Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Trinity Church

Trinity Wall Street Episcopal Church, an early supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement based in Zuccotti Park, had allowed Occupy members the use of meeting rooms and offices, computers, WiFi, bathrooms and cell phone recharging. When forced to leave Zuccotti Park, Occupy wanted the church to give them Duarte Square, located at the Avenue of the Americas (6th Avenue) and Canal Street, originally a bequest of Queen Ann of England in 1705, now valued at one billion dollars. Trinity spokespeople refused citing safety concerns and the lack of facilities for a large scale occupation of the area. Occupiers protested and marched on Duarte Park, forcing their way trough the fence. Arrests were made and eight members of Occupy Wall Street were convicted of trespassing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/occupy-wall-street-loses-trinity-church-trial.html

That's my suggestion for information about this. I originally came to Wikipedia to find out about this situation and I'm trying to provide a brief entry. This was an unusual event in which the people protesting corporate greed demanded more than their benefactors were willing to give. Labellesanslebete (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street according to David Graeber

I have removed a lengthy paragraph purporting to explain how anarchist David Graeber invented the New York City General Assembly after finding that existing groups did not properly adhere to anarchist principles regarding what a "general assembly" should look like.

The entire paragraph was sourced to a Bloomberg BusinessWeek article promoting Graeber's book, celebrating his anarchist credentials, and discussing his involvement in OWS.

One problem: at no point does the article say anything whatsoever about the NYCGA, much less say that it grew out of any of the seemingly dozens of individual "general assemblies" that the article describes Graeber as organizing, attending, or otherwise having been involved in. This is, at best, breathtaking OR—and at worst, it is simple misrepresentation of source material. Either way, it is unacceptable.

So it seems that Graeber's connection with OWS is much tenuous than we've been told—I note that the article cited is careful to say that he is neither a "leader" of, nor a "spokesman" for, the movement—further drawing into question the insistence of some editors that Graeber's views on OWS be featured prominently here, simply because of some kind of anarchist "streed cred" or questionable "founding father" status, while mainstream views that are more notable are relegated to a sub-article. Heck, even Kalle Lasn's commentary is in the commentary article.

I thus call upon any editors who are concerned about this aspect of the topic to clearly explain why we should be giving greater weight to Graeber's anarchist views and "philosophy of OWS" than to the views of mainstream journalists, academics, political leaders, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That line was changed from its original prose and i never agreed with it. However the source is RS and the claims (aside from that one) are supported by the reference. Celebrating his anarchist credentials? What?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't especially matter if some of other the claims are supported by the source. Without the primary claim (which the source turns out not to support), it's just a bunch of details about David Graeber (which is exactly how the source article is styled). Only by massaging this background info into an unsubstantiated and possibly false claim that Graeber organized the NYCGA (or that his various general assemblies became the NYCGA) do we have relevance to OWS that would justify essentially giving Graeber headline status. If we have to commit OR and bend the truth to fit a mention in, we've got a significant WEIGHT problem. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding direct action vs. petitioning the government, this is an import aspect, and I would say it certainly is supported by the source [1]. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:15, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I've restored that, re-written to track the source. The WP-article language about "petitioning the government", which the source discusses only in connection with Graeber's observations of direct action in Madagascar, had me looking at the wrong part of the article. Thus I didn't see the subsequent language discussing the other topics in direct connection with OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, while Graeber is not employeed at any major University at this time...he is considered a mainstream academic. Can anyone show how he is not mainstream? He is quoted and referenced by mainstream publications and I believe his books are not considered fringe in any way.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if Graeber, an anarchist, can be considered "mainstream" in any sense, to give his anarchist narrative of OWS more prominence than basically everything else that has been said about the movement presents a serious WEIGHT problem. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Graeber is with the University of London, and the Chronicle of Higher Education is a very good source. It looks like it should be included to describe the OWS decision making and direct action process. Also, I believe there are indeed good sources connecting Graeber to the NYCGA, maybe they were removed (sigh). B^e——C_ritical 17:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just now restored that, albeit in a form rewritten to track the source. See my comment above, posted at 17:35. My bad. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove any sources regarding Graeber and the NYCGA (other than the one source contained within/cited by the deleted paragraph). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is now deleted from the article:

Formation of the New York General Assembly (NYGA) began in June and July when a group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts (NYAB), began promoting a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind”. On August 2 NYAB met in Bowling Green Park. Activist, anarchist and anthropologist David Graeber and several of his associates attended the NYAB meeting, but grew frustrated when they discovered the event was not a "general assembly" that rules by consensus resulting from group discussions. Rather, the event was intended to be a precursor to marching on Wall Street with a corpus of predetermined demands such as "An end to oppression and war!" In response, Graeber and his small group created their own general assembly, which eventually drew all remaining attendees from the NYAB meeting and developed into the New York General Assembly. The group began holding weekly meetings to work out issues and the movement's direction, such as whether or not to have a set of demands, forming working groups and whether or not to have leaders.

Is there really an agreement that the source does not support this info? Perhaps I am being too hasty in my re-reading of the source, but it seems to me to be adequate. What am I missing? Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the cited source does not even mention the NYCGA. The source is basically a history of Graeber's involvement in OWS and his nurturing of anarchist organizing principles. It does not say that all of this culminated in the formation of the NYCGA. That's straight OR. (Unless there's some crucial source text I'm missing.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"The only part I see as OR is the line: "and developed into the New York General Assembly", the fact of which I have always felt was stretching things a bit from the source. It is not that Graeber started the NYCGA, but that the early meeting were intended and did begin the process that lead the the NYCGA. I am for restoring everything but at least that one line, but if others feel strongly about inclusion of that line as well, I can live with that--Amadscientist (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On page 2 of the article it says this:

On July 13, Adbusters put out its own call for a Wall Street occupation, to take place two months later, on Sept. 17. Setting the date and publicizing it was the extent of the magazine’s involvement. A group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods—stepped in to execute the rest. For three weeks in June and July, to protest city budget cuts and layoffs, the group had camped out across the street from City Hall in a tent city they called Bloombergville. They liked the idea of trying a similar approach on Wall Street. After talking to Adbusters, the group began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind” and plan the Sept. 17 occupation. Gandydancer (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that establishes the fact that the NYABC advertised a General assembly. The only part i am still unsure of is how this became the NYCGA as that single General assembly meeting was not intended to be the NYCGA. I believe the question is, how did Graeber's GA meetings lead to the formation of the actual organization the "New York City General Assembly"?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Madsci seems reasonable to me...Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would just note, not for nothing and not to be rude, that it doesn't really matter if editors "feel strongly" that we should include claims not supported by any source. Additionally, without that connection, I'm not sure I see a basis for including a detailed account of Graeber's personal involvement in OWS. Even if he is a central figure, he's not the only one, and this is an article about OWS, not Kalle Lasn, David Graeber, Larry Lessig, Cornel West, or other people that we can consider to be "OWS personalities". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the original sourcing for this paragraph draw the connection to the NYCGA? B^e——C_ritical 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier to discuss this if you would provide a link. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know several editors believed so, but it has always been a point of contention with me. As i said I can live with it as the interpretation of the material can be seen in different ways from the original source. To, me however, it was a matter of where the "Fact" is pulled from and whether the source material supports it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think that the "Daily GAs" mentioned are the NYCGA:

While there were weeks of planning yet to go, the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals, and the choices that would follow—the decision not to have leaders or even designated police liaisons, the daily GAs and myriad working-group meetings that still form the heart of the protests in Zuccotti Park—all flowed from that. [2] B^e——C_ritical 19:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's highly speculative. WP's sourcing requirements don't merely require that we find a source that kind of, sort of, when interpreted in a certain way, might support our WP article text. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt it's highly speculative. Let's see what others think. B^e——C_ritical 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is highly speculative. Just not implicitly stated. But the wording could be seen to support the statement. I could agree with it's inclusion if others were for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not stated implicitly or explicitly in the source; thus it is highly speculative. We're talking about a specific named group that is never named or even generally discussed in the source. What the source tells us is that Graeber participated in and organized a bunch of general assemblies, and that many future choices about how OWS protesters would structure their conduct were influenced by the success of one of these assemblies. Whatever we do say about Graeber, we don't have a source for the claim that formation of the NYCGA can be traced back to Graeber's early general assemblies. Thus we can't say that. We don't write articles based on speculation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict - I missed Factchecker's last post) (shudder) I believe that Factcheker is perhaps not correct in that it is "highly speculative", but certainly it is "speculative". ...we had so little to go with...I (gradually) knew that a lot had been going on prior to Sept. 17 and when this article suddenly was brought to our attention I was so glad to get some background...at the time (and even now) it strikes me as most likely accurate... This is difficult... Gandydancer (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

But the very first line of WP's central policy, WP:V, tells us that our criterion for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth." If there's a narrative we want to tell, even if it's a perfectly correct one, we either find sources for it or we don't say it, period. We don't fill in gaps with what we think, even if we know we're right. And those policies are there for a reason -- to prevent WP from developing into an original source of information. And, even if a speculative conclusion turns out to be correct, that does not make it any less speculative or any more appropriate for WP article space. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit difficult, but as i said, many editors do think the source does support the "Fact". I could see this either way, but still support the current consensus for inclusion at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:V is not subject to a vote and editors cannot simply agree to pretend that a source says something it does not. Spoiler: if you're sitting there saying "well, based on all my extensive knowledge about OWS based on my personal experience researching and editing this article, I suppose it's possible to interpret this article so that it might be read to support X", your in-article claim X is not verifiable. WP:V does not mean "readers should be able to conclude, after being given extensive coaching and background information by knowledgeable WP editors, that the information might possibly be supported by the cited source". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you were meaning to say there. Uhm...I was one of the editors that originated that line of prose using the source. It was changed from my original prose several times and then changed one last time by an unenvolved editor I believe) that altered the specific line in question to be supported by the source. Sorry, but I believe editors can see the prose as being supported by the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try it again with fewer words. Article text is not verifiable if it depends on numerous unstated and unreferenced inferences and suppositions, each of which is not necessarily accurate. Put another way, an assertion that relies on guesswork cannot be included in an article. The BusinessWeek source says something about Graeber's organizing role during the early days of OWS, sure—but it doesn't say jack about the NYCGA. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So it is your claim that the NYCGA was not a part of "What flowed" from the initial meetings? Isn't that OR?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You're suggesting it's OR for me not to assume or speculate that the source really meant to make a concrete (but unspoken) claim about a specific group it never actually mentioned? No. That's the opposite of OR; it's a refusal to commit OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You do realize some things are undisputable...right? And the NYCGA undisputably came after and from many of the processes put in place by Graeber....so yeah, it is kind of OR to claim the NYCGA did not flow from the meetings Graeber intiated.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No. That's simply ridiculous. OR has a meaning and that isn't even close. What *is* OR is writing based on your personal expertise and knowledge of the article subject. WP has numerous policies whose sole purpose is to prevent editors from attempting to do that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

But, you see...it looks to me like you ARE using personal experiance on the MOVEMENT to create original research on THIS article. I agree with Becritical. The article does state the GA's as the "choices that followed". They are talking about the NYCGA, because they are the daily GAs and the working groups are a partof THAT. Yes...I get it completely now. The source DOES support the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's where I'm at on this. I agree with Madsci and BeCritical in that the source is adequate for the information presented in the article. My problem has always been, and still is, the fact that we are filling a big gap in the history of the movement with one article, written by an editor that we know nothing about or where he got his information from (which may not be correct) and in fact he may have received all of his information from Graeber, who is well known and assumed to be credible, but may have colored his information to fit his own mindset... It would be good if we could improve our source, but for now it's all we've got and I'd like to see it returned to the article. However, didn't someone write a book on the movement? It sure would be good to have more information than just this one article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe we originaly had more references and they were slowly edited out. I can certainly look and see where these and other references can be found. I also agree that perhaps in this case it is vital that some links to any referenced material be included. With this, I can see a similar reasoning being made for other information to amend other sections that are currently being dicussed and perhaps this is where we see that some further information should be used (such as the actual CBO report to augment any interpretation of data from it, whether prose or charts, graphs etc.) At any rate, yes this should be referenced better and perhaps a closer look at the source is in order.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a book written abot OWS...however, it is self published.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No...wait, maybe not. OR Books out of New York and London and has a website. let me look further.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...I am so not sure this is a legitimate publishing company for Wikipedia standards. Here is the link to OR Books "About us".[3]. Here is the book.[4]. Now, there are some others but many are not coming up as "not found" through google books.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have some sort of memory of a good account of the early days. It seemed so complete and had so much information that I wondered how ever the author researched it all. That's why I think it may actually be a dream or hallucination. :-). Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, this is funny... Yes, there are some books. Here is a one-star review at Amazon: "This book is a complete riip off of Wikipedia. The author didn't even feel the necessity to remove the references from the wikipedia page. So save your money. This kind of books shouldn't even be allowed on Amazon without a warning." As the authors of this article, I think we'd all agree that although we did our best, this is about the last place to look for accurate information on the movement. On the other hand, I guess it was the only place to look... Gandydancer (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a fairly complete history article from YES mag [5] without mention of Graeber or anarchist wording. The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to believe that Centrify is right when he says that we sure are giving a lot of copy to that one aspect of the article. While it may be true that the ref is adequate for our article, it does seem we need to wonder if it's not time to get rid of information that may be just one very small slice of the information pie? Or at least, to look more closely at it? Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Graeber published a handbook through a publishing company but it is only available as an e-book and i am unaware of the policy for use on such.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I just got confirmation that E-books are handled the same way as regular books and we just look close to each author and their specific notabilty and other criteria for RS and then to be sure it is not a self published book (defined as "paid for publishing" and then even then that has some exception with experts in their fields when they themselves pay to publish a work). I was given this link to check self publishing companies: Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies, so some of these books may have value as RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that this issue has been presented. As I said above, I really do wonder about giving so much importance to the one source that we are using regardless of whether or not it is adequate. I'd much prefer something more generic like this paragraph from YES mag.

Meanwhile, quietly, a group of several hundred mainly young activists, artists and students started gathering as a “General Assembly” (GA)—a leaderless, consensus-based decision-making process. They met weekly in public parks, starting on August 2 and continuing until the occupation began, with the intention of building an organizational and tactical framework for the action. It grew out of New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, which had recently held a three-week occupation near City Hall called “Bloombergville” to protest against austerity measures. They had learned a lot from that and were ready to try something bigger. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar. The OWS book that I linked seems to be a reasonable RS as far as publishing and it lists a different figure as having moved the GA from the NYABC, however there may be more sourcing to establish this one way or another. At any rate i will take a look and see if i can gather the original sources and a few more to bring to the talkpage here.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! Gandydancer (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We still can't be sure that either source is actually talking about the NYGA. I again strongly urge that we should not make any claims that are not directly substantiated by reliable sources. Again, WP articles are not supposed to be based off of guesswork, however educated and responsible that guesswork might possibly be. This remains true even if editors feel that the WP article is not giving "the whole story". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In the YES mag article they are clearly speaking of the NYCGA. I will copy a little here:

Meanwhile, quietly, a group of several hundred mainly young activists, artists and students started gathering as a “General Assembly” (GA)—a leaderless, consensus-based decision-making process. They met weekly in public parks, starting on August 2 and continuing until the occupation began, with the intention of building an organizational and tactical framework for the action. It grew out of New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, which had recently held a three-week occupation near City Hall called “Bloombergville” to protest against austerity measures. They had learned a lot from that and were ready to try something bigger.

The GA formed an Internet Committee, which quickly became fraught with infighting about process, security concerns and editorial control. These problems consumed hours and hours of the whole Assembly’s time. Their site went up, then down and then finally up again just days before the occupation began. It is now online at nycga.cc, but it receives only a small fraction of the traffic of occupywallst.org. Only on Thursday afternoon did the two sites figure out how to formally coordinate their activities.

As a result of these hiccups, in the lead-up and early days of the occupation, media coverage almost always associated it with meme floaters like Adbusters, US Day of Rage and Anonymous. But none of them were especially responsible for what would be happening on the ground starting on September 17. That was the GA’s doing. Gandydancer (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that we should look at the original authors of the Declaration of the Occupation of NYC as the most influential people in the beginning (Ryan Hoffman and Lex Rendon). There is no question, in my mind, that Graeber is one of the most influential activists to participate in OWS. I mean he's way up there with Jesse LaGreca and Noam Chomsky. I would also like to point out the influence of Dr. Cornel West in the context of the movement(see Troy Davis execution), and the work of Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, Naomi Wolf (Shock Doctrine), and Slavoj Žižek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.195.58 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Graeber should be given prominent weight re: Occupy Wall St. (the New York contingent in particular) for two perfectly solid reasons: i). he was PRESENT at many of the protests and meetings; ii). even if he is not "mainstream," he publishes in mainstream publications/newspapers. The fact that he writes editorials does not suggest that he is offering a "subjective perspective" of the movement, because he does not tend to SPEAK FOR the movement (that would not be very "anarchistic") but often merely to clear up prevailing misconceptions about the movement based on his experience at the protests. Many journalists reported on the protests, but rarely were they present during its more decisive moments. Graeber was, and his dual function as activist/journalist gives him the only perspective capable here of actually dispelling rumors and reporting what happened, which ideas were present, what the different factions think, etc., not what corporate media wants to pretend happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.64.13 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Conspicuous Absence of any Reference Whatsoever to "Anti-Capitalism"

There are dozens of sources which bear this out, so any attempt to squash reference to anti-capitalism or even to socialism and/or anarchism are prejudicial and have absolutely no neutrality to them. It is by now "objective fact" that OWS is left-wing, but this page is hopelessly liberal garbage, total obfuscation of the actual ideology and practice of the protests. I've given up on editing this page to include references to such empirical realities, because the chief editors of this page seem quite intent on immediately removing any reference to capitalism or anti-capitalism; indeed the word "capitalism" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ON THE PAGE, which to anyone who was ACTUALLY IN ATTENDANCE of the protests seems absolutely absurd. If anyone has a conscience, they'll fix this oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this: In case it needs to be said, the overall movement doesn't seek to end capitalism, and even the source referenced can't be interpreted that way unequivocally. Primary sources need to be treated with extreme care and not interpreted. Cookie monster explains it best [6]:

"Capitalism great system. We won Cold War because people behind Iron Curtain look over wall, and see how much more plentiful and delicious cookies are in West, and how we have choice of different bakeries, not just state-owned one. It great system...built middle class...It system that reward hard work and fair play...Rich get richer, poor get richer, everyone happy...Now we have system where richest Americans ones who find ways to game system...poorest Americans ones who thought working hard would get them American dream, when in fact it get them pink slip when job outsourced to 10-year-old in Mumbai slum. And corporations have more influence over government than people (or monsters). It not about rich people having more money. It about how they got money..."

There might be some groups who want to end capitalism, but there are many sub-movement movements, and this particular article is focused on the overall (or mainstream, if you will) OWS movement. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:58, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

"the overall movement doesn't seek to end capitalism"

Deeply incorrect, and anyone who, again, ACTUALLY STARTED AND MAINTAINED THE MOVEMENT would put you down right there. These same actual participants are extremely critical of the "mainstream" interpretation of the movement. I originally posted reference to anti-capitalism with a video of MANY protestors chanting "Anti-Capitalista" in unison. Trust me: the anti-capitalist strain is not a fringe of the movement, it is the center.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since I didn't start or maintain the movement and don't know anyone who has, I'll have to take your word for it. Although the article can't really operate that way, so you're going to be reverted again, without reliable secondary sources stating this stuff you're claiming (I see that's just happened while I was typing this). Equazcion ^(talk) 23:12, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I don't need you to "take my word for it," because the sources I'm using are perfectly acceptable: three large banners at major Occupy encampments with explicit anti-capitalist slogans. If actual photographs of OWS activists holding actual signs which state general anti-capitalist ideology are not good enough proof, then you're being deliberately antagonistic to that addition, for whatever personal reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Pictures of banners are reliable? I could find you pictures of American and Pakistani soldiers stepping on kittens, but I wouldn't recommend using them to back any argument you want taken seriously. I'm being deliberately antagonistic towards the use of propaganda (it's a real word I swear, I have pictures of it on a banner). Equazcion ^(talk) 23:23, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

So do enlighten me: what kind of "proof" do you need beyond primary documentation of people at the protests with anti-capitalist propaganda? You'd like some New York Times article to admit that, gee, based on interviews and photos we took OF PROTESTORS WITH SIGNS, they seem to be anti-capitalist? I really am in the dark here: what's better than photographs or video evidence of anti-capitalist ideology AT OWS EVENTS to prove that OWS simply INCLUDES anti-capitalist goals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

All the while in the same "Goals" section, an assertion about the alleviation of the foreclosure crisis goes unreverted, even as it cites NOTHING in its defense....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS outline the proof we need. Photos and interviews you've gathered yourself certainly don't qualify (see WP:OR). Sorry for all the links, but explaining Wikipedia's sourcing rules would take a long time. My simple answer to you, which I attempted to convey above, is that photos and video often only tell the story that the person who produces them wants to tell. How do we know, for instance, that a photo of a banner doesn't just contain a couple of dissidents holding it among a crowd that gathered to say something different? You especially seem to feel strongly towards one point of view, so your photos and video are especially suspect. In order to avoid making Wikipedia editors responsible for verifying the authenticity of material, we tend to only base articles around content that's already been verified by the editorial staff of reliable sources, like newspapers and other published works. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but that's how it works here. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:41, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm not going to keep editing, because what piece of evidence could possibly convey that EVERYONE in the movement is anti-capitalist? Indeed, of course that's not the case. But it's also not the case that everyone in the movement supports the various reforms in the "Goals" section, and it is not possible to prove that with any better sources. The citation for "more and better jobs" refers to a Businessweek article in which, predictably, these goals are just asserted based on interviews and photos of protestors (that very same article features a photo of an Italian anarchist burning a police car). Why is that more reliable than primary documents? It's a news source! It's LESS reliable! It makes bare assertions without reference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, shocking: my edit which expanded the quote from the Wall Street Journal to include the preceding statements on the "commitment to left-wing policies" and antagonism to "free-market capitalism" was erased, and the "goals" cited from Bloomberg Businessweek without ANY substantiation reappeared. Clearly I am the one who isn't being neutral! cf. the title of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

When you finally made a reasonable edit after repeatedly disrupting the article with POV edits everyone told you were against policy, someone assumed it was also disruption and reverted you? Shocking, yes. When you feel like talking like a human, I'm sure people will eventually take you seriously. Feel free to defend your edit in a civil manner. I'll try to listen. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:14, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I am defending it like a human, because a human HAS opinions; you pretend that you would only ever remove "non-neutral" edits, but when I attempted, several times, to remove the "goals" which are quoted from an article in Bloomberg Businessweek due to an absence of any actual reference in said article to interviews or documentation of any kind, they were quickly re-established. If it doesn't make sense to you that I'd be skeptical of the neutrality of Bloomberg Businessweek regarding an anti-big business protest, then I simply can't convey anything, humanly or otherwise. If trying to convey that THIS PAGE has a detectable bias is disruption, then the Wikipedia guardians are just a bunch of hypocrites.

So far you've tried adding POV/OR content (against policy), and removing relevant, reliably-sourced content (ditto, basically), and warred to keep your edits in (double ditto). You're 0 for 3 so far. For your next attempt, I'd suggest a policy-based edit or argument, rather than getting your shots in -- which might feel good, but won't accomplish much else. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:39, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Then I should retrace my editing history in this regard. First, I modified the "goals" section, without reference, to include a general anti-capitalist ideology. That was, quite fairly, deleted for want of reference. So then I went in search of references, and cited a) articles published in the Occupy Wall St. Journal denouncing "the cult of capitalism" and b) videos and photos, none of which I myself took or put on the internet, of large Occupy crowds chanting and brandishing anti-capitalist slogans and banners. Both sources are PRIMARY, as no other authority exists to claim what the protestors believe and intend other than the protestors themselves. After these were removed, I decided that if such PRIMARY references were too biased, then surely SECONDARY references, let alone from the business press which incidentally didn't reference anything concrete, are too biased to include. So I got rid of these, and even extended an edited quote from the Wall St. Journal to include the reference to OWS' "opposition to free-market capitalism" and "commitment to left-wing policies" which I thought was conspicuously excised from the original quote. But obviously all this considered, I am the one manipulating the information.

WP:Primary sources are actually considered less reliable than secondary ones, for the reasons I explained. Your use of primary sources to add material and your removal of secondary-sourced content were each reverted justly. Food for thought, the people who've reverted you here are from both sides of the fence. Nobody agrees with you, and it apparently has nothing to do with their respective points of view. You just don't get how Wikipedia works, and I'd suggest doing some reading up on that from the many links I provided, if you're not willing to take our word for it, if you'd like your time here to be productive. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:55, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

My newest edit declares that "Some media label the protests 'anti-capitalist'", whereafter I cite The UK Guardian, a trusted news source, and then "some dispute this label," whereafter I cite The Huffington Post, another trusted news source. However, I suspect that this too will be removed.

Also, do you really believe that a secondary source is more reliable IN THIS INSTANCE than a primary source? The concern is what the protestors intend and believe, not what some outside media source thinks they intend and believe. The problem with this "goals" page is precisely that: it asks the wrong authorities. But you don't seem to want to address this point, you just repeat the same dogmatic "follow the policy" orders. This is just mob rule.

I haven't looked at your latest edit yet. Yes, in this instance especially, secondary sources are better, because anyone can claim to speak for the movement and say whatever they like -- and various extremists have done so on numerous occasions. Yes, we're all ganging up on you to make you follow the rules. I guess that could be considered mob rule, in a certain light... Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, I think that speaks to a certain structural flaw in Wikipedia, that by attempting to remain neutral it actually obscures the reality of the situation. An "extremist" may say whatever they please, but one of the overwhelming problems here is the unaccountability and unreliability of the 'mainstream media,' which is not a problem lost on some media sources: the press has an agenda, and in this case it could be more of a distortion than a primary source.

Yeah, we tend to trust the possibly-biased media over the extremists. A flawed system perhaps, but it's the best we've got -- for a leaderless movement, it's either that or post every crackpot statement appearing online, which would make for an exceptionally tedious article. Or a very interesting one, I haven't decided. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:33, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted two of Amadscientist's reverts of the IP who started this thread. I think the latest additions did actually comply with the repeated (justified) requests made in this talk thread to use reliable secondary sources, and blocking out these edits would be setting the bar arbitrarily high. (I also tend to agree that it's a little strange for the article to have no mention of anti-capitalism whatsoever.) Sindinero (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a courtesy comment for the IP. It is Wikipedia's aim not to second-guess the mainstream, but rather to reflect its views. Even if you are right, Wikipedia articles are not the place to wage war on what you perceive to be defects in mainstream media coverage. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I am letting Sindinero, I plan to revert that again. It is undue weight for the quote and opinion in the goals secton. I am against these changes (at least the quote-before and after its edit) If needed I will use DR/N. If there are others that feel it is appropriat for this addition please weigh in. This addition is disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the "Anti-Capitlasim" part being added in the article. I object to it being placed in the goals section. It has no place there. The goals section should not contain opinion peices as references (frankly the artilce contains far too many opinion peices). Goals are very straight forward. Anarchism is not a goal. It is just a part of the origins of the protests. Some say it has longer lasting effects on the NY protests but I have not really seen it. It actaully looks like OWS in New York is going out of their way to discount the original Anarchist tactics and infrastructure of the original protests. Socialism and anti-capitalism are not part of the New York protests. I have never actually seen an OWS protest that was anti-capitalsim. This is POV and to attempt to add it officially to the goals section is POV pushing. Opinion of what the goals are should go in the Reacvtion article. If you cannot find sources (and they are there) then perhaps the gaols section should be renamed to "Public opinion of OWS Goals". Otherwise we should stick to facts in this section and not opinion. My 2 cents.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"I have never actually seen an OWS protest that was anti-capitalism." See, I started this business by saying that I have seen MANY anti-capitalist protests at OWS; but obviously no one can take my word for it. I didn't put anarchism in as a goal; that IS an ideology, but OWS has not tried to discredit it, if anything, has had to defend its anarchist roots, which are still VERY evident. It is essential to mention, at least, "anti-capitalism" as a goal, because that has, and it's just inaccurate to say otherwise, been an essential aspect of its ideology and practice. It is clearly in the anti-capitalist tradition, no matter what liberals want it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing. It matters not what you percieve is clear. It is OR to state that one of the goals is Anti-capitalism just as it would be OR to claim the what "liberals" want.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

By those criteria, "goals" should not even be a section. If it is original research to interpret anti-capitalist chants, protests, and signs as evidence of anti-capitalist goals, then it is definitely original research to interpret pro-healthcare and pro-taxation chants, protests, and signs as evidence of such goals. The section should be retitled "Reforms" if it cannot fulfill its function as a "goals" section, which are NOT a straightforward category: you're conflating 'short-term reforms' or even 'long-term reforms' with 'goals' in general, which is a category that can include GENERAL goals like 'anti-capitalism' etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.60.176 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The goals of a protest most be seperated from what is percieved by others and what are the actual aims of the protest themselves. Signs alone do not deem what the original intent of organisers etc. How is this handles in other protest articles?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If the criterion is "the original intent of organizers," there's never going to be a unanimous consensus: it's up to individual ambitions & goals. So if individual ambitions & goals are just "perceived" goals, then some kind of unifying goal would, what, be un-perceived, an objective fact? I tried to make the case that what unified all the individual goals & ambitions was a general goal of "anti-capitalism," which I apparently cannot prove to anyone, especially not with mainstream news sources, was the "intent of organizers," even though anyone who spent any time at the protests knows this without hesitation. Obviously protestors would be appalled by the secondary sources which say things like 'this is a conservative call for law & order & basic capitalist principles like accountability' etc. etc. This page will probably remain deeply inaccurate forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.117.227 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to add "recent developments/aftermath" section?

Commentary's starting to come in concerning the question of "what next?" for OWS, and it might be time to add a short section to this effect. I think -- to be clear -- that we should avoid language that sounds like we're making pronouncements in WP's editorial voice, instead presenting various claims clearly as various claims rather than some 'truth' of OWS. A few sources that might be useful here:

• LA Times
• Natasha Lennard piece in Salon
• The Graeber piece that got kicked around awhile back
  Sindinero (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think centrify doesn't like press from other countries or something, and that guardian article looks great to the unaided eye, but with statements like

The US press seems to have decided that the Occupy movement is no longer a story. Pretty much no matter what we do. In New York, on May Day, something between 50,000 and 100,000 people marched through the streets – we don't know the exact numbers because most papers didn't report the event at all, and therefore, didn't bother to make estimates. In California, there were blockades and walkouts. In Seattle, one band of protestors relived the famous Black Bloc actions of November 1999, smashing many of the same corporate windows – and even that didn't make national news!

I think something like that is going to get British news moved into the garbage article as well, I'm not sure. Penyulap ☏ 10:46, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap I wish you'd quit calling the article a piece of crap which infers that the editors are inept and stupid. The article is not perfect but we have put endless hours into it and continue to try to improve it. Furthermore, please quit going out of you way to make snarky digs at Centrify. We have all disagreed from time to time and have been able to move forward from any hard feelings for the sake of the article. Sindinero, I think that's a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I most obviously did not say anything about "press from other countries". That's just silly. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"editorials by the state news agencies of China, Iran, North Korea, etc." Penyulap ☏ 16:36, 13 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Other countries were mentioned in that comment. If you don't take that incredibly brief snippet out of context, it is clear I am not talking about "press from other countries", but rather "government controlled propaganda factories of authoritarian regimes". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So you were talking about more press from more countries then ? Penyulap ☏ 02:07, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to rephrase that question. Its meaning is a mystery to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hijacking of OWS protests by anarchists

This has been a widely noted phenomenon. It seems the usual scenario is that an otherwise peaceful OWS protest is marred by a small gang of black-masked anarchists smashing things. Currently the article gives no attention to this trend, but it has been regarded as notable by the media and, apparently, by protesters themselves. Additionally, since we're giving significant article space to sources purporting to set forth the anarchist lineage of OWS, readers would be disserved and misled by a failure to also mention the uncomfortable tension between ordinary OWS protesters and the folks that show up to break windows. By covering the one aspect but not the other, our presentation is skewed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

By drawing a distinction between "ordinary OWS protesters" and anarchists -- in your naive, uninformed characterization, the "folks that show up to break windows" -- you're not only showing your bias, you're offering a shaky foundation on which to base edits to this article. Whether you're aware of the fact or not, such a simplistic dichotomy between 'good' and 'bad' protestors already constitutes analysis; if worked into the article, it would be WP:OR.

I have no problems, as I've said before, with presenting various and opposing views of a contested movement, so long as we present them as particular views. The anarchists in many cities, for their part, are sore about providing the organizational forms and laying the groundwork for the movement and often being hounded or witchhunted out of it, and see the more recent fractures and attempts to divide the movement into 'good' and 'bad' protesters as a form of cooptation. These are important and interesting debates, and I do think they should be reflected as a vital part of OWS, so long as we can do so responsibly.

Starting a talk section called "Hijacking of OWS protests by anarchists" is hardly an auspicious start. Sindinero (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this is not a concept I simply made up. A quick google search will reveal that this exact terminology has been used by both outside commentators and insiders frustrated at being associated with violent action. So kindly spare me the vapid lecture and personal attack. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with the content of what I actually said. This is promising. Sindinero (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, I appreciate your continued willingness to focus on the contributor, not the content. The single most helpful thing you can do on an article Talk page is disregard what the other editor says and accuse him of bias. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that I'm engaging what you're saying. I didn't disregard what you said at all, and my comment was a response to yours. I accused you of bias because of what you've said, not because I'm imputing a given position to you. This is a courtesy you haven't extended to other editors here in your continued and abrasive accusations of POV bias and anarchist cheerleading. The characterization of a political movement is a hugely complex thing, especially when it's a movement in flux. It can't be reduced to cliched soundbites or simplistic all-or-nothing statements, nor does it do any justice to the topic to suggest a facile dichotomy between 'good' and 'bad' protesters. These issues take thought and consideration; yet when other editors take the time to engage with your points, you're dismissive and rude if there's no "clear (read: facile) message". That's not super productive. I've said what I think about your suggestion, and I'll leave it at that. I'd be interested to hear what others think on the topic. Sindinero (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You've done little but impute straw-men positions to me. The only "difference" is that I suggested the inclusion of material that does not further the particular narrative that you wish this article to convey, apparently prompting you to manufacture absurd criticisms in an effort at character assassination. If you have some source definitively sorting out the respective roles of anarchist ideals and anarchist protesters, do let everyone know. Otherwise, drop the chicken-little whinging about what you think the worst possible outcome could be if we dare to consider reflecting this view; also spare everyone the TRUTHY lectures and the frankly idiotic comments about the sophistication (or lack thereof) of other editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how quoting things you've actually said has much to do with straw men. I don't want this article to convey any particular narrative -- can you show me diffs where I've made edits to the article that demonstrate your allegation? What I want is for this article to reflect the complex and contested status of the various discourses, struggles, and actions that comprise OWS. Nothing more, nothing less. I've said that I think we should include a section on the debate concerning the relationship between anarchism and OWS; approaching it under the rubric of "hijacking" is maybe the worst single way to go about this. And what exactly do you have in mind by "some source definitively sorting out the respective roles of anarchist ideals and anarchist protesters"? You mean above and beyond the current sourcing (including the recent addition of a peer-reviewed piece) concerning anarchism and OWS? It seems strange to request other editors to produce a silver-bullet single-source that will sort out the entire discussion once and for all. Would it be too optimistic to ask you to elaborate on this? Sindinero (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Chris Hedges has spoken of this problem and he should know since he has remained intimately connected to the movement. Do you have any refs Centrify? Sindinero, quit going out of your way to look for a fight. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how pointing out the complexities of this issue and the problem with framing it like this is going out of my way to look for a fight, and I think my tone is pretty measured here, considered. Like I said, I think the article should reflect the discussion about the role of anarchism, but should do so responsibly. I'm also continually mystified as to how you and Centrify can view the inclusion of claims concerning the relationship of OWS to anarchism -- presented as claims and not as judgments -- as POV-pushing, while the repeated attempts to make negative judgments on anarchism are somehow unproblematic. I'd respectfully ask you to consider what it might mean for your own assumptions that you can offhandedly refer to the role of anarchism within OWS as "this problem." It's not up to us to pass judgments on a political movements: we need instead to responsibly present the major contentions, issues, debates, etc., as such. It's my impression that Centrify (and perhaps you?) would prefer to present this issue as a "problem" or a "hijacking" in the article proper; I hope this isn't the case. Sindinero (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've pretty clearly stated that it seems like a very substantial POV forking/weight problem to me, since everyone else's views on OWS languish in obscurity at the sub article, while you apparently wish to give even further coverage here to what one outspoken anarchist scholar thinks. Unfortunately, you didn't hear that.

I'm puzzled by what you are referring to when you speak of "repeated attempts to make negative judgments on anarchism" by others, while you are (of course) just innocently and neutrally reflecting sources. That seems like an accusation that sounded nice when you wrote it but has absolutely no substance behind it (a habit of yours, I suppose?) And since it seems you can't say 100 words without questioning the motivations of other editors, I wonder if you could take a moment to ask yourself why—if we have sources showing that protesters or commentators complained that a protest or message was "hijacked" by anarchists, or complaining about being associated with anarchist goals or views—it would be "irresponsible" to reflect those views. Who, exactly, is in charge of second-guessing reliable sources because they are not appropriately on-message? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be irresponsible to "reflect" those views if we come across as making judgments in WP's editorial voice, rather than presenting them as one set of particular views in a contentious debate. This has nothing to do with staying 'on message', and I'm not sure how any even remotely reasonable reading of what I wrote could come up with the suggestion that I want to second-guess reliable sources. You've made your dislike of anarchism clear on multiple occasions; I hope you see that what any of us feel about a particular political tendency is totally irrelevant in this context. As I've said way too many times now, I'm all for a responsible presentation of complex, contentious debates, but not for WP articles making undigested judgments based on partisan positions. Sindinero (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So the entirety of your comments here were personal attacks, completely unconcealed assumptions of bad faith, and lectures about policy that I obviously had no intention of violating. In a nutshell you had no objection to reflecting this sort of material, and really had nothing to say other than that you don't trust my intentions? Absolutely delightful. Cheers, bro. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, sis. I was drawing a distinction between presenting a debate as a debate and importing one's personal political beliefs in the form of an ideological distinction between "good" and "bad" protesters. I hope you can see the difference there. It's not unreasonable, given your oft-stated views on anarchism and the wording of the comment with which you began this thread, for me to be apprehensive that your intentions might tend towards the latter possibility. You consistently accuse me of bad faith editing, and yet you haven't backed this up with diffs, and seem uninterested in answering any of the more specific questions I've posed in this thread. So yes, I suppose once you subtract all the content from what I say, you're left with very little. If you don't want to engage my specific questions or hesitations, perhaps we could end this back-and-forth and move on to specific suggestions about how to structure the section in question..? Sindinero (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind if I take a moment to unpack all the absurdity from your above comment. First, obviously I never said that this article should draw any "ideological distinction", much less one based on my own personal political beliefs. It's dishonest and insulting to suggest otherwise, and you derailed this discussion from the very beginning by doing so. Second, your unfounded assumption about my intentions is only "reasonable" if we change the G in AGF to a B, yielding a policy that encourages editors to attack the motivations of other editors instead of engaging them in discussion of content. Third, at no point have I accused you of bad-faith editing; that's a claim you can't substantiate, and I'd like you to retract it right now. Fourth, you can't seriously take me to task for not responding to your "more specific questions" in this thread when you went to so much trouble to preface these questions with finger-pointing and accusations, opening the discussion with character attacks rather than on-topic discussion. Surely you don't expect me to sit around attentively waiting for you to say something pertinent?

As for "how to structure" the section in question, I'd suggest that we include some of the published accounts of OWS protesters complaining at the disruption by anarchists or at the risk of being associated with anarchists, and/or similar discussion from outside commentators. But I'm sure the sky will fall if we do that, no? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you never explicitly said that the article should draw ideological distinctions, but the comment with which you open this thread, not to mention the title you chose, already draws an ideological distinction between "good" and "bad" protesters that seems to fit well with your views on the role of anarchism within the movement. That was my point, and it wasn't finger-pointing or a character attack, but an engagement with the content of your proposal. I'm not sure how to make this clearer. As for the other point (allegations of bad faith on your part), that's my mistake, and I take it back. I had you confused with another editor, and shouldn't have been so hasty. Apologies on that score.

No, the sky won't fall, and that's not a bad suggestion. The tension within OWS re: anarchism is an interesting and salient feature, and certainly warrants representation. But in my understanding it's (also) been largely an internal discussion within OWS -- there are non-anarchist OWS protesters who dislike the anarchist aspects, there are anarchist OWS protesters who were there from the start who feel they've been shut out or coopted, there are non-anarchist OWS protesters who are sympathetic to the anarchists. It's a messy situation and can't be boiled down to the simple dichotomy of [normal] OWS protesters vs. [outside] anarchists: that's already analysis, a value judgment, and factually incorrect. I think this is a fair hesitation to register in a talk page discussion of potential content. Sindinero (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment with which I open this thread and the title I chose both reflect notable views that have been published in reliable sources. You, apparently straining to find a way to make this debate personal, have chosen to ignore that and fixate on what you think my views are. This "value judgment" that you insist I plan on making is fictitious; it exists only in your head. I have neither expressed nor implied any intention to distinguish between "good" and "bad" protesters. I have only said that we should be mentioning the published accounts of complaints about, e.g., disruptions of OWS protests by anarchists. If these accounts draw some distinction between groups of protesters, and that distinction that casts anarchists (or some anarchists) in a negative light, there's really nothing you can object to. If you find any claims being made that are "factually incorrect", then we can cross that bridge when we come to it, but I caution you that per policy, we're not going to be removing or re-inventing notable published viewpoints simply because you, a Wikipedia editor, disagree with their substance or find that they miss the point.

This entire conversation has been an unnecessary odyssey into your irrelevant and frankly unfounded suspicions about my motivations. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to have a lot of information. [7] Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, Gandydancer. Any verdict on whether truthout counts as a RS? Sindinero (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! No I don't know. I read the whole thing and the Hedges article too to refresh my memory. I also read our Oakland article. I'd sure advise reading the followup notes at the article too - good info there as well. Gandydancer (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, which followup notes at which article? Sindinero (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be the "comments" section at the bottom of the article I referenced. I've read the first few only... Gandydancer (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually try to avoid those, since for most stories, topics, and publications, it's largely a stream of undigested prejudice. Sometimes entertaining, but in any case, nothing we could use here. Sindinero (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not my experience at all. I sometimes post at Common Dreams and find the Comments very well-thought out and informative - and once and awhile even better than the article itself. Of course they can't be used here but they are helpful to help us to know what's going on within the movement, which is good for the article in general. Gandydancer (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and after reading the comments, I see that there are some quite thoughtful ones. Nevertheless, I think forums like these need to be taken with a grain of salt; it could be quite problematic to (mis)take a given comment board for the pulse of the movement. The different and competing tendencies also tend to post in different arenas, and many voices will be absent from a forum like that one. I think you're quite right that we'll be better equipped to edit this article the more we know about how things are going for and within OWS (even in sources that don't work for the article space); the risk would be that a limited exposure to the full breadth of discussions on OWS might support our various tacit assumptions about the movement and play into our editing in unhelpful ways. That's my caveat, anyway, but I enjoyed reading that source, and think that (if it counts as an WP:RS) it provides a well-balanced, restrained survey of the various positions at stake, so thanks again. Sindinero (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just assumed that the editors here are aware that comments to an opinion piece are just that - more opinions. I read them and don't find that I'm putting myself at any risk, but others can make their own decision about that. Gandydancer (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The risk I referred to wasn't about mistaking opinions for facts, but about seeing one particular group of opinions as representative of a larger whole. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Sindinero (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's give our editors the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are bright enough to realize the difference. Let's quit splitting hairs and move forward. Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I happened to run across this: Graeber's reply to Hedges [8]] Gandydancer (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit War Prevention: Origins of Occupy Wall Street

Hello,

I am wanting to reach consensus with an individual who consistently keeps on reverting my contributions to the "origins". As I wrote the revision, I did not change anything crucial and I mentioned this in the "summary" of the edit. The removal of promotional materials at the end of the "origins" in the contribution before mine was a violation of the Wikipedia Guidelines, and some of the wording of the contribution was purely a leftist point of view, and not a neutral one. If you want to read my contribution of the "origins" with perfected sourcing then I'll recommend that you read this:

Main Header --- Origins of the Movement --- Main Header

It is reported that Occupy Wall Street was intended or its perceived intention as a response to British Student Protests of 2010, as well as Greek and Spanish Anti-Austerity Protests and the Arab Spring Protests in the Middle East. It was essentially initiated or founded upon, to a lesser extent, by Kalle Lasn and Micah White of Adbusters, an Canadian anti-consumerist and economically liberal publication, they ultimately planned an occupation on September 17, 2011 in New York City's Lower Manhattan. Lasn registered the OccupyWallStreet.org home address on June 9, 2011 with the sole Intent to gather supporters, and possibly schedule future plans. At this time, June 2011, Adbusters Staff Members sent a message to its subscribers saying “America needs its own Tahrir”; it gave the notion of the idea "snowballed from there" which remains to be unclear to mainstream audiences or the general populace, to an extent. As recorded, there was supposedly a blog post sometime around July 2011 in which Adbusters Staff Members proposed a non-violence approach of the soon-to-be protest in New York City, and in its financial district, Wall Street. Their primary Intent in proposing a protest is, as reported, is to address their redresses of accounts of progressive corporatism, and the lack of a direct democracy being practiced, in their view, because of the influence white-collar workers allegedly having over the political institutions in the United States of America.

As a first step, the movement primary "central leadership" consists of what they call, the New York General Assembly (NYGA) that essentially began in late July of 2011 when a group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts (NYAB) started promoting a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind”. On August 2 of 2011, NYAB met in Bowling Green Park; an activist, anarchist and anthropologist, David Graeber and several of his colleagues attended the NYAB meeting but the meeting grew in fruitation when they discovered the event was not what David and his colleagues had visioned. Rather, the event was intended to be a precursor to marching within the financial district, Wall Street with a corpus of predetermined demands to bring forth " an end to oppression and war!" In response, Graeber and his colleagues decided to create their own "general assembly" in which as a final result drew all remaining attendees from the NYAB meeting; it also resulted in the development into the New York General Assembly. This group which was indirectly lead by David Graeber began holding group meetings to work out concerns involving the movement's direction, financial and possible legal incidents such as; concise and stream-line demands, central leadership, and other traditional mechanisms in establishing a protest or movement. In attention to the principle location of choice by New York General Assembly and involved participants was within 1 Chase Plaza St. in New York City; it is the location in the city where the site of the "Charging Bull" sculpture is present. The "Charging Bull" has strong historical connection to the financial district, Wall Street in which represents the financial terminology, "bull" which according to Investopedia it means, "Bull markets are characterized by optimism, investor confidence and expectations that strong results will continue."

Sub Header --- Slogan: We Are the 99% --- Sub Header ---

Main article: We are the 99%

During the movement's first months, the active participants developed a saying or slogan to simply address their concerns that may or may not be directly tied to their demand. By reports, it is indirectly related but may be strongly debatable to the perceived individual income inequality in the United States of America; it is reported that income inequality is the main concern of the participants but no conclusive evidence has yet to be surfaced. Based upon reports, the slogan is derived from a We the 99% advertisement in the form of a flyer for the movement's 2nd New York General Assembly in August of 2011; it is the variation "We are the 99%" that essentially originated from the social networking site, Tumblr. According to Paul Taylor, he has stated that the slogan is "arguably the most successful slogan since 'Hell no, we won't go,'" of the War in Vietnam of 1955.

American Patriot J (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)