ http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/red-white-and-angry%E2%80%A8-communist-nazi-parties-endorse-occupy-protests/

Sources for Nazi Party support: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 http://www.americannaziparty.com/news/archives.php?report_date=2011-10-16 http://whitehonor.com/white-power/the-occupy-wall-street-movement/ http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/american-nazi-party-urges-members-join-occupy-protests

I also have reliable sources for many more so called "fringe" groups like the Black Panthers, CAIR, and the Socialist Party USA who express support for the OWS movement.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have them, let's see them. 완젬스 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

These groups may all support OWS, however with a U.S. population of 312,577,000 and most of these groups having less than a couple of thousand members, how can it be justified to add whatever they may believe to the article? I don't think the Black Panthers have any - aren't they defunct? How many are in the American Nazi Party - I'll bet it's not many. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

American Communist Party - 2,000 Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want the sources, 완젬스, then here they are.

Socialist Party USA: http://www.socialistparty-usa.org/occupywallstreet.html; http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/10/21/18694303.php; http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/thedc-morning-commies-and-nazis-sure-do-like-occupy-wall-street/

CAIR: http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-council-on-ameri/2011/10/21/gIQAgawr4L_photo.html; http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=298c6f637e745b40f9bc04560&id=00ff1bf3e7

Hezbollah: http://almoqawama.org/?a=content.id&id=25969; http://almoqawama.org/?a=content.id&id=25867

Black Panthers: http://www.occupyoakland.org/ai1ec_event/black-panthers-david-hilliard-melvin-dixon-and-eseibio-halliday/; http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19150533

I am not going to make a giant list of all of them because their are too many. But I have sources for many more.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not necessary -- There are little to no reliable sources that even mention these groups, and the ones that do are either biased and not reliable sources for this article, or mention the attempted connection by right-wing blogs. etc.. If, in the future, these attempts do not subside, the only addition should be about the smear attempts. Dave Dial (talk) 14:51, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree,anonymous, ever single one of those sources are reliable and none of them are "right-wing". And if we are going to nullify sources because they are bias, then Huffington post, New York Times,and all these other extremely liberal media outlets should be nullified as well. And don't these Occupiers claim to be "grassroots" and have "no political leaning" (even though their funders and leaders and speakers are all democrats)? Since they claim that, isn't it irrelevant what political leanings sources have? Your argument is invalid and the fact that these groups support OWS is absolutely notable. This is no smear attempt, I was asked to give sources for these groups by another editor, and it is undeniable fact that they do support the OWS movement. Also, according to Gallop Polling, the OWS is a Fringe group, so there is no need to smear it, it is already smeared.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• A single well-written sentence that makes it clear that both of these are being pushed by the far-right American press would be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• What's in the article right now seems to at least have equally contradicting opinion. Can we live with it and the very short mention in lead or do we need changes?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What you have added is perfect, the mention of the antisemitic remarks with the rebuttal is NPOV and balanced the way an article ought to be written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, and I have to say as the most vocal critic of including ANY momentum-halting criticism of OWS, I must proudly say that Amadscientist (an editor I admire for being a great Wikipedian) has written the content in such a way as to make both sides happy. Somebody give this man a barn star! (I've given him one already too recently) 완젬스 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Null edit to prevent archiving The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference Mix-Up

Please clean up the mix-up of references "Amy Goodman" and "David Goodman", both are referred to as ref name="Goodman" which causes wrong footnote links. Thank you. -- 77.189.60.125 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this problem arises in the article - but it could possibly be moot, as they are brother & sister and do work together. Cgingold (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Post-eviction photos removed

Post eviction photo gallery at Commons

Hours after the protesters were evicted on November 15, the police cleaned up all the trash and there is little trace of them

Protesters return to the park to confront the police after a court order ruled that they could re-occupy the park

These two photos were removed with the following edit summary: "Please discuss on Talk before adding any more of your unsourced images and captions (the article already had 15 before you added these two) -- especially ones with a sympathetic bias, which look like POV-pushing". I don't think a photo of an empty park that gives a full view of the area, which is lacking in the article, and one of a protester confronting a police officer are "sympathetic bias", but perhaps reasonable minds could disagree. I also don't know what "unsourced images and captions" are. Regardless, I uploaded roughly 50 photos from the morning of the eviction on Commons, so feel free to use them, or not. --David Shankbone 13:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I offend anyone (I didn't check who removed it) but I totally agree with Shankbone here, especially on the empty park picture. It's a great idea to show the park during it's temporary eviction, because it adds pictures to what is in the timeline. The 2nd picture I'm neutral about whether it stays or goes, but the empty park picture has gotta stay. I don't know why anybody would object to that picture, unless they're objecting to "too many pictures in general" in which case I might add to delete the picture of recycling dishwater for the plants. Go figure, 완젬스 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 완젬스|완젬스 and I like the other photo very much as well. I would consider it one of the best photos so far. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with removing editor. Shankbone, while a good photographer, has no objectivity regarding OWS, and the article is far too heavily weighed from his photo point of view. (has he uploaded a single picture of OWS doing anything that is not positive?) 완젬스 is/has actively tried to frame this entire article to push a specific propaganda based bias. Actively pumping up positive aspects early in the movement to build momentum for the movement and set the stage of the article (as he has freely stated above). This article is already a great example of misuse of WP to promote a personal agenda, additional pro-movement pictures by Shankbone do no service to WP as a whole. Arzel (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your reasons for agreement are focusing on motivations of the editors, rather than the value of the images. Could you comment specifically on each of the two images in question, and provide your rationale for preferring each one not be included herein? I hardly think a picture of an empty park is pushing a point of view.--~TPW 16:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I believe the primary editors have serious WP:COI issues. That aside, I see little additional value of the first picture of the empty park, other than self-promotion of Shankbone's pictures. The second picture adds little either. Protests inherently rely on a perception of right or good vs wrong or bad. When you have a photographer that does not appear to be objective (all positive images, nothing remotely negative) then his pictures promote that perception. Shankbone is simply too close to the movement to be viewed as objective with his images in this situation (IMO). He appears to be a photographer for the movement, rather than a photographer of the movement, thus I view most of his work as un-published work, and not a neutral depiction of the event. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We all come to Wikipedia with a POV. Arzel, you obviously have one when you state on the Obama talk page: "I would prefer that WP not be the biased cesspool that it has become on a number of articles. My opinion is based on fact, the fact that Obama has made unprecedented measures toward transparency and by all measures, except his own, failed miserably. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)" We are not expected to be without a POV. We are expected to attempt to produce articles that are without a slanted POV. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You have ignored my statement completely. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As it should be. -A98.. 98.92.184.64 (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to add that caption, then make it accurate. "Hours after the protesters were evicted on November 15 there is little trace of them" should be changed to "Hours after the protesters were evicted, the police had cleaned up all the trash." You are clearly pushing a POV with that caption as if the protesters didn't leave trash all over the place. Gandy, You are right about producing articles that are without a slanted POV, and that caption slants it. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be interested with the content of photographs like any other part of the article. I don't think David Shankbone is attempting to push POV. He may have a conflict of interest, but I think by now everyone contributing here knows that he has a lot of pics from actually being there. He isn't hiding the fact. He should defend a delete if he feels strongly about inclusion. Just having a conflict of interest doesn't mean he can't contribute. But with his having so many contributions already he must recognize how he is the main image contributor. It's a bold edit to add an image in an article already containing a high amount of your image contributions. But many of them have great value, even if I think some may not for this article. I say keep the park image in the time line and I'm against the image of the police as possible POV image. The "Hipster cop" was in GQ, but using anyone else is contentious and could be a BLP issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be fairly obvious that when I mentioned photos and captions reflecting a "sympathetic bias" that "look like POV-pushing", I was not referring to the photograph of the empty park, which happens to be the most innocuous and least promotional original image on the page. Is there anyone who disagrees that many of the numerous original images on the page lend themselves well to promotional purposes and have the appearance of having been selected, and their captions written, in order to emphasize positive aspects of the protest?

The purpose of WP's policy on original images, so far as I can tell, is not to transform individual editors who happen to be photographers into "quasi-reliable sources" who are then given free reign to emphasize whatever aspects of the protests comport with their personal views on the article subject. Rather, the purpose is to provide a means for WP articles to include necessary and useful illustrations that could not otherwise be had due to WP's restrictions regarding copyrighted material.

If anyone has an argument that this article would somehow be sorely lacking in illustrative content if it didn't have every last one of Shankbone's user-generated photos of, e.g., the lovely sustainable dishwater system, the pedal-powered battery station that protesters had to erect because of FDNY oppression, the hardcore protest-rock guitarist who happens to be a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, various other photos of celebrity onlookers, random vistas of large crowds, union solidarity pictures, etc., I would really like to hear it. Otherwise, I don't see any reasonable rationale for having this article festooned with almost uniformly positive images and captions that are each the whole-cloth invention of one or more WP editors. That would be an end-run around WP:NOR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

He has a huge amount at Commons. This isn't even close to "every last" one but he can still add them and we shouldn't be afraid to look at it any differently then content of any other kind, reference, claim etc. He is one of a handful of image contributers that has images that have great value in many different articles, and are used in many different ways. Trust me...this is but a small amount. If you saw all his other contributions you may be surprised. He may just be in the right place at the right time and we just need to be sure the use is encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rephrase, I just meant to ask, does anyone really think the article would be lacking without all the Shankbone images that are actually on the page? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe they improve the article a great deal. Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article has too many in a few sections and nothing in others. Undue weight to the over all article. It could use some clipping and maybe a few replaced for alternative images. What there is is David Shankbone images and an article is unlikely to have fair use images if freely available images can be used. Well, these can be used and are simply whats available. Do you want to go though image by image and discuss keep or delete and/or suggest replacements?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I think there are too many images overall (has more images than the article on Christmas, for pete's sake, and it's less than two months old), and that they should be limited to pics that illustrate broader, widely reported themes rather than trivia, some of which really seems cherry-picked. I don't see having images of cheerful, well-groomed protesters recharging batteries, or sustainably dumping dishwater into the park, etc., as any more encyclopedic or any less POV than having pictures of people screaming at cops, sleeping amidst piles of trash, pooping on cop cars, and so forth. In other words, IMO the illustrative and encyclopedic value of such images is outweighed by their tendency to promote a POV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting to anything else on this thread, photographs are not original research. Policy: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" I did not come anywhere close to falling afoul of this policy or NPOV. If I had witnessed someone shooting heroin between their toes or taking a pooh on a po-po, I would not have hesitated to photograph it and upload it. --David Shankbone 04:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks no different than the Daily Mail 'protesters living with trash' photos in this article

Same with this one as above

What an unhappy accident, then, that your images all happened to turn out so one-sided; simply incredible that during the many weeks you extensively photographed OWS, nothing negative, such as unsightly piles of trash all over the place, happened to catch your attention. Without commenting on anything else in your comment, I'll point out once again that WP:OI is not an excuse to push POV, so it's misleading to simply say "photographs are not original research". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not true and you sound silly. In fact, quite a few of my photos were specifically used in this Patriot Action Network blog post about the trashy conditions. Look at the photographs that go along with news media stories about protesters living among garbage; here is perhaps the most infamous from the Daily Mail. Most of those photos with the captions about trash piling up look no different than any of these photos of mine [7] [8] [9] [10][11] [12][13]. The problem with this "garbage meme" always was that what reporters called trash was in reality the tarps, provisions, clothing and personal items of the protesters that were piled up due to confined space. They weren't lying around in what they considered to be garbage, they were sitting on their possessions. Regardless, if you want photos like you saw in the news articles, I have plenty on Commons. Additionally, here is a photo of a deranged man slapping a protester, which I guess if you want to stretch it would evidence "violence"? What about people arguing?[14] Here is a picture of the deranged 'Lotion Man' whose anti-semitic rant went viral, but he wasn't part of the movement just an opportunist. The drum circles were universally despised by the neighbors and even by some protesters, and I have many, many photos of those, so "negative" is in the eye of the beholder. Centrify/Factchecker, I think the issue is that you are so blinded by your anti-OWS POV that you no longer know what is NPOV, seeing any photographs that aren't explicitly negative as obviously positive. I would encourage you to take care with your editing because I question whether your own strong POV is affecting your judgment. --David Shankbone 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What may or may not exist is tempered by the fact that this article is loaded with your positive images from the movement. While this is not inherently bad, it gives an overal biased impression of the article. This is largely the result of activist editors using WP to promote OWS. As I have said before, I think you take good pictures, and your photos of well-known people are quite valuable. My concern here is that you seem to be too closely involved with the movement, and as a result your pictures here lose their objectivity. I would view it the same as having an article written entirely from one single source, and as you know, a picture can be very effective at teling a story. Thus right now it looks like David Shankbone's view of OWS. Arzel (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok David, I should give you credit for having taken some photos of things that could be seen in a negative light; I simply didn't notice these although I think it's fair to say that this was a reasonable oversight given that there are relatively few of them and the thumbnails are small. This still leaves my core concern, though, which is echoed by Arzel's comment above. Regardless of what's in your Commons page, what's in the article has been uniformly positive (and please, don't lecture that it's only an anti-OWS POV that makes me think that obvious puffery about sustainable battery charging and dishwater dumping is promotional). It's not that I think the article should have many images depicting both positive and negative things, but rather that the article is not really well-served by either. (To quote a comment I made above, "IMO the illustrative and encyclopedic value of such images is outweighed by their tendency to promote a POV.") So yes, while adding, e.g., a pic of apparent filth and chaos, would do something to balance the images that may seem to have a promotional tone, it's better to, again, use fewer images that illustrate broad, widely reported themes, rather than also including photos that depict trivial stuff and tend to promote a POV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your point of view that there should be few images on this article would withstand a RfC. Images are a requirement for both GA and FA, and our Manual of Style states, "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions, rather than deleting them—especially on pages which lack visuals." You have been editing Wikipedia almost as long as I have, and I think you would be hard-pressed to make a persuasive argument to the community that a protest can't be illustrated when we have almost 800 images of various facets of it on Commons. I don't see any POV in the images, but I also remember being told by liberals that I showed the 'Ground Zero Mosque' protesters in too favorable of a light; and yet This image will be featured in a two year exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York. So I'm used to all sides seeing what they want to see. --David Shankbone 18:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I did not say, and am not saying, that there should be few images. What I said was that the article should have fewer images, and lean towards ones that depict broader themes and don't lend themselves to promotion of a POV. That's just inherent in encyclopedicity, IMO, although I'm sure reasonable minds could disagree with me on that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Revamping the timeline section

I think the history section is in need of an overhaul. We have two articles that document the progression of events of OWS and the Occupy movement: Timeline of Occupy Wall Street and Occupy movement. I propose we revamp the history section on this page to focus solely on New York, and only major moments, with significant moments put on the Timeline article. Non-New York events should go to the location-specific articles, with major events repeated on the Occupy movement article. I think New York should be the central focus here, and the major moments of OWS deserve more attention. If we mention other movements, it should only be when those locations influenced New York (e.g. Scott Olsen in Oakland). Any thoughts? --David Shankbone 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. B^e——C_ritical 04:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and I think that there was general agreement, however we were all so exhausted just trying to keep up with Dualus, or for whatever other reasons, it was not acted on. As for trying to sort out exactly what happened where, I wonder if it's possible? Will it restrict us when trying to reference something if the ref does not specify the NYC OWS? Or, for instance, we have four Occupy sites here in Maine, but none of them has their own article. What if something major happens (someone dies, etc.) here in Maine? - obviously it would need to go into this article. Or, I remember making a rather sarcastic comment re crime saying xxx did not even occur at the NYC site. But on the other hand, many of the major incidents did not happen in NYC... There is an existing article for all the U.S., however it has been suggested it be deleted...actually there are 2 of them... I've been thinking of putting some Maine info in one of them, but I don't want to go through a lot of work only to have the article deleted... Also, I would guess that any Wikipedia reader would come to this article for basic information. So, all in all, I wonder if it may be a little too early to do anything drastic? Well, just some thoughts. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult problem, in that the movement is too large for one article. And this is the primary article, but Occupy Movement ought to be. Making this a generalized article might have support under naming conventions, but then we'd have to revamp the article. An alternative is for editors to just decide to make this strictly OWS, and switch efforts to Occupy Movement. That is logical, but I'm not doing that till people decide to join me. B^e——C_ritical 21:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult... I was a major contributor to the Gulf oil spill, the Haiti quake, and the flu pandemic, or perhaps the non-pandemic, and none of them were nearly as difficult as this one. I give everybody that has hung in with this one major credit - certainly anyone reading the article has no idea how much frustrating work has gone into it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm off my Wikibreak, I'll try to work on revamping the timeline suggestion mid-week and incorporating this feedback, and link to my edits in this section on the talk page when I'm done. 완젬스 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS Library

Does anyone feel that the Occupy Wall Street Library merits its own article? It looks like the library has garnered significant coverage lately, i.e. from Boing Boing, etc. So far it has a mention on List of destroyed libraries, archives and museums.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. At least, not yet. While there is both real and symbolic value, the library doesn't even have a section in this article. That would be the place to start if you can justify more coverage with reliable sources -- e.g. The Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC has featured it several times recently. -A98 98.92.184.64 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can gather enough reliable primary sources with thorough coverage, go for it.   — C M B J   12:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Bold The worst that can happen is maybe it fails AFD. I say if you have the passion, then go for it (and make sure to have reliable sources) and then tag it for WP:Article Rescue Squadron if all else fails. If you can write it in an encyclopedic way, then it should be a good read for the many of us casual Wikipedians. 완젬스 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the consensus here seems to be in favor of creating the article, I went ahead and did so. Here we are: The People's Library.   — C M B J   08:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Change the name to Occupy Wall Street Library since that is the mainstream coverage it gets. 완젬스 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the article be about Occupy libraries in general, since many (most?) of the different sites seem to have a library? Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That article has almost no MSM reports that adequately serve as RS's. Most of it is based off blogs, opinion, and the ALA's self-published news releases. The article reads like propaganda. Are there any actual RS that talk about it in a neutral tone? Are there any RS's that make it notable in it's own right? Arzel (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree - that material should be pared down, and whatever remaining content is reliable sourced should be merged with this article. Kelly ^hi! 22:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS library merge is being discussed on its talk page. Please contribute if you are interested. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

If anyone's interested, the OWS people on facebook are organizing to procure a complete set of NY statutes and older editions of law books, to have a mini-law library within this library. 완젬스 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Economic background is undue weight?

How are this and this correct? Isn't the main motivation for the protests economic? How many of the sources discuss economics as part of their coverage? Why did they choose Wall Street? So how are economic details undue weight? Especially compared to other sections. I thought the economic coverage should be expanded if anything. That's the main issue of OWS isn't it? B^e——C_ritical 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO it is never justified to wipe out large sections of an article without prior discussion. Isn't this supposed to be a joint effort? I would suggest the editor return the copy and ask for discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of the information wasn't even referenced with context to the article (actually the whole intro to that section was un-referenced). It is undue weight to the "Occupy Wall Street" article but relevant and notable enough for due weight. I added a good deal to save the section in good faith to keep it referenced to the claim that it has to do with the movement in the manner mentioned etc. I added a few references to what was a bit of puffery.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that seems reasonable! BeCritical?... :D Gandydancer (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what he's saying. The material which was originally in the 99% section was thoroughly referenced, and was referenced to articles about OWS for the most part, with a few details referenced to sources which the articles on OWS themselves used as sources, such as the Congressional Budget Office. IOW, the sources used were about OWS, and discussed the economic details in reference to OWS, and made it clear that they were relevant to OWS. And that's OWS specifically, not just the Occupy movement. Does that answer the concerns or do I not understand? Also, We are the 99% is even worthy of its own article, so surely worthy of small section here. B^e——C_ritical 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two linked removals were 100% good. I think the article should explain, in brief summary, the main concerns of OWS, the ones that have been commented upon repeatedly by reliable sources. We should not try to research the topic of economics ourselves, of course, but our readers are coming here looking for an easily understood explanation. We should give it to them. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it explains in in a concise and accurate way how the slogan or phrase relates to the data and preserves the main essence of what was written originally with additional referenced accuracy. The portion left out simply went into more detail then was needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it needs at least its own section with a link to the main 99% article. The summary can be either pared down or divided into a general overview paragraph and a further details paragraph. How about that? I really don't understand the WEIGHT objection. This is the most important motivator for the movement, and deserves probably the most prominent placing and WEIGHT in our "background" coverage. "The Occupy movement is an international protest movement which is primarily directed against economic and social inequality." B^e——C_ritical 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure WEIGHT is the fundamental concern; the section looks like there's a fair amount of OR. We're hanging, (coatracking), content on the economy onto an article about the protests. Sure the economy plays a part in why the protests occur but unless a source explicitly makes the connection between economy and OWS, we're dealing with WP:OR. I'm short on time but I did look at a couple of sources and they don't make that kind of connection, so that kind of source and the content they reference should be removed as non compliant. I may have time in the next days to look at the sources, but if not someone else might want to take a look and see if that explicit connection is there.(olive (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I've been trying to straighten it out. Sources got removed, re-arranged, etc. I think I'm going to rewrite it and put the quotes in the ref tags so that they can't be lost. In a couple of cases, a source pointed us to a document, and I went to that document to get the details. For example, Forbes talked about "financial wealth," and referenced its source, so I went to that source for a definition when someone requested it. I believe all the text was originally sourced, but there have been too many changes and it's a section that's difficult to change without messing up. It's going to take some time. B^e——C_ritical 04:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wishful thinking, the section has been OR from the start. Sources making a connection beyond that only in the editor's mind have been lacking all along. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No it has not, there was no coatracking at all to begin with. You consistently misunderstand sourcing, for example here. The Economist source [15] is now gone from the article. Did you take it out? No wonder Littleolive thinks it's OR. Use of sources like this that don't mention OWS are not my fault. People came in and didn't understand what was going on or how to avoid OR and SYNTH. B^e——C_ritical 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I critiqued the Economist ref in detail, and no substantive rebuttal, defense or reply was ever made. (What ever happened to Mr Muza of Zimbabwe, is he still under the bus where he was thrown?) Why the Economist source is a good ref, we have not been told even once. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did you give us any reason to think it's bad? What's bad about it? B^e——C_ritical 19:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange I would be asked where I addressed the pointlessness of the Economist ref; the talk diff placed by Be in this discussion for my my benefit starts with the critique, but now it seems I'm not the one who could profit from the diff. But never min that. Why are we talking about a ref not in the article? Does anyone have a mind to restore it, or is this simply a personal resentment intruding on the discussion? I'm just not getting the point of this. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked it out on the RS noticeboard, and intend to restore it eventually. B^e——C_ritical 02:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We are the 99% source check.

Because this has become contentious:

I've copied the section to my Sandbox: We are the 99% source check. My thought is to check each source to make sure its a RS , note its status, and then when all of the R Sources are assembled edit or rewrite the section. This allows editors, whenever they have a chance, to check a source or two until the job is done.(olive (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

I've started working on this, please join in.(olive (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

The problem is that with an influx of new editors (who knows if the regulars will still be working on this article a month from now?) that this type of proposal would be very labor intensive, doesn't foreseeably improve the article by much, and carries with it no clout. It's best to just keep the process simple, organic, and with the least amount of effort possible. Whether a source is reliable or not often boils down to an opinion anyway, which then means it can change as easily as consensus can change. 완젬스 (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've checked all of the sources for the section, We are the 99%. The sources which are not reliable are clear violations because they do not explicitly mention OWS, and their use clearly creates WP: OR. Its a pretty simple process. If anyone wants to double check what I did please feel free(olive (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Other questionable sources:

• This source [16] while it references OWS may be a blog ... not sure... .(olive (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

What part is it that you want to rewrite? After reading your work, I'm of the opinion it's all OR and the section can be deleted, because recently consensus emerged that OWS is about the New York campsite only, not the Occupy Movement which we have an article for. This article is way too bloated as it currently stands (especially the timeline section, which we also have an article for) and it's fine with me if you chop it off here and move it to occupy movement. The chart was also disputed and I thought it isn't pertinent for the OWS demonstrations. I stayed out of the discussion last time, but since you're brave enough to open up the can of worms, I think all the unreliable sources should be deleted and all the original research removed. I'm behind you if you're brave enough for the job, 완젬스 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Polling Agreement vs. Support for OWS

There was an article somewhere that pointed out how polls varied for Occupy Wall Street because there's a difference between supporting the movement and agreeing with it because Americans might agree with Occupy's goals but might not support the movement because of reported crime etc.

Does anyone know where this is? It might already be cited be in the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know -haven't focused on this- but it's a very good question and you're right about the difference. B^e——C_ritical 19:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[17] B^e——C_ritical 20:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the article was specifically about that and showed how polling is usually higher when it's "agreement" as opposed to "support" and unfortunately not what you posted but thanks for trying to help anyway. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lost & Found WSJ November 19th resource

Lost, and Found, After Zuccotti Raid by Maya Pope-Chappell, excerpt ...

Now the raw materials of the protest encampment occupy a Department of Sanitation garage on West 56th Street, where property owners have until Tuesday afternoon—one week after the raid—to find their confiscated possessions and stake their claims.

99.56.120.136 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The New School resource

Occupy Moves to Fifth Avenue by Sumathi Reddy and Jessica Firger 99.56.120.136 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

New York Times, resource

An Uprising With Plenty of Potential by James B. Stewart, published November 18, 2011 in Common Sense, excerpt ...

The issues that spawned the movement — income inequality, money in politics and Wall Street’s influence — were being drowned out by debates over personal hygiene, noise and crime. ... But critics and supporters alike suggest that the influence of the movement could last decades, and that it might even evolve into a more potent force. “A lot of people brush off Occupy Wall Street as incoherent and inconsequential,” Michael Prell told me. “I disagree.” Mr. Prell is a strategist for the Tea Party Patriots, a grass-roots organization that advocates Tea Party goals of fiscal responsibility, free markets and constitutionally limited government. He’s the author of “Underdogma,” a critique of left-wing anti-Americanism, which includes a chapter on the Berkeley Free Speech movement of the 1960s, which may be the closest historical parallel to the Occupy movement.

Also see Sidney Tarrow, Jeff Goodwin, Cornel West, Occupy Oakland and Occupy Seattle.

99.56.120.136 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Crime

If there are notable crime incidents they should be included into the CRIME section. Groping incidents are notable crime incidents and a protester being arrested for a firearm are notable incidents. I think there should be an article of its own regarding the crime in at Occupy Wall Street.Racingstripes (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor incidents certainly aren't notable enough for this article. See if they have any lasting significance to the protest as a whole. B^e——C_ritical 08:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's virtually no crime other than what's been reported, and so far what's been reported is insufficient to warrant a separate article. It will just sabotage the movement's momentum if it were allowed anyway. People don't like crime, and OWS is wholly against crime generally speaking. 완젬스 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether people like crime or not it is a real aspect of what is occurring on a regualar basis at occupy wall street. Thefts and gropings are common at zuccotti park and should be included in the article, and someone showing up with a gun is not common but it is certainly notable.Racingstripes (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

완젬스 is actively involved with the movement and has serious WP:COI issues. However, I find it highly amuzing and ironic that he would say that OWS is against crime when most of their actions, and indeed their formation, is predicated on the basis of committing a crime, ie illegal occupation of private property. Arzel (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Virtually no crime? Check out the Occupy Rap Sheet. Many times them simply being there isn'tlegal because they don't always bother getting permits. There is a lot of crime sourced in reliable sources and it is very notable.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

One quick comment, the OWS activists on facebook consider the meat world protesters as an embarrassment to the occupy movement generally speaking. There has never been any crime committed on our facebook pages, and in fact we even convinced some idiots not to make bomb threats on the NYSE building on Nov 15th by threatening them that it would fall under terrorism. There's definitely an "upper 49.5%" and a "lower 49.5%" within the 99% both in income and intelligence. The saboteurs of our movement are the ones committing crimes, leaving trash everywhere, defecating on police cars, showing up only for the free food, etc. Crimes such as rape are extremely demoralizing to us and we see a temporary drop in donations every time a major crime (such as rape) is reported. Some OWS members' followers of the finance committee even have wrote on facebook wall that before we purged the words "rape and attempted rapes" from a previous, flawed version of this article, that it was costing us between $500-$1500 per day in fewer donations. (speculation only, there are no reliable sources) So if you have any doubts, ask the finance committee how much the movement suffers both financially and morally when crime slows down the momentum and cash inflows of OWS. 완젬스 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because you feel that these people are hurting your movement does not give a basis for them to not be included. Actually since they are part of your movement it actually creates a bigger emphasis for them to be included.Racingstripes (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's my point, we can't do anything about it. It frustrates us, and drains our energies & cripples our fundraising. Crime and bad press are our #1 issues stemming from the camps right now. 완젬스 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are basing your fundraising efforts on the perception that others may have on this article? You should be banned from editing this article. You have shown that you are far far to involved to edit with any sence of objectivity. You are now actively admitting that you have work to edit this article to effect fundraising for OWS. Arzel (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's no secret that the article makes no mention of rape anymore. I'm simply pointing out that this whitewashing/censureship/damage-control/etc correlates to daily inflows from paypal/credit card donations, and that this correlation was discovered a week ago. I just wish crime never happened so that way crime wouldn't be a problem. I don't see a dime of that money, nor the $500,000 that my genius finance committee brethren squanders on $700/night hotel rooms and misappropriation. Without fresh money and fresh morale, OWS is losing the support from New York Times and other supportive media outlets. Crime effects fundraising, which is why I think a separate article is a bad idea. It has been a very rough month for us, but I've been as neutral as humanly possible--just check my contribs. 완젬스 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments aside, no one has tried to put "groping incidents" into the crime section. If you feel like there is enough information to begin an Occupy Crime section,(there is certainly enough coverage), feel free to create one and I'm sure others would help out.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes he did [18]. Even if covered in the news, there is virtually no notability of crime for this article. We only put in things which are of lasting significance to the subject, and a laundry list of petty crimes is not notable. B^e——C_ritical 21:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and 완젬스, talking about your promotion of the movement merely makes everyone here think you are just at this article to POV push and will get you nothing but people calling for you to be banned and/or blocked. Just keep all your edits NPOV and don't talk about your personal feelings and all will be okay. B^e——C_ritical 21:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt, I err on the side of caution now that some people are putting me under the magnifying glass. Everyone has a pov, but my edits are careful. I saw what happened to Dualus... 완젬스 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@becritical It's your opinion that the crimes have no "lasting significance". I believe it does. It's also your opinion that they are not notable even though there is an entire section devoted to them. And as 완젬스 said, "Crimes such as rape are extremely demoralizing to us and we see a temporary drop in donations every time a major crime (such as rape) is reported" and that "fundraising decreases", so obviously someone out there thinks the crime is significant.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the perpetrator and it's a totally selfish reason to commit a crime. That's the only person who benefits, for it kills the viability of the movement which OWS started. 완젬스 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your feelings about the selfishness of crime, what brings in donations and what is or is not demoralizing to OWS has absolutely no relevance here, so please stick to discussing the article. As you know, none of this is a consideration in the editing of this article and it's little more than a distraction. Please keep your focus and I encourage you to stop conflating your activism with discussions about the article. --David Shankbone 00:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I put enough cites and significant coverage that clearly shows this needs to be includedRacingstripes (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are just as good sources for many other aspects of the movement that we haven't included because they aren't sufficiently important to the overall subject. B^e——C_ritical 06:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No there aren't. I'm pretty sure you just made that up, becritical. The crimes committed have been significantly sourced on so many sites that I can't count, it is extremely notable and it's ridiculous that anyone would claim it isn't, especially when there is an entire section devoted to criminal aspects of the movement. Name one other aspect of the movement that has "just as many good sources that we haven't included in the article."--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The kitchen and its cuisine, which was even reviewed by the Daily News food critic. The medical and veterinary services. Those are just a couple. --David Shankbone 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about notable aspects, not random bubbly aspects that the liberal media covered to promote OWS.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking is one actual reason or policy why we wouldn't add significant criminal aspects that have been covered by multiple reliable sources into the criminal section.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's amusing since you are citing BigGovernment.com as a reliable source. It's unsurprising that you find every alleged grope to be notable, and anything that might be considered "positive" to be unnotable, but you asked to name one other aspect of the movement that has "just as many good sources that we haven't included in the article" and I named two. --David Shankbone 17:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about groping incidents. I am citing biggovernment because it has the list, the list has individual sources for each individual crime which are reliable. Those crimes, as you would have seen if you read, are alot mroe than just groping incidents.The protesters did over $40,000 in damage and Occupy Toronto, there has been violence, rape,and even two murders. I am suggesting we add significant crime that has been reliably sources and you stil have yet to give a single reason why we wouldn't add the information. I am not against adding the kitchen or the veterinary services but I don't see how that is notable or significant in any way. Kitchen/veterinary and crime aren't even on the same level.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We already have a crime section, so the issue is not being overlooked. This article is about New York, not Toronto, and any non-New York information will eventually disappear unless it has relevance to OWS. You should raise Toronto crime issues at the Occupy Toronto article. --David Shankbone 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

David Shankbone just gave you some... B^e——C_ritical 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at the time stamps, David keeps moving his comments above mine to make me look stupid. I am not sure if you know this, David, but it is considered bad taste to move comments around in non-chronological order. I am moving my comment back to its original position above yours. I was only bringing up Toronto as an example of things more than just groping, but there are many significant, well sourced crimes at Occupy Wall street. And the Crime section exists, yes, but you are saying that we shouldn't add information to it, and I am asking why.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, we keep comments together topically so that others understand which comments people are responding to, not chronologically, which is why I'm responding to you up here instead of below so that readers know I'm referring to your comment adressing me. I'm not going to bother to move the comments again b/c it's not a big deal. --David Shankbone 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The information you added about groping and such is just silly, and probably the kitchen would be more notable. We aren't a laundry list of these things. Find a bunch of sources, good ones, and write up a paragraph which generalizes, rather than being a list of specifics. There is also the issue of the section over-expanding per WEIGHT relative to the entire article. Anyway, if your "groping" addition is not representative, there might be some room here for change. B^e——C_ritical 19:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made a single to the Crime section at all. So you are attributing this "groping" incident to the wrong person because I didn't add it. I did not, nor am I in favor of adding groping incidents or things insignificant like that to the crime section. I am talking about incidents of significant, notable crimes that are reliably sourced.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Can you give an example of what to add? I mean proposed article text. B^e——C_ritical 20:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Schoen's Demographics Opinion Piece & Related Edits

So, for the past few days a self-proclaimed "anti-communist" (they're everywhere and all..), Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs) has been re-adding dubious material to the article when it has been removed. A few of these include placing this hit job by Fox News political analyst Douglas Schoen in the "demographics" section. At one point I pointed out the Fox News connection, so he decided it was then appropriate to note that he once worked for Clinton. For balance, right? Also, hey, have you heard—the Wall Street Journal reports that at some point OWS protestors have been using the bathroom of a local McDonalds, now that's big news! Notable even. And, not to miss an angle, he's also pretty fond of adding this about hearing loss to a drumming and dancing image caption. I'm not here all the time, so someone else might want to keep an eye out for his daily sweep. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be far more concerned about editors that are trying to manipulate this article in order to drive financial donations to OWS. Arzel (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's no good if that's the case, but I tend to be more concerned with the article body itself (I am assuming you're talking about the talk page here somewhere). :bloodofox: (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What concern? That you whitewash the article? There are enough OWS activists editing this article the way it is. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, does this mean that, in turn, I should immediately assume that you're bank astroturf? See how I didn't do that? Yeahhh. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with bloodofox, Certainly his first diff doesn't belong in the article. Maybe in the criticism section. We need to note that WEIGHT is relevant even if an RS has mentioned something. B^e——C_ritical 01:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Blood, you sound like a huge asshole who already knows all he needs to know about my intentions, so I suppose there's no point in replying. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your broadcast them pretty loud and clear, "fact checker". :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything appropriate or constructive to say, or is this section reserved exclusively for personal attacks? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this from he who just referred to me as a "huge asshole"? Coherence? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You've been accusing me of "hit jobs" in your edit summaries and then you post this tirade basically saying I have malicious intent and shouldn't be trusted. So yeah, I meant what I said. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's hardly how I'd characterize my post, but I can't say I'm surprised that this is what you took home from it considering what you've tried to pull there. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tried to pull". Listen to yourself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess we could continue exchanging one-liners, but I'll refrain from clogging up the discussion page here with one-on-one time. You may continue the thread you've started on my wall, if you desire. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no point in engaging your angry insults as if they were discussion. I'll be back at a later time to tag the article for POV and discuss some of the actual article content you've removed with barely a stated justification. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did "state" a whole paragraph above. But do return, this "dick" and "huge asshole" is always up for discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your above paragraph offers no rationale or justification for any of the edits other than than a few words asserting, without any explanation, that the material is "dubious". The majority of the paragraph merely lashes out at me with personal attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I find your constant harping of "personal attacks" to be incoherent given your keen fondness for applying them. That said, your attempts at angling are pretty clear, as I point out; WP:UNDUE is the main problem here. While your vitriol towards these protests is obvious enough, adding Schoen's hit piece to the demographics section, full of hyperboles, is indeed comedic, but entirely inappropriate, as Be Critical points out above. Further, the McDonalds thing is so non-notable that I find it funny that you'd even try to pass it off as relevant here, and the angle of drumming being loud and "damaging" applied to a caption of some protestors dancing is straight out any third rate regime's propaganda playbook; it's not neutral where it's applied. Obviously, those drumming in the photograph may have been drumming at an acceptable level for all we know but I guess the cheap shot was too tempting. Essentially the issue here is your evident inability to get beyond your personal prejudices and approach the subject from an objective, notability and neutrality-minded point of view, which is clearly illustrated from these edits. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You responded to policy arguments with numerous personal attacks, which you can't seriously deny, and I responded by calling you a huge asshole and asking you to AGF and not be a WP:DICK, which response I certainly don't deny. You have now devoted a second entire paragraph to personal attacks in which you speculate about my alleged malicious intentions, to say nothing about the personal attacks you repeatedly put in your edit summaries. Simply using the word "weight" in an attempt to dress up insults as policy arguments will get you nowhere, as will making baseless claims about my "constant harping" about personal attacks in a discussion section you created for the sole apparent purpose of continuing the personal attacks against me that you started in the edit summaries.

Huff and puff all you like, but slandering other editors provides no justification for anything at all and will have no effect on article content. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we hit maximum "huffing and puffing" when you stooped to crude name calling, "factchecker". I'm afraid I won't be able to outdo that.

But anyway, while you obviously have an axe to grind with these protestors (and now me, golly), Schoen's hit piece remains WP:UNDUE in the demographics section, as your cherry-picked Fox News employee's anti-Occupy rant represents only his opinion (his comments about the protestors being "dangerously out of touch" should be a good indicator).

And I note that this time you've cheekily not only attempted to extend the piece but, at the same time, removed the fact that Douglas Schoen's main gig is, indeed, Fox News "political analyst". Of course, we just couldn't have that, instead you've tried to pull a fast one by describing him as a plain old Democrat due to his registration status. And, boy, what a big, blue democrat he is known to be! You're quite the card, "factchecker".

But hey, perhaps you should consider some kind of anti-OWS blog instead? Tactics like the ones you're trying here will go over just fine there. And there might even be some Koch money in it for you if you're crafty enough, you plucky devil! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole section yet, but can everyone get back to being friendly, civil, and polite? Dualus is gone, there's no need to re-live the nightmare. Just saying... 완젬스 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can agree to civility. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bloodofox, and welcome to editing the article. I only read the top couple posts and don't want to read the whole story because it seems heated. I'll probably take it light for a couple days after tonight and hope it's a more friendly place after thanksgiving. 완젬스 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 31.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 31.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 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) 01:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article would be more precise of each instance of "protest" and protesters" was replaced by "occupy" and "occupiers." Maybe someone could do this automatically. The distinction is subtle, but important and political: unlike a protest, an occupation is a success per se, even if, for example, demands (if any) remain unmet. --Rirhat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.209.104 (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading summary of source?

:Police estimated that about 3,000 demonstrators were gathered at the port and 4,500 had marched across the city, however a member of the Occupy movement was quoted by the BBC as estimating as many as 30,000 may have taken part.[315]

And this is from the linked BBC article:

But a spokesman for the protest movement, who only gave his name as Aaron, told the BBC: "It is an order of magnitude larger than any protests we've seen and we've seen some big ones in the last week."

"There are pockets here and there going on for what seems like miles. I have heard people say 20,000, 30,000... it's impossible to tell." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.215 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Funding

The section called "Funding"

How can OWS have no central organization yet accept funds? How do we know that funds we send will get to activists and not scammers? A lot of companies are trying to profit off of the movement.

173.133.187.239 (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Moi

I deleted the funding section, and I have a minor conflict of interest since my invovlement with OWS (on facebook) has deepened in the last couple weeks. This might lead to a longer discussion, so I'll wait to see if someone tries to re-add the section. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS is a pretty big flavor of the month and they have a bunch of money. It is certainly notable to include that they have money, and where it comes from, and how it is being used. If it is determined that the money that OWS has is being used in a controvesial manner that should be included as well.Racingstripes (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds encyclopedic, but when I removed the section, this was the first sentence: Occupy Wall Street accepts tax-deductible donations, primarily through the movement's website. I have a pretty good influence on facebook to prevent people from sidestepping me and editing the article directly, without consulting me (because they'll do more harm than good and they know that) especially since I communicate regularly with people on the OWS finance committee, I can tell you they would never put that into Wikipedia. Whoever did it is a spammer who thinks they are helping the group (for longer explanation see here) but nobody from the "higher ups" would do something so ostensible or audacious. They have a bunch more money than is publicly made aware, so there's no way that reliable sources can accurately know how much they're worth. The fact all the protesters mainly want the funding used for is "free food" then there aren't really any big bills, except for hotel stays in NYC. 완젬스 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=461899967&oldid=461894460 (first enter, possible COI account)

Are you kidding that it is "certainly notable" that they have money? Don't you mean certainly obvious? Nice way to subvert the finance committee if you're a member of the OWS facebook page, because you're opening up pandora's box to expose on other things, if funding gets too much spotlight or emphasis. There's a lot of waste we're not exactly proud of, which will hurt the momentum of OWS, but I won't remove the section again unless other people back me up. Otherwise, I hope this doesn't open the door to turning into more criticism. I'll try to stay optimistic though, 완젬스 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone fix the refs in the funding section? I moved some info up and got the dreaded red error alert but when I returned a previous ref it still did not work. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the protest is against economic inequality, both quotes from Peter Schiff are highly notable.

NPOV requires that both sides of the debate be included. Peter Schiff is one of the few Wall St people who has been willing to defend his wealth. Both of these quotes are highly notable, and should be included:

Businessman and CEO Peter Schiff said to a protestor, "I employ 150 people, how many do you employ?"Peter Schiff Schools 'Occupy': 'I Employ 150 People, How Many Do You Employ?' Fox News, October 26, 2011 Schiff also wrote an opinion column where he stated, "I own a brokerage firm, but I didn't receive any bailout money... Yes, I am the 1% - but I've earned every penny. Instead of trying to take my wealth away, I hope they learn from my example."In Defense of the 1%, by Peter Schiff, safehaven.com, October 28, 2011]

I don't think there's been any better criticism of the protestors than this. To not include it deprives readers of the entire picture.

Given that Schiff is a target of the protest (because he's in the richest 1%), both of his quotes are highly notable.

Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP) or a place to post editorial content. This article is about a movement, not individual personalities. You are more than welcome to edit this page but please use reliable sources, rather than FOX "News". 173.133.187.239 (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Moi

Here's an additional reliable secondary source for "I employ 150 people..."--Nowa (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source, IP 173. FYI. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anybody care to discuss what was the rationale for removing this quote? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I say we should put this under the criticism section, especially since there is an "expansion needed" tag. It is reliable and notable, let's put it in.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from whoever removed it, or anyone who can speak to the rationale for removing it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seem like a legit item. B^e——C_ritical 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it belongs and deserves to be in the article. His comment seems like a reasonable representation of the 1% and it's not too harsh, not too bland, but just right. 완젬스 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref errors

 Done

With all the debate going on over here, somebody forgot to clean up the 13 reference errors (pretty hard to miss, there in bold red). Unless they're fixed relatively soon, I'm going to slap on a tag to the article. Magister Scienta^talk 00:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

...Or you could be useful and clean them up... B^e——C_ritical 00:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would advise you to be more courteous in your remarks. Secondly, the point of my comment is to point out the fact that there are some many talented editors here bickering over petty things when basic aspects of the article (i.e. refs) have major issues. Sorry if you took my comment the wrong way. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, calm down, I'll clean it up now. 완젬스 (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

완젬스 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Magister Scienta^talk 03:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Revamping the timeline section

What do you guys want? I'll redo the timeline section on Saturday, just wanted to give everyone 4 days to discuss what you want me to do. Long term, I think it needs to spin off to the other articles about the timelines and chronologies (as it currently does, but poor quality verbosity) so I'm volunteering to put in a couple hours on Saturday evening. I think it needs to be 1 section, between 3-4 paragraphs, and maintain all the "links to" Timeline of Occupy Wall Street and Occupy protests and Chronology of Occupy movement raids intact. I think between the 5-10 most notable incidents (unless mentioned already in the article) can be listed, but we don't need such a complete summary like the one we currently have, if this is going to last for another 11.5 months. 완젬스 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a serious WP:COI. You should not be making wholescale changes to anything. Arzel (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

완젬스, I have heard charges of COI before. Here's what you need to know about COI on Wikipedia: first, that it is important if and only if you make edits to the article which go against NPOV. Second, you should ignore such accusations if your edits are NPOV. So far as I know, charges of COI have been brought up several times against you, mostly because you have indicated you have POV, and you've both expressed your desire to see it in the article... and also said that Wikipedia comes first. So as long as you edit in an NPOV manner, you can consider charges of COI, when presented without evidence of POV editing, as void of any weight. And if such charges persist without evidence, as trolling. Just be really careful that you adhere to sourcing policy and neutrality. It's good you took this edit out, as it's not in the source. B^e——C_ritical 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@arzel An Ad Hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. If you want to say I have coi about redoing the timeline section, then you need to get a life. I picked about the most uncontroversial section of the entire article to revamp, so please give me a break. I ignored your other two occasions of calling me a coi editor, but you can't find a single edit I've made to the article ever... 완젬스 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BeCritical, the editors who have been around for 2-3 weeks know I'm better than that. I wouldn't even try to defend myself, but it's the 3rd time from Arzel. It's getting on the verge of disruptive especially when I just want to help a section which has already been discussed 36 hours ago by DavidShankbone, GandyDancer, yourself, and me. I'm just asking what people want, because there is agreement that it needs to be revamped, but no specific suggestions. I am a team player, and always have been. 완젬스 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a first step is remove any non-New York photos and information, unless a non-New York event (e.g. Scott Olsen at Occupy Oakland) had some sort of effect on New York. Occupy movement should be the main article that ties together the disparate parts to form a cogent narrative about the whole. For example, most of the information under Weeks 5–8 is not about OWS, but other movements that have their own articles. I believe it was agreed that while at the outset this article served as the main article for the Occupy movement, the movement has grown to a degree that it is no longer practical to include non-New York information, unless it has some direct relevance. The next step would be to ensure all major New York OWS events are represented. --David Shankbone 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The is another article for the overall movement and I think the timeline would be better served over there and major miles stones of the New York movement kept. If everything that wasn't New York information was removed that would be a huge start to a more encyclopedic article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Week 10 (November 20-27)

OWS Is a current event, not a former one. 184.210.203.236 (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Moi

What would you like changed? 완젬스 (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Contentious claims, unsupported by sources, about Zucotti park raid

A user keeps adding the following text:

The November 16 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show showed footage of police seeming to make a deliberate effort to damage items found in Zuccotti Park with knives and sawzalls before they were removed. Most computers retrieved were found smashed..

I previously removed both individual sentences, pointing out that neither is supported by the sources they cite.

The first claim is simply not made anywhere in the incredibly low-quality source (a blog named "SuperMomWannaBe"), which mentions a quote by Rachel Maddow talking about cops using sawzalls but says nothing about cops "seeming to make a deliberate effort to damage items", which seems to be POV-pushing OR.

The second claim is also not made in the cited source, which simply mentions that there were smashed computers but certainly doesn't say that cops smashed "most" of the computers. Furthermore, it should be noted that this is just a Wordpress posting by the "People's Library Working Group", cross-posted on Daily Kos, and so as I said before, if any claim actually made by this post is included in the article, it should be attributed textually. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Schoen article

I've pulled the following:

On Oct. 10 and 11, the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland interviewed nearly 200 protesters. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, 98% would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and 31% would support violence to advance their agenda. Most are employed; 15% are unemployed. Most had supported Obama; now they are evenly divided. 65% say government has a responsibility to guarantee access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement. They support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary.

The problem here is that Douglas Schoen's (currently employed as a Fox News political analyst) opinion piece (here) is controversial and has been accused of misrepresenting the data that the firm he is a part of pulled from his sample (200 protestors). For example, the following articles are highly critical of the piece:

• Benen, Steve. "Douglas Schoen isn't helping his reputation" at Washingtonmonthly.com

• Legum, Judd. "Doug Schoen Grossly Misrepresents His Own Poll Result to Smear Occupy Wall Street" at thinkprogress.org.

This poll should definitely be included, but not by way of Schoen's anti-Occupy Wall Street piece. It requires a neutral source. If Schoen's opinion piece is included somewhere, so to need be the responses. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll just say that Washington Monthly and ThinkProgress are not exactly neutral. Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting they be used as a source for the poll, of course. I'm just illustrating criticism of the poll. More:

• Maloy, Simon. ""Polling" And Concern-Trolling Occupy Wall Street" at mediamatters.org

• Weigel, David. "Doug Schoen, the Official Anti-Spokesman of Occupy Wall Street" at slate.com

If anyone has suggestions for a neutral source handling the poll and its criticisms, we need to use that. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about WP policy suggests that we must exclude this poll or the Schoen WSJ analysis from this article, and mainstream press isn't transformed into fringe material just because some bloggers criticize it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I flatly state that the poll most be included, albeit not by way of Schoen's opinion piece. But how are you somehow missing that these are all political commentators, including Schoen (whose article is in WSJ's opinion section), and not just "some bloggers"? Not your best attempt at a spin, but I must say that I find your consistent love for the outdent tag to be endearing. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You can "flatly state" whatever you like; WP policy does not require that we exclude Schoen's analysis. And yes, it's pretty obvious that the people making political commentary are all political commentators; if you want to make a notability claim, I'll take a single WSJ piece by an expert in the field over four random bloggers, who don't seem to have any particular credentials of note, any day—especially when some of these pieces that allegedly deserve equal (or greater) weight turn out to contain no actual substance (e.g. one of those four columns says nothing on the subject except "Schoen wrote a dishonest column full of claims that couldn't be backed up by his own research. Hey, what's a campaign ad if not bogus claims not backed up by research?"). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I "flatly state" something, I do so in the hopes that others will pick up on it, including yourself. The one article you're referring to sets out to illustrate how these "poll findings" are being used as fodder for campaign ads. For those keeping track, here's also a piece highly critical of both Schoen's declared as status as a Democrat and his methods from the Huffingtonpost:

• "Douglas Schoen, Fox News Contributor And Democratic Pollster, Fundraising For GOP Candidate" at huffingtonpost.com.

Again, what I'm illustrating here is that Schoen's interpretation of said findings in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece has met with criticism of his methodology. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous. As an experienced WP editor, you should know that doesn't mean it must be excluded from the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, upon inspection, it's clear that the HuffPo piece says zero about his methods. It merely says he's a partisan that's helped republicans and sharply questions whether he has genuine Dem street cred. Please be more careful when you are telling other editors what sources say. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to inspect a little closer; the "methods" I'm referring to include his presenting a particular brand of criticism (i.e. Fox News typical) alongside his declared status as "Democrat". This, as I've illustrated, he has been repeatedly criticized for; i.e. according to these various references, it's tactical and misleading. In fact, the Huffington Post article above references the following article in its first paragraph:

• Hananoki, Eric. "Fox News "Democrat" Schoen to do fundraiser ... for a Republican" at mediamatters.org

But yes, indeed, experienced editor that I am, I therefore state—again—that if Schoen's opinion piece goes anywhere, it need go in the criticism section, as it is criticism, and the fact that Schoen's interpretation has met with criticism needs to be included as well. The poll itself, meanwhile, needs to be in the demographics section from a neutral source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the objection - are you (or your sources) claiming that the poll is fabricated due to ideological bias by Schoen? Are the blogs that are objecting to the results neutral? The "Fox News contributor" thing seems irrelevant, especially given the ideological nature of the blogs you've listed as sources. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue isn't the poll itself. It needs to be included like any other poll. The issue is a follow up opinion piece by Schoen being used as a source for it, which has been criticized as being misleading from the various sources above. Schoen himself is a subject of some controversy, as seen above. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were referring to "methods" of Schoen's, particularly his methods of analysis, that have something, anything, to do with the quality of the analysis, rather than rhetorical methods used by partisan talk shows he appears on.

Also, not that I disagree with putting Schoen into the criticism section, but have you noticed that both criticism and praise are liberally scattered throughout the article? If we were to carefully segregate all criticism and praise into their own discrete sections, the article would look very different. Presently, it seems that individual items of criticism or praise appear in the topical section that is most relevant to the criticism or praise. Doesn't seem a huge problem to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean the partisan talk show that employs him? He's a Fox News political analyist. Anyway, his opinion piece is just that; there's nothing technical about it, and basically just reads as an anti-OWS rant, full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions. It's typical fare. What isn't typical is it being used as factual material in the demographics section here. Like I've said, and another user in an earlier thread stated when this came up, it needs be wrangled into the "criticism" section as that's quite plainly what it is, regardless of where whatever else may be. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claims are not borne out by reality. "Rant full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions"? Where do you get that? It is quite clearly expressing his professional opinion as a public opinion analyst—one that seems to be held in relatively high regard by reliable sources, and one that is explicitly stated to be based on professionally conducted research. Nothing in it whatsoever sounds like a rant. It is written in a disinterested tone. And it was never presented as factual material; it was ONLY ever presented with a clear attribution to the author. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be confused into thinking it's objective fact just because it doesn't appear in a section explicitly labeled "criticism". It was never presented as anything more than it is—his informed professional opinion on a subject on which he appears to unquestionably be an established expert. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people" doesn't sound like flat, personal opinion to you? Now that's rich. And the guy is in no way shape or form objective—he's a Fox News employee—so I would appreciate if you'd drop that byline; it's just ridiculous. And, yes, it was presented as statistically factual; the criticisms above illustrate exactly why that's a problem—the poll itself doesn't match up with said claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obviously his professional opinion, based on professional research, on a subject on which he is an expert, and is presented as exactly that. There is no magic "this guy works for Fox news so we ignore his worthless opinion" button you can press on WP in order to automatically exclude a well-sourced, relevant, and very notable opinion.

(And no, the opinion piece was never presented as anything other than the thought of Douglas Schoen. If there is relevant and notable criticism, of course that is fair game for inclusion, but not as a basis for excluding the Schoen analysis). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nay, Factchecker, there is no such button, but there is a requirement for neutrality, and the ideology here is thick and deep and must be taken into consideration before being presented as fact; opinion piece goes into opinion (including at the Wall Street Journal) and criticism ought to go in criticism here. It is unclear how Schoen's two other partners interpreted the data as, for example; this is Schoen's personal interpretation and commentary, published on a sister website to that of his employer, Fox News. All of which is entirely relevant, as the several criticism pieces above point out. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is a requirement for WP articles, not individual claims made by individual sources. If we required the latter rather than the former, a vast swath of WP articles would be permanently stuck in Stub status due to inability to add any content to them. We need not present ideology or opinion as fact, and the Schoen analysis you removed did not do so. Finally, any and all analysis or criticism of Schoen's analysis must, like any other analysis or criticism, be published in a reliable source if it is to be reflected in a WP article, and should only be given the weight it has been given in the mainstream press—in other words, a piece in the WSJ will generally be given more weight than multiple blog posts even if the blog posts call the guy a filthy liar.

So, since you seem to have vowed to remove this material so long as there is no "balancing" commentary, let's hear your proposed article text reflecting the "other side"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't state opinion pieces as fact here. There's no compromise about that here. If there's subjectivity from Schoen, which there clearly is, it's solely in the realm of his opinion. I don't need to lecture you on that. Attempts to weasel around the criticism won't be considered, either. As for the criticism, it would read something like "According to Fox News analyst Douglas Schoen ...." and then "Some political commentators have been critical of Schoen's analysis ..." with attention to what critic said what. Standard procedure. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This entry did have a criticism in our article for quite awhile - seems someone deleted it. Would the Washington Monthly article be a good one to offer an opposing viewpoint to the op-ed? Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed a claim he misrepresented his results, and an accompanying analysis of the results, neither of which were in the sources cited. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's on the lower end of what we should use as sources, but not unacceptable. The way it's used here, it's just stating some rather obvious stats about their beliefs, not to push a point the way it's used in Doug Schoen's opinion piece. The piece by Steve Benen, lead blogger of The Washington Monthly seems of equal merit. If they disagree over the facts, perhapse we would be wise not to use either. We might consider going straight to the numbers. B^e——C_ritical 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for just linking straight to the PDF and I agree with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, would you please stop attacking Doug Schoen. He is a living person and subject to WP:BLP everywhere within WP. As much as it may dismay you, Fox is a reliable source, and TP huffing and puffing about his connection to FNC does not make him suddenly not a reliable source, anymore than it makes the far left Think Progress a reliable source. His opinion is just as valuable and/or notable as the many on the left (like KO) that you and your brood are using to puff up this article. Arzel (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All the sources you've mentioned here are "reliable" according to Wikipedia standards, whether anyone here likes it or not. I suggest you write a letter to the sources critical of Schoen if you feel they're picking on him. As for my "brood"; care to elaborate on what that may be, exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news can be used for some things, but is a questionable source. B^e——C_ritical 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)If Think Progress is considered a reliable source than the standards for WP have fallen off the cliff. Your brood, is you, BCritical and your fellow Think Progress and MMfA reliable souce believers. About all they are reliable for is their opinion, much like Newsbusters on the right, and those that use them as a primary source always are editing from a biased point of view. Those that say FNC is a questionable source have no backing in reality or published journalistic studies as well. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

FNC = Fox News Network? It's questionable on Wikipedia. Do not call your fellow editors a "brood." Thinkprogress is not an RS for most things, and probably should not be used here. The Atlantic, however, is an RS B^e——C_ritical 06:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be around much over the next few days, but don't forget to think about what counter-commentary, if any, you wish to "balance" the Schoen opinion piece. And, it's probably best to avoid unreliable sources (such as ThinkProgress, which demonstrates its unreliability by manufacturing fake claims that Schoen never made and then refuting those in an attempt to argue that he "grossly misrepresented" his results; funny that they had to misrepresent Schoen's claims in order to say what they wanted to say). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Length

I know I'm somewhat of an "intruder", but this article is way too long, goes against recommended Wikipedia policy, and needs its size to be decreased. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 05:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So how would we divide it up? Which divisions would you recommend? B^e——C_ritical 06:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Music videos, parodies, graywater recycling of dish soap, the section where it didn't get much coverage during the first 5 days, goals and international response (send this section to occupy movement), chronology (this section I will work on this weekend), and I think the question should be re-framed: What do we really want to keep? 완젬스 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would go with the tried and true method of moving some of the larger sections to their own article (e.g. Background of Occupy Wall Street, Reaction to Occupy Wall Street) and then having the summary of that article on the OWS page. This was done with the History of ancient Egypt article for example. Cheers, and thanks for the speedy response. Magister Scienta^talk 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

완젬스 makes an excellent point. My own thought is, rather than move key info such as the background section to a separate article, better to move the fluff and trivia... if necessary. A reader coming here should at least get the basic information about this movement, its goals/aims/etc., as well as public opinion, and events on the ground that have actually occurred. Much of the meat of this movement lies in what people have said about it, as well as protesters' interactions with police, such as the pepper-spray incident, people getting mass-arrested while taking a particular stand at a particular time, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that we need to keep the basics here. But I see no reason to tag an article unless there's some contention about things, and there's not here. B^e——C_ritical 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can edit? Not really.

Someone on reddit proposes a correction. Did wikipedia benefit a lot by prohibiting that person from fixing it and leaving them to ask on reddit for help? --71.191.197.79 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Done. B^e——C_ritical 06:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Location

The protest in the US is beyond just New York. There are occupy protests across the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.229 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy movement in the United States

Should probably be merged or something... I tried to say it here but got voted down. Anyway, if you have time to give the situation attention. B^e——C_ritical 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)