Jump to content

Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.35.13.28 (talk) at 06:47, 25 October 2011 (Talk:"Occupy"_protests#I_would_like_to_propose_Wikipedia:Project_Occupy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Why is Kalle Lasn not credited as Founder of Occupation Wall Street?

The New York Times lists Kalle Lasn's plans for Operation Wall Street in June 2011 as well as contacting 90,000 fellow activists: "Mr. Halper said he first heard about the plan for protests in June when he visited Kalle Lasn, the editor in chief of Adbusters, a Canadian anticorporate magazine, in Vancouver. Over a steak dinner, the two longtime friends discussed Mr. Lasn’s project, a plan to fill Wall Street with protesters as a way to galvanize anger on the political left into a revolutionary movement resembling the Arab Spring."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/he-made-it-on-wall-st-and-used-it-to-help-start-the-protests/

US constitutional convention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Reliable sources need presenting for this content to be included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://www.callaconvention.org/ has more information. Dualus (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Informer.com and callaconvention.org are not reliable third party sources. Wait until reputable journalists report on it before including. MPS (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this author and law professor? Dualus (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a Marketplace Morning Report and Dan Froomkin piece which were much less verbose.[1] Dualus (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see any evidence that the OWS movement supports Lessig's ideas any more than a lot of other reform ideas that have been floated, and I don't understand why Lessig is important enough to OWS to go in the introduction.
In my understanding, the OWS movement has not decided to back *any* policy, much less a constitutional amendment. Lessig was working with the Tea Party, not OWS, and to suggest that OWS has policies in common with the Tea Party, or that it supports campaign finance reform or public campaign financing, is WP:OR and unsupported by WP:RS.
What's the evidence? --Nbauman (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the connection between protests in the context of a constitutional convention and otherwise? Did you read the "Occupy the Constitution" reference at the end of the paragraph? I intend to revert. Dualus (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted it since there does not seem to be support to include it as written. Gandydancer (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that you removed it because you don't think others support it? What are your objections to the passage with the additional sources? Please respond on #Eleven additional news sources below. Dualus (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIU, he is or should be saying that it was deleted because it's not relevant to the article. OWS and Lessig apparently both support fundamental structural change in society, the former as an unfocused demand for fundamental change, the latter within the established structures for same. These are certainly related and if this article's subject was something about fundamental structural change in society then ... . However I don't see what specific relation merits inclusion at this point, supply that to advance your desire for the inclusion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Context in article to include images

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

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

In mid-2011, the Canadian-based group Adbusters Media Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, address a growing disparity in wealth, and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis.[1] According to the senior editor of the magazine, “[they] basically floated the idea in mid-July into our [email list] and it was spontaneously taken up by all the people of the world, it just kind of snowballed from there.”[1] They promoted the protest with a poster featuring a dancer atop Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull.[2][3] Also in July, they stated that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."[4] Activists from Anonymous also encouraged its followers to take part in the protest which increased the attention it received calling protesters to "flood lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street".[5][6][7][8] Adbusters' Kalle Lasn, when asked why it took three years after Lehman Brothers' implosion for people to storm the streets said:

"when the financial meltdown happened, there was a feeling that, 'Wow, things are going to change. Obama is going to pass all kinds of laws, and we are going to have a different kind of banking system, and we are going to take these financial fraudsters and bring them to justice.' There was a feeling like, 'Hey, we just elected a guy who may actually do this.' In a way, there wasn't this desperate edge. Among the young people there was a very positive feeling. And then slowly this feeling that he's a bit of a gutless wonder slowly crept in, and now we're despondent again."[9]

Although it was originally proposed by Adbusters magazine, the demonstration is leaderless.[10] Other groups began to join the protest, including the NYC General Assembly and U.S. Day of Rage.[11] The protests have brought together people of many political positions. A report in CNN suggested that protesters "got really lucky" when gathering at Zuccotti Park since it was private property and police could not legally force them to move off of it; in contrast, police have authority to remove protesters without permits from city parks.[12]

Prior to the protest's beginning on September 17, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a press conference, "People have a right to protest, and if they want to protest, we'll be happy to make sure they have locations to do it."[11]

It has been compared to "the movements that sprang up against corporate globalization at the end of 1990s, most visibly at the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle"[13] and also to the World Social Forum,[14] a series in opposition to the World Economic Forum, sharing similar origins.[15][16] A significant part of the protest is the use of the slogan We are the 99%, which is in part stated in defiance of recent trends regarding increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of income earners in the United States.[17][18][19][20] Former labor secretary Robert Reich argues that the concentration of wealth leads to economic crises by fueling speculative bubbles.[21][22]

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

The very last sentence is the only context. I would say the argument that is trying to be made is that when the top 1% make a certain amount of total income the result is a speculative bubble (per Reich) and that speculative bubble is a direct causation of these protests. Reich makes the first argument, although it doesn't explain all of the other speculative bubbles that have crashed, and I am not sure I understand the direct link between the two. The housing bubble burst isn't very similar to the market crash of 1929. It is a causal link that editors are trying to make. Arzel (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm uncertain if there is sufficient context for the chart to be in this article, the direct link is explained in the Great Depression. To clarify, this isn't simply about "speculative bubbles", when the economy becomes top heavy it fundamentally cannot function; and whatever bubble happens to be active becomes the scapegoat. However, the lasting instability (ie. lack of recovery, leading to depression) for a developed economy is rooted in inequality. There are details to the story, but the chart offers a clear lesson from history. - RoyBoy 01:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see any context to qualify this image use on this page and it appears to be original research with no references. There is also a problem with copyright.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, I think it's relatively clear that many (if not most, or all) OWS protestors are upset about wealth inequality. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that is not context. That's called a "Given" and we don't do that on an encyclopedia. We need to establish true context or the image has no legitimate reason for use.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If sources supporting that claim have not been specifically cited, it shouldn't be too hard to find some. I'd guess that numerous sources already used will show that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some context.[2] Jesanj (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jesanj. Would anyone object to the added information and references being added directly to the section prose and not just in the image summary. In this way, should the image be deleted (there are some copyright issues), the information will remain.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States.[23][24] Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters.[25][26][27] CBO data shows that in 1980, the top 1% earned 9.1% of all income, while in 2006 they earned 18.8% of all income.[28]

At this time copyright concerns are currently being addressed at Commons, the outcome is still not clear but an attempt for OTRS is being sought. Another editor has argued the issue using Wikipedia Original Images, however the full guideline here [3] states: Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. For example, if you take a picture in your neighborhood, you do not need to produce a published, independent reliable source to prove that you took the picture in your neighborhood. However, if such sources are available, please provide them. This is particularly important for technical drawings, as someone may want to verify that the image is accurate. At this time my only concern is POV and lack of reliable sourcing as the author has not yet provided the material to verify the information. This is a Wikipedia concern, not a Commons concern. I am still not convinced the information is wrong or the graph incorrect but believe it's use may be...may be point of view editing in only the way it is currently presented. I am not of a strong opinion on that however and see no reason to take any action such as deleting or moving etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References and using youtube

There are a number of youtube videos being used as references. The Wiki guideline on user submitted videos is pretty simple. [4] [5] [6] I think we need to make sure all these videos are being correctly used here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To which videos do you refer? Dualus (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All videos that are user submitted from Youtube should be reviewed for copyright infringement. I have had time to look at only one so far, the first one that was used and it did have multiple violations. Others may or may not.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ugly errors in references

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

Somebody deleted the original full reference and link, and left the subsequent reference. Somebody else will have to go through the earlier drafts and find the original reference. If there are any copy editors who enjoy doing things like that, they will be useful and appreciated. --Nbauman (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a bot for that. Someone should ask at WP:BOTREQ. Requested. Dualus (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a bot for that. In fact, it is my belief that this new format for references may not be appropriate for a controverial article that changes rapidly. These citation errors will continue to grow as information and references are removed. I know why this is happening now, understand how it can be fixed but think that it creates massive confusion, limits those that can fix the errors and just makes the article look like a mess. I think we need to reformat the references to the more simpler format.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of polling in intro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
While the lead could be longer there is a consensus against adding polling information to the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

ALso WP:LEAD#Length is not truly clear about that...it's a suggestion that may be used. The article is very long...and the lede could be much longer....but it also shouldn't have references. If the lede is a summary of the article then the references will be in the body of the article. But even that is a consensus matter. While it won't make Feature status as is, GA is far more forgiving if that is your goal.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, WP:LEAD#Length gives a precise mathematical guideline which clearly indicates that the intro should be at least three paragraphs. How exactly is summarizing the most recent polls giving undue weight to anything? My summary of conditions at the protest was also removed, so your argument is disingenuous at best. Dualus (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying an editor has been "disingenuous at best" is unfortunate. (And, yeah, saying the argument is so is same the same as saying the editor not on the up and and has not been genuine.) The accusatory editor has assumed bad faith and should consider a retraction. Then the editor should proceed to discuss the issues only.TheArtistAKA 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The section being directed to is not a bright line rule. It clearly states that this is a suggestion...and uses that phrasing right next to the mathematical guideline. Undue weight may be the perception of some editors in that it attempts to give weight to ever changing facts. Not something generally done in a lede section. However if consensus moves in that direction in the future it can be added back.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you think are the most important points to summarize? WP:MOSINTRO has some suggestions. Dualus (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be so kind to do more than link to a policy, let us know what aspects of that policy apply. TheArtistAKA 00:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I attempted to self-revert, but the 4th URL given was a null edit. Dualus (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could make at least one more attempt to make your correction. TheArtistAKA 03:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
These are the comments from the 3RR report:

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

I tried to revert the "4th revert" link[7] so I could be on the safe side before looking in to this, but it's a null edit. If in fact I have violated 3RR I agree to revert myself. Dualus (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is directly contradicted by Dualus' prompt restoration the text in dispute immediately after the link Dualus just provided and has not taken any steps to correct and has not joined in further discussion.TheArtistAKA 03:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have. I have commented on the article's talk page and stopped making reverts. Dualus (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last revert listed above (Wrong diff used, see below for correction) was made by Dualus, who has engaged in no substantive discussion to the discussion at that time or since. TheArtistAKA 03:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The 4th edit was, as Dualus has pointed out, a null edit. However, the immediate next edit was an acutal revert. I have made correction to the 3RR report of this error.
Taking Dualus at face value, I offered to fix the null edit, but this has been objected to TheArtistAKA 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fair. If you think I really violated 3RR and have a revert you want me to make, then tell me what it is. What I told you is that you could do it, not that I wouldn't object if you do. Dualus (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What do you think should be the third paragraph in the lead? The article is over 100,000 bytes. Dualus (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do I think? This is not an either or discussion is what I think. I'm sticking to the single issue I brought up. TheArtistAKA 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Organizations

My inclusion of the fact that the American Nazi Party has publicly supported OWS under an "organization" section was reverted on the basis that it wasn't notable enough. [8] However, this has been reported in several mainstream news sources and has a lot of hits on Google, so clearly people are interested in learning about it. The Daily Caller, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times and others have all mentioned it. What is it specifically that makes the support of this organization "non-notable"? The ANP not having its own Wikipedia article does not seem like a good reason. If it should not have its own section, is there a better place in the article that it could go?Boothello (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 35,000 hits in Google News for "Occupy Wall Street" and less than 300 of them mention Nazis. Please read WP:UNDUE. Dualus (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is faulty logic and hardly suprising since the ANP only anouced its support publicaly over that past few days. If such a standard were applied evenly, much of this article would have to be removed. Is it your belief that everything need to be repeated or mentioned in every article about OWS before it is included in the article? Or should we start going through the article and remove everything that doesn't meet such an impossible standard? Arzel (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus discussed above to remove fringe antisemitism. Dualus (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, that is because the claims of antisemitism in OWS are based on several reported instances of individual protestors expressing antisemitic opinions, which do not represent anything significant about the group. That's considerably different from wholesale public support of an entire political association. I understand if you think it's undue weight to create a new section for the ANP alone, but that doesn't mean the article shouldn't mention it somewhere.Boothello (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, reading the discussions above it seems like a stretch to say that a consensus has really been reached about the antisemitism issue. Nevertheless, it is not applicable to the question of the ANP.Boothello (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for linking to that discussion. I think that WP:BLP does not apply to groups of people or protests but even apart from that, the association fallacy also does not apply here, because no one is trying to insert specific claims about OWS into the article based on the support from the ANP and the CPUSA. Making claims about the intentions or integrity of the protest by virtue of what groups support it would be POVish and undue, but that's not the issue here. The fact that recognized organizations support the protest is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article. I think both of these associations are clearly notable. [9] [10] Are there any other (non-union) organizations that have publicly announced support for OWS?Boothello (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that fringe nutjob group X supports article subject Y implies some connection or similarity btwn. X and Y. The article on fringe nutjob group X can self-source all the statements of support for OWS it wants. On other pages, RS/NPOV/WEIGHT and a whole host of other policies counsel against inclusion of crap like this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the article implies an innate connection between OWS and Hugo Chavez and Gorbachev, well-known socialist and communist? Or an innate implicit connection between OWS and myriad miscellaneous celebrities, like Radiohead and Jimbo? No, the article does not intend to imply such connections, because it is merely reporting notable people who have publicly announced support for the movement. It is not our job to pick and choose what the available information "implies" about the subject of an article. The support the ANP and the CPUSA have shown for OWS is well-documented in reliable sources and it would not be an undue weight issue to devote an entire sentence to them. And it certainly seems like it would be more of an NPOV violation to omit them rather than to include them.Boothello (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense - to give any mention of fringe groups like this is a clear breach of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, and you know it. Stop wasting peoples' time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your rudeness is unnecessary. I'll accept that consensus is against me in this discussion. However, it would be beneficial if we could get some input from editors not heavily invested in this controversy.Boothello (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The primary vehicle for doing that is at the noticeboards. In case you didn't see, I took the liberty of starting a discussion for you since you appear to be very adamant about this material. Two uninvolved editors have responded and both indicated their unequivocal disapproval of including mention of this. One happened to mention, as I did previously, that this can easily go into an article on the ANP itself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Batra para - request for opinion

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

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[29] Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions.[30][31] In 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[32]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plankto, you are not helping your crusade by mentioning that he won the IgNoble Prize. He "shared the stage that night" with Ron Popeil - do you understand what the Ignoble Prize is? Here is his achievement: ECONOMICS: Ravi Batra of Southern Methodist University, shrewd economist and best-selling author of "The Great Depression of 1990" ($17.95) and "Surviving the Great Depression of 1990" ($18.95), for selling enough copies of his books to single-handedly prevent worldwide economic collapse.
Actually I do not hate this guy at all and I find his opinions quite valid and believe that his popularity may again surface. But for now, he is not in the "celebrity" circle, period. I have suggested that perhaps Plankto could include him in the list of the many names that are listed without copy, but he is not willing to budge an inch and instead insists that Batra have more copy than any people mentioned in the celebrity section. Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your insights. Now let's step aside and let others express their views.Plankto (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know.....I have always been of the opinion that "Celebrity" sections in articles of this nature are POV. The above discussion kinda points that out. Celebrity status is merely a point of view of individuals. It's easier to say...Tom Cruise is a celebrity....not so easy with others.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly, "in popular culture" items continue to persist. Dualus (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposed solution by Dualus and could accept modifications to the text.

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[29] In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions[30][31] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[32]

Are these changes to text acceptable? Plankto (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; someone else added it to the end of the "Background" section. Dualus (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plankto, please don't add the material again until consensus has been established. Let's continue to work out our disagreements on the talk page. Bowmerang (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your principal objection was to the explicit mentioning of a link between Batra and OWS. This issue was addressed. The entry actually fits well in the Background section by providing context to the graph, without broaching on the copyright issue. What else do you not like? Plankto (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using this [[11]], and this [[12]] to argue Batra's importance to OWS is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The sources are nothing but a list of 1987 NYT bestsellers and a book catalogue. His other book [[13]] mentions ZERO, ZIP, NADA about occupy wall street. Including it is blatant advertising and violates WP:SOAP. What we're left with is Batra's commentary on OWS and does not provide any background on the actual growth of the movement itself.
You are taking the refs out of context. They were brought out to establish notability and the existence of what became a #1 best selling book on the New York Times Best Seller list - Non Fiction in 1985. The link to OWS was argued separately, based on the title in Batra's article, the multiple discussions of this article on the OWS web site, and its presence all over the net - resulting in 2390 Google search hits. The third reference was to establish the 2007 book, which has in its title a message that relates directly to the OWS movement - and predicts it. Batra has a long record of socio-political prediction and has a had a national presence for a long time, whether you agree with it or not. Plankto (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Am I mistaken in believing that self-published articles (which don't make claims to popularizing the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions)[14], user submitted posts on forums [15], and number of google hits, are not verifiable sources? Someone please point me toward the proper WP guidelines if I am mistaken. Bowmerang (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal."
This sentence would be more appropriate in a celebrity commentary section. But it's merits for inclusion in that are still lacking. Multiple editors (including Gandydancer, LoveUxoxo, Centrify, Amadscientist, and myself) have agreed that Batra is not significant enough to deserve his own subsection in the celebrity commentary section. Out of fairness and respect, I will leave Batra's sub section in the background for now. But when other editors come to remove it, don't make the false argument that there is consensus for its inclusion. Bowmerang (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary is a stretch. Gandydancer was concerned with celebrity status. Amadscientist expressed doubts about most people warranting the term celebrity. LoveUxoxo was concerned about the relative length of the entry. Centrify was concerned, as you were, about the special relevance to the OWS movement. You then fail to mention Nbauman, who thinks Batra notable, and Dualus, who is for the entry and its present placement, in agreement with me. Given that the two key concerns were addressed, by not mentioning explicitly the link to OWS and not placing the entry in the Celebrity support section, there is now a concensus for the inclusion of this entry in the article. While it is not unanimous perhaps, it is a consensus nonetheless.Plankto (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:CONSENSUS is based on the merits of policy arguments, not the number of editors in favor of a given action. Not that this aspect of the policy helps making decisions any easier. Most editors feel that the policy arguments they agree with are the correct ones. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the changes were made to align the text with policy concerns of several editors. I would like to hear if the inclusion as now formulated in any way violates WP rules. I don't think so. By the way, an editor The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous just now reverted and took the entry out without participating in the discussion on talk - just stating "after 5 days of talk -is clearly against this edit. Unless other editors besides just one wish it back it needs to stay out". That is not acceptable behavior and without basis. He is imposing an arbitrary time limits on the discussion. In view of the changes already made today, and despite his failure to observe WP protocols, I don't want to risk overstepping 3RR by reverting his changes. Plankto (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also recognize that it's the burden of an editor wishing to add material to generate consensus at talk—not the other way around. This means if consensus for inclusion has not been found, the material can be deleted. The Artist doesn't need consensus for the deletion of material for which there has been no consensus for inclusion. What's more, this does not appear to be a case of one or more editors simply filibustering without valid policy objections. Thus in this editor's opinion, you should leave the material out until this dispute is settled. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Centrify, the discussion became a bit tendentious, which is a drain on everybody. Then it becomes harder to ask people to review a revised text on its own merits.Plankto (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5 days is a reasonable amount of time to get a consensus. But never mind. What is edit is being proposed? This is the place to hash it out. TheArtistAKA 22:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome Artist to the discussion. We have given a good faith effort at hashing it out here and what appeared to be a conclusion to a tedius, drawn out process, finally looked in sight. There have been objections, debates, changes and some novel suggestions. Feel free to review the proposed entry and, if you deem it necessary, to also run through the discussion from the top, in order to form your oppinion.Plankto (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this consensus for including Batra in the Background section? You have not addressed any complaints by simply moving the subsection. You have not responded to my reasons above as to why the text violates WP rules. Bowmerang (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit rich. I have now responded to your belated additions above. My conclusion is that you are not accurately associating the refs with what they are supposed to provide a factual basis for. Please review the text in its present form and present us with your reasons for violations.

Am I mistaken in believing that self-published articles (which don't make claims to popularizing the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions)[16], user submitted posts on forums [17], and number of google hits, are not verifiable sources? Someone please point me toward the proper WP guidelines if I am mistaken. Bowmerang (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think this concept of the "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" came from and the economic theory that a growing concentration of wealth causes speculative manias and a crash, followed by a depression? Do you think it came out of thin air or some establishment peer reviewed article? Absolutely not. It came in a book "Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions" in 1985, that went on retitled as "The Great Depression of 1990" (with a foreward by Lester Thurow) to become a #1 Best Seller in the Fall of 1987. The book was translated and sold around the world, to millions of readers. That is a verifiable fact. But you are right that it has yet to established in secondary sources. So far, I've only looked on the internet, but it doesn't go back to 1987, at most to the late 1990s, but a secondary reference to Batra's idea very likely exists in other published sources, either newspaper or peer reviewed articles closer to the publication date. For instance, one economics text book developed Batra's ideas and it was published in the early 1990s. However, this particular idea failed to catch on and make much of an impact in the economics establishment, as it was considered heretical. In a newspaper interview in 1987, a high priest of the economics establishment at the time, Milton Friedman, angrily denounced Batra's ideas. At the time, the role of the wealthy as "custodians of the wealth" and "generators of investment" went unchallenged, and hence the word "capitalism". Nevertheless Batra described clearly how a rise in wealth concentration was historically linked to growing bank failures and depressions. In recent years, this idea has seemed to become forgotton. Robert Reich then republished these ideas in his 2010 book, which could be the bridge to the OWS movement, but I haven't seen his presentation beyond the quotes shared here. As far as I know, his is possibly the most recent manifestation of Batra's original idea and I don't know if Reich makes an atribution to Batra in his book. Plankto (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's about right, although Google hits are often used informally by editors to gauge the prevalence of a topic in newspapers (I only ever do this with a Google News or Google Books search). It doesn't quite seem to fit with policy, but as a practical matter it's often done. And I would caution against liberal use of Google hits (especially from plain old Google search instead of one of the specific types of searches) to make a point. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Centrify, the number of Google hits was suggested as evidence about the link between "Ravi Batra" & "Occupy Wall Stree". 2390 Google hits, including an article where Batra uses "Occupy Wall Street" in the title and many pages on the OWS web site where Batra's ideas are being discussed. It was establishing the fact "about themselves" as the WP guidelines allow.Plankto (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem is that searching "Ravi Batra" on Google News yields zero hits on Ravi Batra the economist[18]. Bowmerang (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we put this paragraph in the recently deleted "Further reading" section? If there were two books in it, including the explanation here, I don't think it would seem imbalanced. Dualus (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Ravi Batra paragraph

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

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[19] In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions [20][21] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[22]

This is as it now stands.Plankto (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved in too many debates at the moment to wade back into this one, but it seems to me you are wrong to refuse to wait for a resolution via discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)\[reply]


You misunderstand. I thought a fair solution had been arrived at. Now, going through further discussions is fine. At the same time, the process needs to be respected such that involved editors just don't wander off without resolving the matter.Plankto (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I thought you had re-inserted the material. At the same time, remember that complex disputes regarding WP policy can be very draining and take a long time to resolve. Sometimes an editor may just be taking a breather.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Bowmerang, where do you think this concept of the "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" came from and the economic theory that a growing concentration of wealth causes speculative manias and a crash, followed by a depression? Do you think it came out of thin air or some establishment peer reviewed article? Absolutely not. It came in a book "Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions" in 1985, that went on retitled as "The Great Depression of 1990" (with a foreward by Lester Thurow) to become a #1 Best Seller in the Fall of 1987. The book was translated and sold around the world, to millions of readers. That is a verifiable fact. But you are right that it has yet to established in secondary sources. So far, I've only looked on the internet, but it doesn't go back to 1987, at most to the late 1990s, but a secondary reference to Batra's idea very likely exists in other published sources, either newspaper or peer reviewed articles closer to the publication date. For instance, one economics text book developed Batra's ideas and it was published in the early 1990s. However, this particular idea failed to catch on and make much of an impact in the economics establishment, as it was considered heretical. In a newspaper interview in 1987, a high priest of the economics establishment at the time, Milton Friedman, angrily denounced Batra's ideas. At the time, the role of the wealthy as "custodians of the wealth" and "generators of investment" went unchallenged, and hence the word "capitalism". Nevertheless Batra described clearly how a rise in wealth concentration was historically linked to growing bank failures and depressions. In the late 1980s, there was discussion by prominent Democrats about the unfeasibility of this concept being used in the national debate, as it was perceived as polarising and the economic thesis was not considered plausible. In recent years, this idea has seemed to become forgotton. Robert Reich then republished these ideas in his 2010 book, which could be the bridge to the OWS movement, but I haven't seen his presentation beyond the quotes shared here. As far as I know, his is possibly the most recent manifestation of Batra's original idea and I don't know if Reich makes an atribution to Batra in his book. The concept of the 1% (and the linked 99%) has relevance to the OWS movement, which has brought theis concept to the forefront of the national debate. The discussion is about the source for thes concept. Clearly, it does not originate with Krugman or Tabibi but with Batra. User:Plankto|Plankto]] (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your analysis. Please understand that I have nothing against Batra. I find his opinions interesting, and he's clearly notable enough to have his own article on wikipedia. The problem I have is that the claims you make regarding Batra's connection to OWS lack reliable sources. You're probably right that Batra's opinions have influenced OWS, and that he isn't being given his due. However as WP:V clearly states:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
Would any other editors like to chime in? Bowmerang (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear Batra has a buttload of bona fides, but yeah, where is the RS showing the DIRECT link to OWS and him? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You argue that there is no RS showing a "direct link to OWS and him". This is a mistakenly narrow requirement and not in the spirit of WP, which has rules but emphases judgement. Besides the evidence for a direct link in sources not deemed to fulfill RS criteria - even if this has been disputed, there is plenty of RS offering circumstantial evidence for the link between Batra and OWS. FIRST: Batra made a prediction of the current financial crisis. This was documented in an article in Huffington Post, where Ravi Batra was mentioned as one of ten authors "predicting the financial crisis"[[23]]. New York Times has online articles with coverage of Batra's predictions in the 1980s [24],[25], [26]. The financial crisis is exactly what is motivating OWS movement. SECOND: The sub-title of his 2007 book is "The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos". The OWS movement is a civil protest against political corruption and economic chaos. THIRD: Ravi Batra popularised the term "Wealth held by richest 1%". The OWS movement has used the "top 1%" and "We the 99%" as a catch term for its protest.[27] FOURTH: Ravi Batra has written an article in Truthout titled "The Occupy Wall Street Protest and the Coming Demise of Crony Capitalism".[28] In addition to its wide dissemination on the net, this article, which directly links the author with OWS, has been discussed on a nationally syndicated radio show, which bills itself as "America's Number 1 Progressive Radio Show".[29] The article predicts the OWS protests will be successful. The OWS movement is seeking to reform capitalism by reducing the influence of the wealthy on public policy. FIFTH: The Occupy Wall Street movement is discussing Batra's ideas.[30],[31], [32], [33] The OWS movement is discussing ideas to change policies. Batra's ideas about OWS are also being discussed by the Democratic Underground, a political movement for change.[34] Finally, here is a respectable political blog by Arlen Grossman about Ravi Batra's article on Truthout [35]. The above documents how this author has many circumstantional links to the OWS movement. The entry on Batra's views is therefore relevant, notable and merits inclusion in this article. Plankto (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this established a substantial connection between Batra and OWS, and the consensus has held against including him. Since when has the quotes of a forum poster distinguished in no other way been elevated to RS and not rightly regarded, as it has always been, an attempt at performing WP:OR? I also regret looking at Batra's self-promoting, and self-published, and unintentionally self-prodying article, the last paragraph of which declares "O' brave protesters of the OWS movement, your effort will not only shape the 2012 elections, they will also end, once and for all, the brutality of the rich and powerful." (Which makes me ask: can I throw up now or do I have to wait 'til later?) I can't join a consensus based on crud like this, and unless others, besides one editor, feel otherwise, I don't see that consensus as having taken shape, and it probably never will. Time to give it a rest. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artist, to use irony or cynicism to measure people like Ravi Batra misses the mark. The fact that Batra took chances with the marketing his famous book by naming it the Great Depression of 1990, doesn't do away with the fact that the core message of his work has been serious and insightful. To call his prose, crud, is a value judgement that doesn't belong in WP. To claim this is WP:OR also misses the mark by suggesting this is some homespun fantasy. It is simply a tactic to deny the circumstantial facts of the case. Moreover, the RS criteria is flawed as it relates to a well known bias of the media, including "respectable" newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. They don't like to cover reform groups or intellectuals. Even then, Ravi Batra has gotten coverage, including social parody with the IgNoble prize in 1993. But, in itself that's also notable although it doesn't seem funny today. The OWS movement has complained about the media bias and this is covered in the article itself! Despite missing his big prediction, Batra has continued on message for two decades, saying that a depression is on the way. What happened, there was a series of financial crises through the 1990s and 2000s, until the big one came. Moreover, he rightly predicted the emergence of a movement like OWS and its basic complaints. As such, his contribution is remarkably notable for its farsightedness. I'm afraid, the case is not closed, nor is the OWS movement going to "give it a rest". Nor are the social reforms that will flow from it over. If so, likely the contribution of Ravi Batra is just beginning to be recognised. I am not alone in supporting the inclusion of an entry on Ravi Batra, Dualus is also supporting it. Others have criticised the length or link but not the entry itself. Opposing it are you, Gandydancer and Bowmerang. That said, I will give the debate a rest and move onto other topics, while retaining my vote for inclusion, if others agree.Plankto (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're response is unlettered. Regarding cynicism - I don't don't doubt your motives at all and believe you honestly think Batra is a godfather of the movement. Irony, either in the contemporary or classical sense is also not used at all by me. I flat out think and directly said that Batra writes putrid prose. Though this is a not WP concern, but it exemplifies to me why he is of so little note vis a vis OWS. The movement has better taste and discernment than that. If there were RSs showing Batra as a central inspiring figure, and consensus went for it, I would not object. But we need RS, not a random forum poster extolling Batra. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I believe that The Artist has written an excellent review of the situation as it stands. Just a little aside information, way too little to get my point across, I have been around the block a few times and I remember back in the 70's that my group of friends and I (the "Back to the Earthers") were convinced that "The Great Depression" was just around the corner. We were reading Mother Earth Magazine like crazy to prepare for it. Actually my dad had written a book in the 50's predicting the fall of Capitalism. Batra is part of this New Age thinking, but he did not invent it as Plankto seems to think. The only thing that surprises many of us, is that it took so long to come about! Gandydancer (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer, that is interesting information. Did your father's book predict the type of events that are now unfolding and more importantly, did his book become a national bestseller? Plankto (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Artist, the debate about the aesthetics of Batra and his appeal to the OWS movement is you own contribution but good to see you recognise your own transgression of WP rules in making such arguments. As for other objections, the notion of the term "intellectual godfather" was simply to make the point that Batra's insights and predictions relate to the OWS movement and inform it while also clearly predating it. Let's not lose sight of the main rationale for including the entry, it is simlpy this, Batra
1) predicted a boom followed by a bust followed by a popular uprising against the influence of the wealthy in politics;
2) based his predictions on a Indian theory of social evolution and invented economic analysis with the very concepts that now inform the OWM movement, well before it arose.
3) recently wrote an article to encourage the OWS movement and predicting it will succeed. Among the many people discussing his ideas, are a number of participants trying to create a policy platform for the OWS movement on the unoffical OWS website.
Each of these facts is well documented according to WP:RS. The proposed entry is this:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[36] In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions [37][38] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[39]

My vote is still for the inclusion of this entry, while leaving the matter until other editors express their support for it.Plankto (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, Plankto's has explained his arguments well and has fairly and reasonably resolved to let consensus settle it. A minor quibble regarding a "transgression", Batra, in my view is a low grade intellect, but that is only my view. On talk pages it's OK to express such views, as long as personal attacks against editors are not the goal of such observations. I have only the highest respect for Plankto's intentions and actions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Artist, your knowledge of Batra is clearly limited. He is beyond doubt one of the most accomplished in economics in terms of output. He has written two text books in a very mathematically challenging field, international trade theory, which have been taught at the graduate level in universities throughout the world. [40],[41] He has also written many related articles in the leading peer reviewed journals of economics in the USA. This legacy suffices to earn him a place in the pantheon of notable econonomists. His popular works, however, have been aimed at mass audiences and hence using direct logic and readable text. He thus avoids the language of priviliged discourse which an intellectual elite typically resorts to, because he argues this group is subject to political capture by the wealthy. This was also a part of the anger of the economics profession at him. There was a feeling of disdain that such an accomplished and promising member of the establishment had broken rank.Plankto (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, but we clearly disagree, which I don't see as a problem. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

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

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

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

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

i don't see any reason anywhere why it was taken out. as far as i'm concerned, it should go back in there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the second version was excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diff URL please. Our article is named Antisemitism. Dualus (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&action=historysubmit&diff=456291906&oldid=456291420 Bowmerang (talk | contribs) (→Fringe antisemitism: Deleted as per previously established consensus)
I don't see any previously established consensus.
There is no consensus. Some of us disagree. We disagree because we have objections that nobody has answered. We disagree because nobody has given us a good reason that doesn't violate WP:POV for removing it. When there are unanswered questions, there is no consensus.
In the previous discussion editors said that it should be removed because they didn't think antisemitism was significant at OWS. I don't think so either, and neither does the ADL, but that's not the point according to WP rules.
The point is that there are many WP:RS, for example David Brooks of the New York Times, who have accused OWS of antisemitism. The way to deal with that is not to delete all viewpoints, but to include all viewpoints, which I think clearly show that there is no antisemitism.
For conciseness, this section doesn't give a long list of WP:RS of newspaper columnists in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and elsewhere who had charged OWS with anti-Semitism, but if the problem is WP:RS I could add them. It's clearly notable because of the many WP:RS claims of antisemitism.
Unless somebody can give us a good reason under WP rules, I'm going to restore it. Which is the way WP is supposed to work. --Nbauman (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this deletion of the antisemitism section was legitimate, IMO, because videos like this aren't WP:RS. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=prev&oldid=456032177
You may have gotten consensus on that deletion, but that's a different issue. --Nbauman (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections, I'm going to restore it. Going once .... --Nbauman (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as i said, i think it should go back in.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going twice .... --Nbauman (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

All of this nonsense about so-called antisemitism is a fringe POV attack on OWS made by POV warriors. It is .00000001% of the sources. Commentary is not [WP:RS]; even ADL is on the POV side. The so called Emergency Committee is tantamount to running a fraud - they plucked one idiot out of the crowd, himself Jewish, and tried to viralize. One person out of 100,000's. Oh - and one nutty woman who actually was Antisemitic. But User Nauman is not only doing a POV war, he is trying to do [WP:OR] by analyzing videos on his own and using them as a basis. To "include" means to have a "balance" of POV's, not mildly paranoid (ADL) with archly paranoid (Commentary). How about inclouding statements from OccupyWallStreet itself and its apparent bona fide leaders rather than propaganda screeds based on isolates? Wikidgood (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Shorten. --Nbauman (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny; the book whose existence you think should not be mentioned in that section header is the only thing even remotely linking Lessig to OWS, in that a single reporter suggested it could serve as a manifesto for the group. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh brother. I've never read it till now, but I guess that this line should send a red flag up: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters would arguably support... I'm going to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I also remove the other material that lacks any established link to OWS? Never mind, I see that's what you actually did. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been restored by Dualus — without the contextual hook I had previously added. I notice he also moved it back up within the section, so that it now appears before actual discussion of OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your "contextual hook" (many protesters would arguably support...) was not very encyclopedic, and it's misleading given the source showing Lessig's direct involvement as an Occupy DC speaker. Dualus (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cart before horse. Without a contextual hook, the material does not belong in the article at all. The material you're edit-warring over is also, itself, quite misleading. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your behavior on this and the George Will bit amounts to edit warring. You're forcibly adding POV-pushing material that is either poorly sourced, misrepresents the source, lacks a connection to the article topic, or has other substantial problems that other editors have raised. You have ignored all these objections, and the editors raising them, while edit-warring to keep the material in the article even though you appear to be the only editor that supports inclusion. Please stop. Dropping a template on your talk. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't read the above, but there's a source which shows Lessig speaking at Occupy DC and there are other sources with him speaking in New York and Boston. How do you think which source is misrepresented? I've discussed every edit. What problems do you have with the current state of the George Will quote? Dualus (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? The objections by other editors that you ignored are in the exact same place we were previously discussing this issue; they haven't moved. Also, simply mentioning on the Talk page that you are making an edit that every other editor discussing the subject has objected to is not what is meant by discussing edits at the talk page, nor does it reflect any attempt to achieve consensus prior to editing. That's great that Lessig has spoken at an OWS event (if you're not somehow also distorting that source); but this doesn't mean that everything Lessig does that could possibly be of interest to OWS protesters becomes part of this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the moment there are sources in the article saying Lessig joined the protesters and he adds credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bologna

I agree with this edit.[42]. We need to scrupulously adhere to BLP in dealing with this sensitive issue. However, perhaps I've missed it in this long article, but I see no reference to media reports that Bologna is being disciplined and may be docked vacation days. That is relevant and belongs in the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that edit. WP:BLP allows accusations of crimes and misdoings as long as they are well-sourced to WP:RS. The Guardian is clearly WP:RS. There have been lots of articles about this in the New York Times and other major WP:RS, which you can easily find with a search of Google News. The police department said that Bologna was suspended from his duties (with pay, as I recall), and that the department of internal affairs was conducting an investigation. The Patrolman's Benevolent Association issued a statement defending Bologna. And one of the civil liberties law firms has sued the city for Bologna's actions. The legal documents are public records, and the news stories based on them are WP:RS. Google those sources, insert the links, put it back in the article, and there are no problems with WP:BLP. In fact, WP:NPOV requires it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article may help in the above argument: 'I'd do it again,' says police commander filmed pepper spraying the faces of women at Occupy Wall Street protest (Last updated at 3:04 PM on 21st October 2011) --207.237.7.144 (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a good addition in the spirit of bending over backwards to be fair to the accused. --Nbauman (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of events

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

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

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

That seems like a good idea to me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy_Wall_Street#Further_reading

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

I agree. Dualus (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about restoring this and adding the Ravi Batra book paragraph? Dualus (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have no opinion on the ravi batra book, because i don't want to join that discussion; too much to catch up on. you all do what you want with that. but i am still absolutely opposed to the book that was in there previously being replaced. since it's not actually about OWS, but seems to tacitly purport to explain why there is an OWS, it seems to me to constitute synth. my impression of the batra book is that it would have the same problem *if* it were placed in a reconstituted further reading section. this remark is *not*, please, to be construed as an opinion on anything to do with ravi batra outside of the issue of putting his books in a new further reading section.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Convention

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

You are referring to this section:
Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution[33] at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[34] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,[35] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[36] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.[37] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[38] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[39] Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan,[40] Karl Auerbach,[41] and others.[42]
which both you and Gandydancer have deleted. You claim the sources are not reliable, but TreeHugger is an established Discovery Communications blog with a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I will ask on WP:RSN. Dualus (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Treehugger article is not written by a journalist, but by their Social Media editor - the guy who pimps the site via Twitter, Facebook and whatever else in the social space can help promote Treehugger. His writings are hardly serious journalism: one of his articles such as as this one of which the lead sentence is "What's your favorite pair of old shoes?"|, and is essential a shopping guide for the green minded. Mr Tackett's makes it clear that he has never worked as a reporter. Their is no way the Treehugger article can be seen as reliable. TheArtistAKA 19:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that Tackett is not a journalist? The link you say says he's not a reporter begins, "After earning a degree in Journalism...." I've asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Lawrence Lessig part of the Occupy movement? Dualus (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...and Strategic Communications" is what the degree is , which the Universtiy of Kansas tells us includes marketing. Again, I'm am not able to find anything that indicates that Tackett has been a professional journalist, nor is he now one. TheArtistAKA 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with Arzel, Gandydancer, and TheArtistAKA on this one. Bowmerang (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just absurd, and further evidence of WP:TAGTEAMing. If you have a degree in journalism and underwater basket weaving and you work for Discovery Communications as a daily blogger for a site ranked better than 1,600th in the US then you are a journalist. It is unbelievable and petty that people are seriously trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Froomkin and Shane have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have offered no proof of meatpuppetry, and have only shown nothing more than baselesss suspicions of it. Do have anything to show that Tackett has ever been a professional journalist, such as articles with real reporting, not agrregating? TheArtistAKA 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please note also Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin's comments, "Occupy the Constitution." Dualus (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linking is not a substitute for discussion. What are we supposed to see here? We are not obliged to guess what is obliquely referred to. TheArtistAKA 21:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes. The second paragraph of that piece, posted yesterday, is a single sentence which states:

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

These are the same OWS protesters who you seem to think are responsible for Larry Lessig's proposed constitutional convention and book about political reform, right? And I suppose the book, published on October 5th, was dashed out and fast-tracked through the publication process after three weeks of intense collaboration with the leaderless resistance movement? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that out-of-context quote was representative of the entire piece, you still have not addressed Dan Froomkin[43] and Peter M. Shane[44]. Dualus (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please address at least one thing we are supposed to get not "out-of-context" so we know what your point might be. We can't read minds. We are not inclined to go on what may be wild goose chases. TheArtistAKA 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Two other sources that also don't say that OWS was somehow responsible for Lessig's book and conference? What is it I'm supposed to be "addressing"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven additional news sources

Here are three more news sources mentioning the constitutional amendment: [45], [46], [47]. Here's a Politico story devoting four paragraphs to Lessig and OWS, including, "Lessig suggested that a constitutional convention, which would require states to force Congress to call one, would be an appropriate vehicle for fundamentally reforming the nation’s campaign finance system." Here's Greg Mitchell's "OccupyUSA" blog: "Cenk 'Young Turk' Uygur launches his WolfPac, which asks citizens to occupy their local state houses to force the states to call for a Constitutional convention to pass an amendment that bans corporations from buying politicians. Also at www.Wolf-PAC.com," with confirmation from ThinkProgress. And here's a story, "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" mentioning, "a ban on private contributions to politicians seeking or holding federal office and instead public financing for campaigns, and a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision." Dualus (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three posts by Lessig on OWS: [48], [49], [50]. Here's a Slate story with a third party account of Lessig's support for OWS, indicating that he and Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lend credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point/pupose of this barrage of links? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and others have suggested above and in this sub-section's section that inclusion of the paragraph on the constitutional convention is unwarranted because it is insufficiently sourced. I intend to address that issue. Dualus (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify specific text for any source and the claim you believe it supports. It is not possible for the discussion to proceed without analysis of specific text. Simply listing sources is not helpful; it simply makes work for editors just to figure out what you are talking about. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I have quoted such passages in the paragraph above. You will note that in addition to being listed, I have also described all but six of the sources. Would you please state your remaining objections to inclusion of the paragraph, in light of these new sources? Dualus (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming every source whose text you quoted is acceptable (I didn't check), what you've got is substantiation for saying in the reaction/commentary section, not the background section that Lawrence Lessig has spoken at some OWS events and made very encouraging comments, and that Dan Froomkin thinks his recent book might serve as a manifesto for OWS because its message is relevant to their interests. The rest is general stuff about Lessig and others that should not be in the article. Regarding the conference and suggested constitutional convention, if I had to guess, I'd say even if you found all the most OWS-relevant sources out there, at most we'll be able to say that OWS protesters think that would be a really good idea. I sincerely doubt you'll find anything genuinely indicating OWS had a hand in either.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This never was in the Background section, it was in "Demands and goals." What do you think of the Slate article saying Lessig lends credibility to the movement because of his call for a constitutional convention? I intend to add that, along with the other summaries. What in particular are you referring to by "general stuff about Lessig and others that should not be in the article"? That 99% Declaration which you got such a laugh out of turns out to have been the only document thus far endorsed by the New York City General Assembly, and it specifically calls for a constitutional convention. Does anyone object to adding any of these facts, given these new sources? Dualus (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the sections are called, it should go in the section describing responses and commentary on OWS. I don't see a problem with discussing a Slate article that says what you just described, but of course you should take care in how you describe it. As for "adding [other] facts, given these new sources", whatever those are, you should discuss them here first before adding them. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should go in "Demands and goals" because the sources specifically mention those. Dualus (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest attempt:

The protesters have joined[43][44] Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig's call for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution[45][33] made at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[34] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,[35] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[36][46] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.[37] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[47]) Lessig, who adds credibility to the movement,[48] also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[38] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[49] Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan,[40] Karl Auerbach,[41] Cenk Uygur,[50] and others.[51]

I added [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Should I add [57] too, to show it's a national position? Dualus (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is improved somewhat, but is still problematic — for one thing, it's very heavy on information that may be of interest to OWS, but is not about OWS. Also, I urge you once again to avoid simply listing a large number of sources without quoting specific language and connecting it with a specific proposition that you think each source supports. Look at it this way: if you are trying to make a point, do the hard work yourself instead of making it an uphill climb for other editors, who have to do a bunch of source reading just to figure out what you're saying. A lot more people will be willing to read and listen to your argument that way. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Centrify, especially about the direct quotes.
I couldn't find anything in the sources that supports the claim that "The protesters have joined" Lessig. On the contrary, the sources specifically say that the General Assembly hasn't aproved it. Can you give me a direct quote that supports it? Otherwise, there's a strong argument for deletion.
If the General Assembly has created a working group on a constitutional convention, I could accept including that qualified statement in the story -- as long as it made clear that it was a working group to discuss the issue, and that it hadn't approved it. Otherwise, it should be deleted.
If Lessig supports OWS, it doesn't follow that OWS support's Lessig's idea. That's reasoning from a converse. --Nbauman (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Gen. Assy's Demands Working Group has called for a constitutional amendment and convention. The Slate article has a direct quote saying Lessig adds credibility to the protesters. Is that good enough? Those are already in there. Dualus (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dualus, it is a bit frustrating to me that I am giving so much thought and detailed attention to discussing this issue with you (as are several other editors), yet when you find you aren't getting the agreement you want, you just go ahead and insert the material anyway. As previously mentioned, this is WP:edit-warring. Please don't persist in it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what changes you are trying to get me to make. If you are unwilling to read the sources, I will discount your objections as uninformed, just as I would hope you would discount my opinion if I refused to read the sources you summarize. Dualus (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now asked you about ten times to cite specific source text that you think supports specific claims you think should be reflected in the article. In virtually every instance you've responded by refusing to cite any specific text, making the highly general cop-out comment that "readers can judge for themselves", and often simply spam more sources without any specific text indicated or any specific claim we're supposed to check the sources for. And when I have taken the initiative of poring through entire sources to try to figure out what exactly it is you think the sources say, in every case it has become clear that you were exaggerating or otherwise distorting what was in the source.
You can't simply spam sources without specificity, declaring that they unequivocally support every single POV-pushing claim you've inserted, and call it a day. It's not up to other editors to make an exhaustive line-by-line analysis showing that the sources don't support your edits (ever hear of "proving a negative"? very similar phenomenon). Rather, you identify the text that does support your edit, and present that to other editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited and quoted specific passages, at the beginning of this section, so you are plain wrong. I will respond further to your essentially duplicate comments below at #Questionable claims of consensus. Dualus (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dualus, I'd like to help you get this in, but I can't find the text. Can you quote the text from one of those WP:RS that says that the General Assembly appointed a Working Group to study the question of a Constitutional Convention? --Nbauman (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! "[demands] Number one and two are a ban on private contributions to politicians seeking or holding federal office and instead public financing for campaigns, and a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court."[58] I will look for more sources. Dualus (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage analysis through October 14

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

What's the point/purpose of this link? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be integrated into the "Media coverage" section for an update, as I hope the header of this section suggests. If you have read it, which parts of it do you think are the most important to summarize? Dualus (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Regarding this and all links) I have no obligation or plans to read the sources. If want to incorporate them into the article, you could suggest on this talk page what text you want to add and see how others respond to it. In regards to Lessing, it would be helpful if you could fairly acknowledge the major objections of other editors to you suggestions, otherwise other editors may tire of repeating themselves. That would be a show of good faith. It would also be worthwhile to note that your record of convincing others is not very good, and your habit of making personal attacks, such as Meatpuppetry, may still rankle. Getting rid of this tendency would make dialogue much more easy, rewarding and productive for all. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His name is spelled Lessig. Have there been any objections other than insufficient sources, e.g., third parties saying that Lessig is part of the movement, such as the Slate story cited above? I have never used the term "meatpuppet" -- I have said that from my perspective, other editors' behavior seems like WP:TAGTEAMing, but I have only circumstantial observational evidence. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it those terms mean more or less the same thing. It's not a nice thing to accuse others of. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're offended, but saying it seems like one is being hassled is certainly not the same thing as making a specific accusation of harassment. Dualus (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is all better left to user talk pages. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like you were pretty specifically accusing me and Artist on your talk page. But anyway, best to avoid. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Dualus (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to stoke a fight here... in fact I am basically just making a drive by middle child comment, but just wanted to point out that the lede for WP:TAGTEAM says "Tag teaming ... is a controversial form of meatpuppetry" so linking to WP:TAGTEAM (whether or not you intended it) may seem to other people that you are accusing them of meatpuppetry even if that was not your intent... this could definitely be a case of "message sent is not message recieved" and could be a isolated incident / ginormous misunderstanding not sure if it is time for y'all to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, but if there are personal differences, apologies, wikihugs or whatnot, you might want to handle them on y'all's talk pages. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

side note: if there are three editors involved in a disagreement, by necessity it will be two on one side and one on the other and potentially feel to the one like tag teaming. if there are four in a disagreement, there is a 57% chance (assuming random assignment of editors to sides and assuming disagreement) that it will be three on one side and one on the other, and thus really really potentially feel like tag teaming. the circumstantial evidence that i see here seems to me to point to nothing in particular but a reasonable disagreement carried out, at times, in a slightly bumptious but not actionable manner, as the two or three to one thing is more likely to have been produced by chance rather than conspiracy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Will quote

At least two editors objected to the inclusion of this because it doesn't do justice to Will's sarcasm.

George Will said the movement would lead to Republican gains if it advances, so conservatives should rejoice and wish it a long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates.ref>Will, G.F. "George Will: ‘Occupy' is good news for conservatives" Orange County Register</ref>

Who can think of a better way to phrase it? Or, are there better conservative voices to include? Dualus (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one that isn't written in an abstract, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek style such that its words can't be taken at face value and require a bit of analysis to reveal their intended meaning. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just for the record, since we're moving this to a new section, i didn't object to the material because it "doesn't do justice to will's sarcasm" but because i believe it is not possible to do justice to will's sarcasm and remain within wikipedia guidelines. i will continue to oppose any possible rephrasing of will's essay unless that rephrasing itself is based on a separate reliable source which explicitly and directly explains will's sarcasm.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that sarcasm can be conveyed. But why should we not take Will at face value? Is there any reliable source agreeing with the assumption that he didn't mean what he wrote? Dualus (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm inherently can't be taken at face value, because its true meaning is left for the reader to infer. That's a problem on WP, because WP editors can't draw their own inferences; hence why Ali was saying we'd need an additional source analyzing the Will piece. And I highly doubt we're going to find someone in a RS who bothers to dissect a column by a pundit and translate it from sarcastic-style to straightforward-English style. Hence the suggestion not to include. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence that Will is being sarcastic? Dualus (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's on the editor who wants to include material to supply evidence that it's verifiable. see WP:BURDEN.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the sake of replying to your question, for instance, when he says the bit about "conservatives should wish OWS a long life..." what he really means to say is "let these idiots take over the Democratic Party; the public will reject it and we will destroy it". But, he doesn't actually say that. But also, we can't say that on WP without a source because it would be OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those theories suggest that we shouldn't faithfully represent his Orange County Register statements in the critical commentary section. Dualus (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both these "theories" clearly suggest that we cannot faithfully represent Will's statements without committing some OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have no reliable source stating that Will is being sarcastic, so you have no reason to refrain from summarizing his statements. Dualus (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a reliable source saying the column was in a sarcastic tone in order for this objection to be valid. There's just no good way of writing this, as seems to be supported by the versions you've attempted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly do. If you are trying to argue any position, you still need to support it. You have been unable to articulate one whit of evidence that Will was being anything but forthright. Dualus (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Centrify. I should think that when an editor finds that s/he is getting no support and several editors oppose an edit it is not very considerate to stretch the argument out to eternity and beyond. Gandydancer (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Centrify would need a source if he wanted to include a statement in the article that said that will was being sarcastic. sources aren't necessary if additions are not being made. whoever wants to put stuff in should have a source that supports the stuff that gets put in. since a bunch of editors seem to agree that you don't have sufficient sources to allow the insertion of anything to do with the will quote, it shouldn't go in. if anyone wanted to put a statement in the article claiming that will was being sarcastic, they'd need a source for it, but there's no reason why anyone needs a source to allow something to be left out of the article. anyway, your argument, which i admit is quite clever, cuts against you as well. do you have a source stating that will was not being sarcastic? no? ok, so then none of us can prove with sources that he was being sarcastic, and none of us can prove with sources that he was not being sarcastic, and so we just have to discuss the matter, which we're doing. if we cannot agree, which it seems that we cannot, then the stuff should stay out, there being no consensus.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that while you agree you need sources to include things, removal can be supported by people's unsupported opinions? Dualus (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone agree that sarcasm can not be conveyed? Dualus (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously. And a better question to ask is, Does anyone else agree with me that this should be included? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless consensus is changed by others besides we three, it's time to recognize the issue as a dead parrot that has gone to meet its maker.'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCC. New sources are coming in all the time. I'm sure we haven't heard the last from Will on this. Dualus (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Add link to New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.109.200 (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source establishing a connection? Dualus (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Defecating on our doorsteps"

According to the New York Post, local residents are angry about the sanitary habits of the OWS protesters.[59] Should this be included in the article? Kelly hi! 05:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you use as the title of the section the most inflammatory, hyperbolic quote in a sensational tabloid's article, I lean toward no. Do you have a more mainstream, reputable source for this meeting? WSJ or Washington Times if you prefer another conservative outlet. --David Shankbone 05:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the NYP not an RS in this instance? It appears they are on the scene and interviewed residents first-hand. Or are you suggesting they fabricated this? Kelly hi! 05:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be a better quote?
"They have to have some parameters," said Tricia Joyce, also a board member. "That doesn't mean the protests have to stop. I'm hoping we can strike a balance on parameters because this could be a long term stay."
We should certainly include information about the meeting. Dualus (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that one random person saying "defecating on our doorstops" is hyperbolic, and unless there is some source saying that public defecation occurs commonly, we should treat this one-off statement from a random person as nothing more than that. If you want to include information about the meeting, something more representative and NPOV from a mainstream source is preferred. --David Shankbone 05:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's being widely reported as a central complaint of the residents. Granted, Kelly only listed one source, but the complaint is representative and there appears to be no NPOV problem with including it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should reports of rapes and sexual assauts be handled the same way? Kelly hi! 06:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a question for the New York OWS article. --David Shankbone 06:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - so no criminal activity at NY OWS activities? Kelly hi! 06:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're getting at. --David Shankbone 06:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the basic point is whether or not we should include instances when movement participants have been accused of criminal activity, or even unethical or immoral activities. Based on Tea Party movement, such statements are fair game in Wikipedia articles. Kelly hi! 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We would include it if there was a reliable source saying that the proportion of people committing a particular crime and involved with the movement was greater than the proportion of people committing that crime in the population as a whole. For example, if a tennis player kills someone, that won't make it into the tennis article. But if someone finds that tennis players are more likely than average to kill people, that probably will. There is always going to be a certain proportion of crime in any subculture. What kinds of crimes does our Tea Party article accuse them of? Are you talking about the racial epithets? Dualus (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This OR-infused rationale holds no water. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the real lowdown on what protesters are doing in London, see Fox News UK at the Occupy LSX. Is this a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reliable sources that covered this meeting (google Occupy Wall Street "Community Board 1"), and it appears that every one of them mentions one or another complaint about protesters urinating and defecating in the streets. Other complaints were about protesters taunting and verbally attacking people on their way to work; breaking into buildings; blocking access to shops, parks, and other public places; playing drums constantly at a level of 117 decibels, where 110 is enough to cause permanent hearing damage; a guy screaming being asked by an old lady to stop screaming, only to scream at her louder to "get some earplugs" if she doesn't like it.

Also, editors may have their own invdividual feelings on etiquette, but I'm not aware of any reason why an editor should have to start a discussion off with a softball question or otherwise avoid discussion of a contentious topic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the New York City General Assembly's Good Neighbor Policy which I am finding unusual because it has so many expressions of "zero tolerance" which is usually associated with authoritarianism. Dualus (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there are many thousands of homeless people living in NYC. Many of them are mentally ill and/or are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Many of them live on the streets and even of those that sleep in shelters, they are usually not allowed to spend their days there. It should be obvious that the protests have drawn many in for free food and what ever else there is to offer. To suddenly claim that the demonstrators are peeing in the streets forgets the fact that it was happening well before the protesters arrived at the park. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Dualus (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Occupy Wall Street "Community Board 1". No one specifically said that they saw protesters were urinating or defecating in the streets. The only evidence is a photograph of a man who may have been mentally ill, with no evidence that he was a protester except that he was in the neighborhood. I would include that claim if it could be supported by evidence, but not otherwise. Quote the text from a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you missed the numerous articles, each of which mentions that specific complaint. I don't especially care about this aspect of the protests (it's a load of crap!) but I may pull some sources later on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Summary Neutrality

The second part of the first sentence of the introduction ("the protests were inspired by the Arab Spring movement, especially Cairo's Tahrir Square protests, and the Spanish Indignants.") appears to me to contravene the neutral position of the article. Having a reference to Tahrir Square presented so prominently in the introduction is clearly an effort to associate the OWS with these events. Without any intention to belittle the efforts of the OWS participants, the actual link between a protest involving several hundred people at virtually no risk of serious physical injury (pepper spray aside) and a protest involving millions where hundreds of people were killed and thousands injured is extremely tenuous. The links implied between OWS and the wider Arab Spring movement, which let us not forget includes the horrific events in Libya and Syria, is offensive.

I suggest this reference should be moved lower down in the article, perhaps to the background section. The fact that Adbusters took their inspiration from the Arab Spring is, at best, an aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.117.82.3 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Adbuster's site begins with this wording:
  1. OCCUPYWALLSTREET is a people powered movement for democracy that began in America on September 17 with an encampment in the financial district of New York City. Inspired by the Egyptian Tahrir Square uprising and the Spanish acampadas, we vow to end the monied corruption of our democracy … join us! We're now in DAY 35.
it seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's tangential and took it out as TMI for the lead , but am OK if consensus wants it in, and I will not get in a pissing match on it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real people of Occupy Wall Street

New York Magazine recently polled 100 "occupiers." http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/. One thing is clear, these are definitely not Harvard and Yale graduates. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we supposed to take that seriously? The three answers for how people would fix it didn't have tallies or percentages. I stopped reading there. Dualus (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. . .they polled 100 'occupiers,' so that means when they list the number of responses it's that number out of 100. k? So that means if it's 10 peeps who say they have no clue about anything, that's 10%. Get it? Malke 2010 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So only three people had three different solutions? They don't sound anything like the solutions from the protesters being interviewed on TV. Dualus (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? The ones on TV are the same ones on the street. They really are. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not kidding. This is an excerpt from that source:
The country with the best government in the world is … 
"Canada. It’s most like the U.S. but more the way I want.” 
“Denmark.”
“I don’t accept the premises of this question.

Did you vote in the 2010 midterm elections?
Yes: 39
No: 55
No, but only because I wasn’t 18: 5

Explain how you would fix Wall Street.
“A maximum-wage law.” 
“President Elizabeth Warren."
“Burn it down.”
Why do those first and last questions have no tallies or percentages, when all the other questions do? That throws the veracity of the entire story in to question. Dualus (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this survey should be removed from the article. It was extremely informal as one can easily see by looking at the results. "Real" polls have since come out which are better suited for our article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, it's a joke survey for agit-prop. Dualus (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fastcompany.com/1789018/occupy-wall-street-demographics-statistics is a far better survey with starkly contrasting results. Dualus (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable claims of consensus

These deletions were made by those claiming a consensus, of anywhere between two and three, if I am counting correctly. My recent addition was deleted after being discussed here. The only objection was placement in the article, which was contradicted by the sources. Are the claims that these deletions were supported by consensus correct? Dualus (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other editor who has indicated that the paragraph you inserted is appropriate? Because all I see, at this talk page and two noticeboards, are other editors telling you the different ways in which it's inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe you have correctly characterized the discussion at WP:ORN#Call for a constitutional convention in Occupy Wall Street? (where the one uninvolved respondent at WP:RSN asked to move the discussion.) Dualus (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite. What do you think would be a correct characterization of that discussion? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were saying that suggesting a relation between the movement and Lessig was not supported by sources, but when I asked about the sources which said Lessig was speaking at Occupy events (primary, video, and Huffington Post) and that he adds credibility to the movement (Slate) you said it was a reaction. Someone else already added a source that says the New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group already called for a constitutional convention and amendment (primary and Huffington Post.) There is also [60] showing that other parts of the movement in the US are also calling for a constitutional amendment. Dualus (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add my name to those opposed to including that information. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care to say why you believe it should not be included? Because it is insufficiently sourced or some other reason? Dualus (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about "two to three editors" and "the only objection" are pure hogwash and that's all I'll say about that.

Moving on, if you'll recall, I said I have no problem with discussing the source that said Lessig's support lends credibility to the movement. And at no point did I say there was no documented connection between Lessig and OWS. What I've said repeatedly, and it seems that other editors agree, is that you are exaggerating and misrepresenting this connection in the text you keep inserting.

Despite your apparent unwillingness to play along (by, say, citing specific article text and specific propositions you think it supports), which just creates more work for myself and others who are trying to entertain your arguments, I have already made specific suggestions as to how to rewrite the material so it does track your sources properly and abide by policy; you have apparently ignored these suggestions, claiming above that you "can't figure out" the changes I am "trying to get you to make". You've also seemingly ignored every other objection by every other editor who has participated in the discussion. These same repeated arguments have been rebuffed at the noticeboards, too.

You have not seen fit to consider the possibility that anyone else has raised a valid objection, even accusing others of some conspiracy against you; and rather than consensus, you seem to be seeking some kind of green light to go ahead and add the same objectionable material, which you went ahead and did quite recently despite the fact it was obvious that the objections had not been resolved, even after being warned that you need to seek consensus for inclusion.

I'll write this material up myself sometime in the next 72 hours, since the process of discussing this with you does not seem to be moving forward and is becoming quite tiresome. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you will call me an edit warrior for reverting your deletions, but your arguments are wrong. It is not my responsibility to pull quotes out for you if you are unwilling to read the sources and say why they don't support the passages that they do. But I have excerpted at #Eleven additional news sources above, where you specifically say that you refuse to read those that I have not. I look forward to your write-up, but in the mean time I am replacing the material supported by sources. Dualus (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does one prove that a source doesn't support what you're saying? Are you saying you expect me to paste the entire text of each article and comment, line by line, on why each specific sentence doesn't support X contention that you seem to be making, or Y contention that you seem to be making, and so forth? If not, on what basis do you reject my assessment, or that of others, that don't agree the material is adequately supported by the sources you present? Do you see how the alternative, where you simply identify text that justifies a specific claim or edit, is the vastly more efficient way, and the one that makes sense, and the one that most fairly distributes the burden of evaluating proposed edits, and the one that is least susceptible to abuse by aggressive and unscrupulous editing? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking you to prove anything. If you think a source doesn't support the text that cites it, then say so. You have said that instead of doing that, you don't want to read the sources; you want me to pull out quotes from each for each statement. How many quotes would that be? There is no requirement that I do your own reading work for you. You have given no reasons for your so-called assessment, so of course I will discount it, just as I would expect you to discount my "assessment" if I refused to read the pertinent sources. I have informed the warning administrator that I wish to make a formal accusation of tag-teaming against you for this behavior. I invite scrutiny from others on the subject of exactly which one of us is being aggressive and unscrupulous. Dualus (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a source doesn't support the text that cites it, then say so.?? Really? What have I been doing for the past few days? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to find any of your substantive complaints which I haven't addressed. To which specific statements do you object? Dualus (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dualus all missing the point, the consensus if what we go by, and one editor not liking it can't change it accept through discussion. Unless we can be convinced that you are using good sources, AND, the info is of suitable weight, the standing consensus still stands and still governs the article. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remeber that when a deletion is made and a full explanation is given in the dit summary and you revert, it is upon you to explain the revert. It's not being a "Warrior" it's being difficult and goes against the spirit and guidelines of Wiki. Be patient. Allow the consensus to be formed. However you may also like to know that if you post your intentions first and no one replies...silence is concensus!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The weakest form, per WP:SILENCE. Dualus (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's the weakest form of consensus. Many people may simply have not objected because they didn't see it. And some attempt to use it as justification to keep a silent consensus that no longer exist once one objects. However, silent consent is the bases to which you begin work if you present what you plan to do. I see Silent Consensus (when no one is objecting) as generally meaning..."OK...let's see what ya got, and then we'll decide" or "Sure go for it, just don't mess it up". Because if your edit doesn't match your posted intention...people are going to object. That's how it works. When done in good faith it is merely part of FORMING a consensus and that is as strong as it gets, and a formed consensus is pretty darn strong.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence given to connection to Arab Spring

The {{"Occupy" protests}} template gives prominence to the phrase "Part of the impact of the Arab Spring". The only place that "Arab Spring" is visible in the Occupy Wall Street article is in Occupy Wall Street#See also. Either the template should be changed (move "Arab Spring" to the "Other" group), or the introduction and background sections of the Occupy Wall Street article should be updated to reflect that prominence, citing multiple sources including Cornel West (see this democracynow.org citation, currently cited here). 67.101.6.174 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the intro, but people have been removing it on false and unfounded claims of consensus. Dualus (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop making accusations on this talk page. It is highly inappropriate. It is the consensus of editors who have removed it and enough people have "lived" with it to be true consensus. This was a perfect time to attempt to form another consensus but you took this route instead.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need Anti-Semitisim section with photo

Definitely need to start mentioning the anti-Semitic comments and signs coming out of this movement. A photo would be great. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source saying that the protesters are more antisemetic than ordinary people, and given the proportions I've seen reported, it's alarming but uncertain whether there are more bigots than in an ordinary sample of the population. Dualus (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed that above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Antisemitism There are WP:RS such as Commentary claiming that they are anti-Semitic, and WP:RS such as the Anti-Defamation League saying that they are not. There's also an insightful article from a Jewish publication discussing how difficult it is to eliminate fringe ideas from consensus-based organizations. I haven't seen any objections to reverting that section, and unless anybody has an objection, I'm putting it back in. --Nbauman (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would feel more comfortable if there was some reliable indication that there are more antisemites among the protesters than the population, proportionally. Can you find a source on that topic? Dualus (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted before the two above posts, edit conflicted) There is virtually no credible secondary sourcing of that contention. There is only a very spurious opinionated piece by Weekly Standard and their ilk which is obviously a POV attack. No credibility this is just an attempt to push a POV agenda. The correct topic might be "Marginal Fringe Critics Attempt Antisemitism-baiting" but that is not WP:NOTABLE. Wikidgood (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now reading and replying to the above: Commentary is not really WP:RS it is a highly opinionated on the fringe of even Jewish opinion. There was a person named Patricia McAllister who had absolutely no connection to OccupyWallStreet whatsoever who gave "Reason" another opinionated POV outfit an interview in Los Angelos and got fired for tainting her employer. She did not represent LAUSD anymore than she represents OccupyLosAngelos, which, BTW, has little business being talked about in an article on OWS NYC. But even in an article about OccupyLA, she would not be in point. Mr Bauman you are trying to put over a POV Original Synthesis or Original Research. If you really want to "help Israel" or "help the cause of the Jews" please cease and desist using Judaism as a prop; if you really want to degrade the reputation of OWS, pls do so based upon RS analysis of its actual flaws, not spurious and [fraud]ulent [defamation]. Wikidgood (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of pictures here of Jews celebrating Sukkot at Occupy LA. I've also seen (though I can't find them at the moment) photos of a Kol Nidre service at Occupy Wall Street. Also see this picture (and there are plenty more similar) of a spontaneous response to the antisemitic protester who has apparently been carryting round this placard since long before OWS started. RolandR (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia rule that demands that the protesters must be shown to be more anti-semitic than the general population. There is anti-Semitism in the Movement and it has been noted in well respected, reliable sources. If it's in reliable sources it can be included in the article. This is not a propaganda sheet for the Left Wing. It's an encyclopedia and the anti-Semitism is notable. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And claiming that there are Jews in the Movement does not cancel out the anti-Semitism. There are blacks in the Tea Party---Herman Cain is their darling. But there is still some racism in the tea party movement. The fact that it exists and has been in numerous reliable sources makes it eligible to be in the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia McAllister is definitely "connected" to the Occupy L.A. Movement. She came down there to be part of it and she made the ugly comments that have been reported around the world. Claiming that she is not "part of the Occupy Movement," is ridiculous. There's no membership. Anybody can participate. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If 'Anybody can participate' then everyone can be said to be "connected" to the movement. This is clearly nothing more than a smear campaign, and Wikipedia should have nothing to do with such muck-raking nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. This is from the Washington Post:
A growing number of Israelis and foreign Jewish groups are expressing concern over the anti-Semitic flavor of some of the “Occupy Wall St.” economic protests in the US. . . .
One of [the] people reportedly responsible for organizing the “Occupy Wall St.” protests, Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn, has a history of perpetuating conspiracy theories that say the Jews control America’s foreign policies.
Back in New York, another protester insisted that “a small ethnic group constitutes almost all of the hedge fund managers and bankers on Wall St. They are all Jewish. There is a conspiracy in this country where Jews control the media, finances… They have pooled their money together in order to take control of America.”
Doesn't sound like a smear campaign. It's coming from the actual organizers. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, it is coming from the Washington Post (at least, you claim it is - you cite no source). It is the alleged opinion of someone 'reportedly' organizing... (reported by whom?), and some alleged anonymous protestor. Frankly, as a personal opinion, I think that this bogus cry of 'antisemitism' itself reeks of actual antisemitism: misusing a past history of real prejudice to smear the less powerful, and in so doing reducing the crimes of the real antisemites to a mere propaganda tool. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, anybody who thinks the ADL is supportive, they're not: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/6138_12.htm Malke 2010 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link - now read it: "we believe that these expressions are not representative of the larger views of the OWS movement... There is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants... these statements must not be left unchallenged". And, has been pointed out, the antisemitic ranting of isolated nutcases is being challenged - not least by a significant Jewish presence at the protests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize:

I don't believe that there is significant anti-Semitism at OWS.

Writers have made the charge of anti-Semitism in WP:RS such as the New York Times (David Brooks), Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. According to WP:RS, opininon pieces are not WP:RS for facts, but they're WP:RS for opinion. The fact that opinion writers in major publications like the NYT, WP and WSJ are charging OWS with anti-Semitism has WP:WEIGHT, whether it's true or not.

Truth is not an issue on Wikipedia. The only issue is whether a claim is WP:VERIFIABLE. If it is, and someone thinks it's not true, he should get WP:RS to make the article WP:NPOV. Get convincing evidence and let the reader decide.

Many WP:RS, including the Anti-Defamation League, have examined the charges of anti-Semitism and concluded that there is not significant anti-Semitism. I think the evidence for that should convince anybody.

If there is a smear campaign, and there are lies and false accusations being spread, and they reach notable publications such as the NYT, WP and WSJ, we should give the charges and the rebuttals, under WP:NPOV. We shouldn't just ignore the whole thing, which would be WP:CENSOR.

I'd like to know what people think of this. But arguing over whether there is or is not anti-Semitism is not the issue. The issue is, do we have WP:RS that have (even falsely) claimed that there is anti-Semitism? Is David Brooks of the NYT a WP:RS for purposes of opinion? --Nbauman (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the definitive WP:RS http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-criticized-for-flashes-of-anti-semitism.html --Nbauman (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much weight we give a particular issue as this is a matter of consensus. We have a discussion going for the inclusion of the Nazi party endorsing OWS and whether it should be mentioned or not. This seems similar in nature. Please consider making a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard entry.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is anti-semitisim in this movement and it is appropriate that it be included in this article. Kalle Lasn is well known for his anti-semitic writings and his infamous "Jew List." His Adbusters is behind Occupy Wall Street. Also the vandalism and the harassment of residents of lower Manhattan by OWS (they are apparently defecating on the steps of townhouses; screaming at the occupants as they go to and from their homes, playing drums at all hours of the night to disturb their sleep etc.) should also be mentioned. There was one guy with a sign that said, "Stalin was right!" Malke 2010 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Washington Post reporter's take on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/occupy-wall-street-does-anyone-care-about-the-anti-semitism/2011/03/29/gIQA43p8rL_blog.html Malke 2010 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That rant is not by "a Washington Post reporter". It is a blog called "Right Turn", described by its author as " an opinionated blog on politics and policy."[61] Definitely not a reliable source! RolandR (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been down to photograph the protest a total of 15 days, and I have seen no signs of Antisemitism. What I have seen are a couple of lone loons taking advantage of a public place that has a lot of media attention, and those lone loons being used online to discredit an international movement that many Jews are a part of. I have a photo of the 'Google Jews' guy, but he's not a part of the movement, he's using it for his own ends. --David Shankbone 21:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a double-standard here. If the Tea Party movement can be called racist because of some "lone loons" tweeting from protests, then this movement can be called antisemitic because of "lone loons" taking advantage of the cameras to publicize their points of view, and violent because of "lone loons" taking advantage of the chaos to commit violent acts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say I agree with Arthur here. I just read the Tea Party Protests wikipedia article and it has an entire section divided to racism with only a few specific incidents mentioned. I think to be fair to both movements, fringe elements have to be included. I have been down to Z Park and have seen the Orthodox Jews protesting with them, likewise however when I lived in DC I say lots of African-Americans at Tea Party protests. Both views are not indicative of the movements as a whole but they are obviously there. I think inclusion in this article is just as much justified as racism included in the Tea Party article.

--Andy0093 (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have question the wisdom of a section on this from the beginning, but FWIW, I just looked at the Tea Party article for the first time, and though I was not surprised to see the "Racial issues" section, I was surprised at its scope. In view of that, though it's clear that nothing like the national attention focused on these incidents viz. the Tea Party has yet come out of this similar phenomenon at OWS, I wonder whether the widespread attention and involvement of the ADL means it warrants inclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between isolated incidents and isolated individuals. Until something remotely notable comes of this, my 'vote' still goes to not include a section simply because it would be WP:UNDUE to a silly amount.--Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most the notes above made clear it has received a certain degree of notability. Being covered by the NY Times and WSJ, the two biggest newspapers in the country certainly would make it notable in a lot of peoples eyes. I will noted one Anti-Semitic protester interviewed by GBTV and a few others is NOT a OWS protester. I spend a decent amount of time in Midtown Manhattan and this one guy who I saw them interview was always on the corner of 47 and 6th with a sign that said "Google Zionist Media Conspiracy," so for what it is worth this guy is not a OWS, but the amount of coverage this has received I think it might be worth noting it. I don't think notability is reason not to include it, I mean it is clearly notable.

--Andy0093 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think while the issue of antisemitism itself is notable, it + OWS....is still very much undue weight. One nut on a corner gets his own section in this article AND a pic? I think, based on the sources I've seen so far, a sentence in the article mentioning this is sufficient - not an entire subsection.--Львівське (говорити) 04:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree. I think a photo is undue weight to the matter. A few sentence or two would really be enough to donate to these fringe views.

--Andy0093 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro now even shorter than required by WP:LEAD#Length

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Lead length is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who claim to not be tag-teaming, but are constantly removing things from the intro contrary to WP:LEAD#Length, have still provided no reason why the intro should be less than three paragraphs. They have still provided no reasons that the summaries placed there should not be there. They have still provided no idea of what they think should be summarized in the lead, in addition to the two very short paragraphs comprising the intro now. They have still provided no specific objections to statements they think may be insufficiently sourced. They have still provided no reasons, that have not been addressed, that the material they have removed from the body should not be there. For shame! Dualus (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is ignoring two well and often made arguments against including the material: Weight and consensus against the edit. Until the editor can show contrary consensus and deal with the weight issues, there is not obligation to engage further accept ins filing an ANI dispute. Repeated and unceasing claims of meat puppetry will be sure to factor large. But you have to hope it never gets that far. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular portions do you think have been given inappropriate weight and where is the evidence that anyone has agreed with you on that? Dualus (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point that is the least of this articles problems. There is no requirement for article lede length. Guidelines are not hard rules and strict adherence to that particular guideline may simply not be a priority for many right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual statement itself that the lede is too short...is reasonable. We should begin a discussion of information to include that all contributors can live with.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but until the edit warring against consensus ends, subsequent additions to the lead could be discussed here first. I suggest a better formation and summary of reception issues not limited to ephemeral polls. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree you should say what you think should be summarized in the lead if it were three paragraphs. Dualus (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph numbers are not as important as the information to include itself. No need for a minimal requirement however, we may not want to see it explode out and become over weighted either.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that you think WP:LEAD#Length should not be followed is that you don't want the intro to explode and become over weighted? What danger is there of that? Dualus (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to work well with others and if you cannot find a way to convince consensus to change, berating editors will not help. There is simply no minimum requirement that is absolute while, on the other hand, article's lede should also not be too large. It's a pretty simple statement and nothing to get worked up over.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you wasting your time trying to disparage the behavior of editors supported by reliable sources and rational arguments instead of looking for some of your own? Dualus (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My time is mine to do as I please. You have done little here but complain, point fingers and make accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What reasons are there to not include this material?

These are all from this diff:

  1. (in intro) "Initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters,[1][52] the protests were inspired by the Arab Spring movement, especially Cairo's Tahrir Square protests, and the Spanish Indignants.[5][53]"
  1. (in intro) "An October 11 poll showed that 54% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the protests, compared to 27% for the Tea Party movement,[54] and up from 38% in a poll conducted October 6–10.[55] An October 12–16 poll found that 67% of New York City voters agreed with the protesters and 87% agreed with their right to protest.[56]"
  2. "The protesters have joined[57][44] Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig's call for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution[58][33] made at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[34] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,[35] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[36][46] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.[37] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[59]) Lessig, who adds credibility to the movement,[60] also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[38] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[61] Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan,[40] Karl Auerbach,[41] Cenk Uygur,[62] and others.[63]"
  3. File:Occupy Wall Street Together.jpg|thumb|left|Solidarity poster referencing the We are the 99% slogan]]

That last one could use a source, but unless there are objective reasons brought forth, I will insist on a formal tag-teaming report. I can not find any objections to the first three that have not fully been addressed. I refuse to accept reasons such as "because consensus is against it" without reference to actual objections which have not already been addressed, because WP:CCC. Dualus (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. What did the edit summaries say? What objections were made in Talk? The answers are there, and they have been there all along. Which is why Dualus has no genuine entitlement to have them repeated here.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask why not. Explain why.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to accept consensus is not editing in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Threats of administrative action are inappropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have already explained why in detail. If you don't want it in the article it's because you think there's a problem, or because you can't articulate a problem but you're depending on those who are opposed to including it for similarly vague reasons to support you. Dualus (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So, it's just about your perceptions of others and nothing in regards to actual policy, guidelines or consensus. You just can't work with others?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why people think those things shouldn't go in too. The polls are already in there, and who cares if it was the Arab Spring or the Chinese Fall? The Constitution amendment stuff is important and I'd like to know why anyone thinks it isn't. 71.33.169.3 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion board but the talk page for improving the article. It is unconstructive and combative to contributing editors and consensus to demand continued explanations why something has been excluded when edit summaries and talk pages can be utilized to find the information as originally made. Please give your reasoning to why you feel they are important and change the consensus. Don't just question it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a discussion board, about what should and should not go in this article. The Constitutional amendment should. It's more important than any other part of this story. 71.33.169.3 (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the "Talk Page" for improving the article and not a discussion board of the general subject. What is or is not more important to one is not so to another. To make the claim "it is the most important part" is not helping to improve the article but is simple point of view and may constitute original research. Best to simply explain how it is important to the article, how it should be added and present any relevent reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed every issue that I've seen raised about this material. If there are outstanding or new issues, or if I haven't sufficiently addressed the issues that have already been raised, I need to know about them so I can work on those items. If I don't see anything, why shouldn't I simply re-insert the item. I looked over the edit summaries, which didn't have anything concrete in them (and per WP:REVTALK we aren't supposed to be using the summaries to debate; we're supposed to be using this talk page.) Dualus (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And consensus has not been moved. It's time to drop the stick and slowly walk away from the dead horse. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Addressing" objections would mean actually changing your proposed text in response to those objections. Simply responding at Talk by repeating arguments that have already been rejected by everyone else here does not count as "addressing" the objections. And you won't get far by simply claiming that you didn't hear any objections.
Even without actually making a tally of the objections you've ignored, or all the times you've simply disengaged from this debate and started a "new" one when it was clear your proposals weren't gaining traction, it should be clear that you haven't even responded to my most recent objection to your current proposed revision. To refresh your memory, this was the point at which you decided to simply insert the paragraph again without waiting for, or making a meaningful attempt towards, consensus.
I'll say this one last time: you're generally expected to show that your position is correct, with as much explanation as is necessary to make your point clearly; you can't just declare victory and insert whatever disputed text you like. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the false insinuation that there are objections which I have not sufficiently addressed. In the single objection Centrify says I ignored, Centrify wrote, "it's very heavy on information that may be of interest to OWS, but is not about OWS. Also, I urge you once again to avoid simply listing a large number of sources without quoting specific language and connecting it with a specific proposition that you think each source supports." How exactly does one draw the distinction between being of interest to and being about? We are supposed to insert what is of interest to our readers and about the subject. But that obscures the fact that the information is genuinely about the movement. And I'm not going to pepper everything with pull quotes because you refuse to read the sources. That seems to me like you're trying to buy time to think of something substantive, if you ever get around to actually reading the sources. Dualus (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you admit you ignored this objection, how can you say with a straight face that I've made a "false insinuation" that you haven't addressed objections raised? And do you really not see the difference between material that's of interest to OWS and material that's about OWS? If so, that would seem to explain a lot.
No one can force you to reference source text, but don't expect other editors to agree with you if you don't show how the sources substantiate material you wish to add. And I really wish you would stop claiming that I "refuse to read the sources". I've read numerous sources you've posted in their entirety, in search of (unspecified!) material which might support your contentions—and in each case discovered you were exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting the sources. That takes a lot of time. So pardon me if I don't jump at the chance to read 10 or 20 more sources in their entirety, when you haven't bothered to discuss the objections previously raised, and can't be bothered to identify anything specific that is supported by anything specific. I mean, I could just list a Google search and say "These sources show that I'm right. If you disagree, prove me wrong".. which is essentially what you're doing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't admit I ignored the objection, I said it was wrong and therefore has been addressed. You have failed to present any evidence that the call for a constitutional amendment, the polls, or the Arab Spring connection are in any way not "about" the protests or are in any way not of interest to our readers. I have in fact referenced source text? How long do you intend to refuse to evaluate those references without reading them? Do you know how to use your browser's search function? Dualus (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a misplace sense of entitlement at work here. Editor's do not have to endlessly defend themselves or the consensus. The only reason I would rejoin the discussion would be if it seemed that a new consensus was developing. As of now I accept the consensus and urge the same of others. 21:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, editors who refuse to support their arguments with reliable sources and logical arguments have to endlessly defend the consensus they say exists because WP:CCC. You ask that people follow your example blindly, without any valid reasons or sources supporting your relatively unarticulated position. Dualus (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"... have to endlessly defend the consensus" The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; this is all BS. Nobody needs a source to tell you that sources you present don't support material you've added. And to flatly say that everyone here but you is making arguments devoid of logic is just pointless and insulting (not to mention absurd).
It's also worth noting that both consensus and changed consensus would require that at least one other editor agree with your edits. Consensus doesn't change by sheer force of your personal opinion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that nobody needs a source to say that a statement is insufficiently sourced. They merely need to say which specific statements they believe are unsupported. People who refuse to do that highlight their own ignorance, laziness, and bad faith editing. Where have there been any complaints about any of the specific statements in the passages under discussion here? You can see plenty of editors in agreement in the edit history. Dualus (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Character assassination and nonsense; feel free to redact. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much easier for you to state specific objections. Do you have any? Why haven't you already stated them? Dualus (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to replace this information on a time frame recommended by the administrator who has warned me for allegedly edit warring unless there are specific objections which can not be addressed. Dualus (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The admin plainly said you were edit warring and ignoring how we do consensus around here.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I intend to remove it if it goes against consensus, is undue weight, fringe theory or any other reason that it may have to be excluded.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries are not a debate...they are the summary of reasons for the edit. You are simply incorrect with that assessment and seem to only want to stamp your feet in anger at your contribution being excluded by consensus and a VERY detailed, long list of contributing editors explanations against it. You have used the talk page to accuse editors here of everything from vandalism to tag teaming and have made several threats to intimidate others to get your way. You have become a clear disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "VERY detailed, long list of contributing editors explanations against" this material? If there was such a list I would have something to work on, but in fact there is no such list. Prove me wrong, summarize it, or point to it, or copy and paste. Prove that you aren't trying to create the illusion of a rational consensus which doesn't exist. Dualus (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation of any editor to regard or defend a consensus as "rational" unless there is a contrary consensus developing. So far only an army of one is arguing. However, there is every obligation to respect consensus. Attacking the motives of other editors is guaranteed to prevent any changes in sentiment around here . The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the silent majority will evaluate facts, logic, sources, and the behavior of editors. It won't take a lot of them to change this weak consensus you perpetuate without valid reasons or specific objections. Dualus (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, and we shall see. If this "silent majority" does indeed exists, and it finds a voice, it could affect consensus. Until then the current consensus stands. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this material is invalid. It relates to the movement, is covered by reliable sources, and is NPOV. What's the problem with it? If there is a 'silent majority' for inclusion of this content, I am indeed in it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Toa Nidhiki05

It's understandable on the surface why sources may seem to be the only issue, and unless you go to each source, look at the edit summaries and comb the above discussions, it not easy to quickly grasp what is going on. To sum up in answer to the fair question, not all the sources are good, and consensus has rejected many due to source reliablity. Weight is the other major objection. Moreover, in o# 3 case listed below, consensus supported its conclusion, but that is still being discussed. Thought it's impossible to be thorough, here's the point by point summary of consensus on these :

  1. Not enough weight for lead
  2. Polls are covered in the body, less empemeral reception issues are being discussed for the lead
  3. Not an RS, but this is in currently in the lead and probably on the way out: the source is a self published blogger who is not edited. Other much better RSs for reception issues need to be used.
  4. The whole Lessig is not over sources but relevance and influence (weight). You'll have to look at the above discussions to see why Dualus with was told by an admin that he would be blocked by if he included it.
  5. No one can show that the image is prominent or seems to know its orgin. It could be the same as something I could do in MS Paint and prop up here and insist it stay due to its inherent nobility.

None of this has been secret, and Dualus has simply ignored consensus while edit warring, as an admin told him on his talk page.

You're to reopen discussions to change settled consensus, and you can join the active discussion of whether an unpaid Huffpo blogger with not journalism background is nonetheless a valid source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly was not told by an admin that I would be blocked if I included it. I was told I would be blocked if I edit-warred over it. You have shown that you have a very distant relationship with the truth and basic spelling, which are two reasons I tend to discount your opinion. Dualus (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inequality graph is misleading

Why is the graph based on 1900 instead of World War II? The war (and air freight) changed most of the economy. It should start in 1940. 208.54.38.139 (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The graph has been put together by a Wikimedia Commons member from information that is linked on the image description page. Your question is better directed to the author at commons. If you feel it's inclusion on this article is POV in it's current form and should be excluded from use on Wikipedia, could you please explain your reasoning?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think excluding 40 years worth of data on the grounds of economic changes would be original research. The raw data is what it is, we're in no position to question its relevance for reason XYZ.--Львівське (говорити) 06:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Raw data is certainly questionable without a reliable source to back it up. Again...is there a reason that the image is specific Point of View and should be excluded?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In previous talks above about it, the point was brought up that pointing out things like 'great depression' is POV, and there were votes for its removal....and it was just reinserted by another editor without obtaining consensus.--Львівське (говорити) 06:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a straight vote. I, in fact, also removed the image for copyright violations and Original Research, but the author of the image has taken reasonable steps to show his work is available from reliable sources and original research is not supported at this time. It may possibly be Point of View editing, but no such argument has been made that has gained consensus of the contributing editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that an attempt at OTRS is being sought to avoid copyright issues and is as well a good faith attempt to take steps to comply with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the OTRS comment; I believe the graph is taken from the paper, as the details of how the data in the graph is obtained from public data is "creative", but, if an author releases copyright, and files the release with OTRS, then I have no objection to the graph. I do question its relevance, but that's a separate issue, and I believe consensus as already against me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting may not be suitable for this article

The current reference formatting generates a list within the editing page. When a reference is deleted for legitimate reasons the reference must also be removed separately from that list. Since the generated list is not in the same order as the published Wikipedia page this becomes extremely difficult with the large number of references included in this quickly changing article. Perhaps we should switch to the more common form of reference formatting that will not create the large red error messages since we cannot stop legitimate deletion of references.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== Dorian Warren addition ==

A recent addition has been removed as "claim unsupported by reference" for the following reason. The added information is this:

"Professor Dorian Warren from Columbia University has described the movement as the first anti-authoritarian populist movement in the United States."

But the article from the source, Democracy Now does not make this claim and neither does the professor. What is actually said is in relation to the "left" specifically, and a time period also included as "since the 1930s". I don't know if Professor Warren is particularly notable enough to place this at the top of the article, if corrected, or if it should go down in the section for reaction.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Incorrect. The Professor stated that "It is the first anti-authoritarian populist movement in this country.". You need to replace the sentence I added which is supported by the reference. Please read references more thoroughly if you are going to remove editors contributions. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Attempting to cherry pick the quote you want won't work here. The title of the article is "Occupy Wall Street Emerges as "First Populist Movement" on the Left Since the 1930s" I read the reference and you may want to assume good faith. Professor Warren's words are clear in his opening statement for the interview.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The description as anti-authoritarian is appropriate. This description has been sourced to a Professor who is has written extensively on related topics. The claim is made by the Professor in the article, despite your initial denial. Do you understand that this is your error? The title of the article is irrelevant. His opening statement describes it as a populist movement on the left. This is a basic fact which is not contradicted by my addition which adds the description of anti-authoritarian. There is no cherry picking. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::::You may not realize this...but that is the very definition of cherry picking. This time you are cherry picking facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me see if I have this right. You don't want the actual meaning and words of Professor Warren to matter...just the phrases and comments he makes that fit what you wrote? And you think this is my error?

There is nothing wrong with the source. It appears to be a reliable reference and the professor notable enough to be interviewed for his opinion and can well be included in the article (somewhere).....as long as the claim being made on the article is substantiated by the inline citation. At this time it does not. If we simply stick to what he is saying and what the article is about there will be nothing to object to.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if I was cherry picking what is it that you think I am ignoring which contradicts my assertion that the Professor described the movement as anti-authoritarian? Do you understand that being on the left is not contradictory to being anti-authoritarian? Perhaps you should read the political spectrum article. So to summarise, my statement is sourced, so your first reason for the removal is false and my addition of Dorian Warren description doesn't ignore contradictory facts so there is no cherry picking which was your second reason provided for your removal. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have made no real attempt to clarify the issue. You are simply arguing and have not addressed the fact that the original claim you made in your prose is not supported by the article or what Professor Warren is recorded as saying. And no...cherry picking is what you have been doing in this thread. The prose was just false.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly proved you are incorrect with multiple clarifications. The description as anti-authoritarian by the Professor is stated plainly and unequivocally in his second last answer for everyone to read. There is no contradiction, no cherry picking, no issue, except for the best placement. I didn't think the reaction section was the best because anti-authoritarian is a fundamental characteristic rather than a response to the demonstrations. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there ya go. I agree. I have been arguing a different point and did not realize the specific wording added. You have now actually made a clear point differentiating the actual quote. Thank you for you patience! Now...how do you feel about it being place in the reaction section or do you feel strongly about the placement.?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also deserve an apology for my mistake. I am very sorry that I did not get this right and caused you any distress from the mistake, and thank you for not reverting it yourself and sticking to the talk page and simply hashing it out until I understood my error.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the lede

How about this?

The movement has been criticized in the media, especially the Conservative media, for having no goals and or formal demands. However, others have seen the movement as a "democratic awakening", difficult to formulate into a few demands and that at the present time, the primary goal for the movement is simply growth. On October 15, a group member of the "The New York City General Assembly", the governing body of the group, said that demands have been brought up, but "they were shot down vociferously under the argument that demands are for terrorists and that is not who we are". Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that a good start on the valid lead topic of reception. Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges have [62] explained explained the goals of OWS, and given their notability, and they would be useful if the lead was to also included their views. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source that the demands were shot down? Dualus (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the word "especially" with "including" and I can agree with this, however I also noticed something. Is that a direct quote? If so "Group Member" is an unidentified person who's weight in the artcle is questionable..--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was in the article however someone deleted it saying that a news blog was not an acceptable source. My understanding is that a news blog is OK if the journalist and source are mentioned, as they were in the article entry. I would need to return the section before using it in the lede. Another thing, it is my understanding that lede entries do not need the source listed, rather the source is with the appropriate info in the article body. Any thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. Many assume all blogs are unacceptable references but a major newspaper political blog etc is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the reference. Seems to be a journalist at a major media organization although not quite clear of his standing there, as Huffington Post uses a lot of "Journalist" that are not actually paid staff and therefore have no true editorial over site. But the quote from the unidentified Ageneral Assembly member is undue weight, for the lede at least. What do you think? Oh...and I forgot, yes...generally we don't add references to the lede as the information should be in the body of the article, however that is sometimes over looked in controversial articles as many editors feel that a majority of "readers" only read the ledes and like to see claims that might be disputed referenced up front.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say about the source and would not have used it if I had a choice. The name of the GA member is available and could be used either in the lede or later in the article section is that would be better. If it wasn't that I believe the information very significant I would not be attempting to get it in. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my logic on the use of the member quote at this time. If you are being careful not to mention his name and it is in the reference then you already have a slight misgiving to begin with. Best not to use the quote if you think it may be contentious material of a living person. Or use the name as presented and any position within the movement that they may hold if that is available as well for quoting a public figure.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a summary defense of OWS goals would help balance the lead with a little more detail. When time allows I'll post something here. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a straw man set up. I haven't objected to including a blog: In this case the problem is that the source is a self published blog written by someone with no journalism track record as far as I can tell. One thing Google is good for is producing the work of journalists and I'n getting zilch on this guy. Unless someone can show the author to be notable to allow for the publication of their own blog, RS standards say it can't be used. As I said above, better sources are available for the reception lead paragraph. We just have to do the work.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may actually be true. I am looking a little deeper.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see stuff on a google search...but I am not clicking on them. Everything I find that looks like it might be a legitimate description of him as a Huffington post writer has a warning that content may harm your computer..... I feel at this time there is not enough evidence to claim this as anything but a personal blog until someone can prove otherwise. His own description under his image (where credit is given for huff positions) is nothing but goof stuff for fun and does not add credence to him being any more legit than my own membership there. I feel it may be best to lose the prose as well as the reference for now, but would like Gandydancer to weigh in first before I make any further changes to the contribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Actually I do not share your concerns. I would have preferred the event mentioned in several sources rather than only Huff Post and I would have preferred a more well-known journalist, however he certainly is legit and has written dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of articles, mostly political,[63] for HP. His bio is here [64]. About not using the name of the person from the GA, I was not hesitant, I just decided not to use it. From reading Kingkade's piece at HP, it sounds to me like HP is using this journalist as their contact with the GA. I see no reason that it should not be included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he is only a self published blogger who is not edited. Also, Huffpo is notorious for not paying for content. We can't go by "it seems" at all. Either he is a journalist or not. I say he is a pretender who has to go. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing that. I spent a good deal of time and could see it but couldn't touch it...sorta thing!LOL! Agreed, he is a well established jouranlist for these purposes.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually it is not surprising that one would make a mistake when one has little time to spend on constructive conversation on this page when so much edit-time is taken up with disrustive arguments by one or two editors. I will put the info back since it seems there is no objection. Gandydancer (talk)

Can we refer to the GA member by his name? Or would that even really be undue weight. This is in the body of the article right? Maybe add the shorter version for the lead and the longer more detailed information where it is within the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This change is terrible! You have completely removed all mention of the Demands Working Group document, even though it has been cited in several news reports. I am reverting this inclusion of the lead. Should you wish to replace it, please agree to compromise by including a {{POV}} tag. Dualus (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed anything. That information is still in the body of the article with the link to the source. The lede is not a place to include every last detail. Please try to be a little more informed rather that just instantly reacting, as it is causing me and some other editors a great deal of frustration. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please summarize the protestors consensus process instead of trying to make it seem like they aren't making any proposals? Once you have convinced people of a well supported paragraph in the body, then you should consider whether it is important enough to summarize in the lead. What makes you think discussions of goals and demands is more important than polling summaries or the calls for a constitutional amendment? Dualus (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dualus has deleted the paragraph in the lede that was proposed 2 days ago and entered with small changes per group discussion with this edit summary: delete biased summary per talk: others have complained about HuffPo sources, and this version doesn't properly characterize this statement or provide a link to the Demands Working Group proposal). I am just about at the end of my rope with this editor. I don't care if somebody complained about Huff Post - they are perfectly acceptable to use. If you insist on the ref to the document even though it is not mentioned in the lede, you are free to add it, though some other editor may (rightly) complain. Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted again, this time Dualus made substantial changes to the lede without consensus. Plese get consensus before you again change the wording. Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again you have deleted mention of the 99 Percent Declaration from the intro, even though WP:LEAD specifically says to make sure that the lead summarizes the most controversial aspects of the topic. People can compare the quality of prose. Yours is not written very well. What is your source for "Other commentators see it as a 'democratic awakening,' whose motives are difficult to formulate into a few demands, saying that the current primary goal for the movement is simply growth." -- I can not find that in the single Huffington Post source you have cited. Therefore I am reverting because you have unsupported material in the lead. Dualus (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned the copy that has been discussed and agreed on to the article and I have included the references and mention of the working group that you have demanded. In the future please discuss before you change the copy. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source for groups joining the call for a constitutional amendment

Is McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" News Times op-ed by Green Party US's international committee co-chair a reliable source for the following excerpt?

"But hope is alive and coming to Connecticut in an edifying feast on the subject by a Move to Amend founder and spokesperson, attorney David Cobb. He will be speaking in the state at several venues beginning Tuesday evening, Oct. 25, at the Dodd Center of the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and culminating in a talk on Oct. 29 at Kent Town Hall, Kent. Several groups are sponsoring this tour, including UConn Student Government, the Shoreline League of Democratic Women, MoveOn.org and the Green Party of CT. As Americans including OWS, look for ways to address our huge socioeconomic disparities and the corruption of our democratic process, "Move to Amend" the Constitution offers a concrete path towards change."

Why or why not? Dualus (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you proposing to include? It appears that this source shows that some people think (or rather, at least one op-ed writer thinks) that it would be a good idea for OWS to embrace the idea of pushing for amendments to the US Constitution. Is that what you're driving at? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to summarize the quoted passage to prove that the material on the constitutional amendment which you and others have objected to is both about the subject of the article and of interest to our readers. Dualus (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do that so we can see it. Also, why is this opinion notable and due weight. Sources for that would help. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's simple: you can't do that. Read the policy on WP:Original Research, with specific attention to the section on Synthesis. You might also wish to read about logical fallacies, if you expect that showing OWS protesters are interested in a constitutional amendment will somehow demonstrate that Lessig's conference and book are about OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is false because about-ness is transitive: the protesters have (at least in part) joined Lessig's call for amendments and a convention, so OWS is now at least partially about amending the constitution. Other reliable sources say Lessig gives credibility to the movement, so the relationship is bidirectional. Therefore, OWS is at least partially about the "Move to Amend" campaign and vice versa. Dualus (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that made the slightest bit of sense, it would be WP:SYNTH. So no, you can't do that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried. I'm sure there will be plenty of sources saying so directly soon. Dualus (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous; does this mean you finally realize that you need sources which directly advance the claims you want to make?. That would be grand. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Centrify on this and believe it also amounts to pushing POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are worried about the point of view of someone who wants to organize the news about the calls for amending the constitution? WP:NPOV means we have to summarize all major points of view with reliable sources. What sources does your position that amending the constitution is unrelated to OWS have? None. So who's trying to bias the encyclopedia? Dualus (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe views." Considering your aggressive and disruptive behavior here I feel satisfied that the claim has been "done carefully".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have an ongoing dispute about this, I am tagging the article with {{POV}}. I believe you are trying to bias the article by excluding information about calls to amend the Constitution. Dualus (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a "Dispute". The addition of the POV tag under your reasoning is inappropriate and could constitute further edit warring. It is certainly assuming bad faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is most certainly a dispute, and the tag is there to warn people of just the sort of thing that you and I are both complaining about. I believe that those of you claiming a consensus against inclusion without any specific objections which have not been addressed are trying to bias the encyclopedia, and you believe I am trying to bias the encyclopedia because I think we should include the well sourced information on calls to amend the Constitution. The tag specifically says to leave it until the dispute is resolved. Dualus (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what I believe or think and should refrain from speaking for anyone but yourself. This is further disruption and these continued accusations are Wikipedia:Harassment.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag needs consensus to remain in the article just like any other piece of article content. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly many have tried without any success at all to reason with this editor. I guess we'll just have to keep reverting his edits. Gandydancer (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been participating in discussions on dozens of passages in the article and have worked to include at least as many insertion suggestions. Just because we can't agree on two doesn't mean I don't reason. Where are the specific objections to the remaining passages? Dualus (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pointless exercise. People raise objections. You say "I already addressed all your objections. Do you have any more objections?" People note that you didn't address the previous objections. Rinse. Repeat. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a correct characterization unless you are referring to non-specific objections. I can't do a lot against arguments of undue weight except find more reliable sources. If you don't have a list of your current objections, and I can't find them, that's your problem. Dualus (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last time you proposed any specific text, I told you exactly what was wrong with it. You responded by ignoring me, walking away from the discussion, and simply re-inserting the text by force—after having been told to seek consensus and refrain from edit-warring. That's just not how it works. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I am replacing the {{POV}} tag because of the dispute about summarizing the polls in the intro and including information about calls for a constitutional amendment in the body of the article. As the tag says, please do not remove it until the dispute is resolved. Also, on the advice of an administrator, I am reporting this article on WP:NPOVN. Dualus (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit immediately deleted the tag, and among other things, re-introduced an error regarding NM Incite which completely contradicts the source cited for it. Dualus (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Reverted. Tag removed per warning by admin on this page to you and the consensus of editors. Also you took out legit deletions. As for the noticeboard thing....what you do is your business you don't need to advertise them here in this manner as it amounts to an attempt to intimidate others. If that was you idea of notifying editors here of the ANI, your could have done it in a more neutral manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a POV dispute, the POV tag should be on the article until the dispute is resolved. That is the policy. Dualus (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Consensus forms what content is added to this page per Administrative warning to you. Also, that advise seems more geared to telling you, you are at the wrong place with the ANI report you made. Here is the comment left there:
"I think you need to take this to dispute resolution, as there's nothing for anyone to do here. You may also want to consider the NPOV noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)"--Amadscientist (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe a dispute doesn't exist? Why are you opposed to the POV tag? Dualus (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the error in the information. If you have a legitimate reason for the removal of that material as being in error I am all ears.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"According to NM Incite, the majority of social media users indicate they feel the government is responsible for social inequity." is not supported by [65] Because while the quote may be accurate, the actual numbers shown to support it are nowhere near comprising a "majority." The version with the numerical breakdown is more accurate. Why delete the Rushkoff quote? Dualus (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense and works for me. I have changed back the legitimate constructive edit removed to return ref fixes etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the removal of the other information as ill conceived prose from Sky Dancing blogs that is not a reliable source but personal blogs. Is there evidence that this blog site is a major news media site for use, and the author a journalist? I see no evidence that the blogs have proper editorial over site.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a POV dispute - stop removing the template and work it out - the desperate desire to remove a template says to me that there clearly is an issue. the article looks and reads like a promotion of the event to me so I fail to see how its not POV. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the editors dispute Off2riorob. What the article looks and reads like is not in question but content he wishes to add that has not gained the consensus of editors. An accusation of Meat Puppetry has been leveled at all contributing editors here as tag teaming and while I do strongly believe he may be guilty of pushing POV, Wikipedia Harassment and other violations I, myself have made no ANI notification, or created any dispute resolution. I have attempted to work with the editor, speak to him here on this talk page but have asked him to refrain from further comments on my personal talk page for unfounded accusations, threats of administrative action and name calling.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to do so once actual dispute resolution is created. Until then, it is simply a threat of administrative action and goes against the consensus of the contributing editors as well as the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. Thank you for weighing in.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Dualus is discussing in good faith and believes there is a POV issue the tag should be included in the article - at least for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor believes there is a POV issue then he has the right to tag the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen him discuss in good faith. He looses his cool easily, doesn't appear interested in working together and makes accusations at the drop of a hat. I agree, when he attempts to discuss in good faith, or when he begins his dispute resolution I will not remove the tag. However if the consensus of contributing editors is against inclusion of the material I see no reason not to continue to remove it.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly seems reasonable that one editor can start 6 or 7 new sections here and take hours of time from other editors who have attempted meaningful discussion to then just slap a POV tag on the article because he didn't get his way. I'd like to see the policy that makes this sort of behavior possible. Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Template:POV the template shouldn't be removed while discussions about the articles POV are ongoing and a consensus hasn't been reached - if the consensus is not clear to everyone involved request an uninvolved administrator to close the relevant discussions at WP:AN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be specific here....since the first edit I have made here on this page to nearly the last, Dualus has berated me, accusing me of vandalism for legitimate edits and accusing me of collaborating with others to keep out his contributions. This is nearly nonstop when he is here. I cannot control whatever behavior he wishes to display but I can control my own and I know my actions will speak for me, as his will speak for him.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Dualus has behaved poorly on multiple occasions then raise the matter on his talk page or call him out individually. Uncivil behaviour is unacceptable in a group project. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a POV tag if discussion is ongoing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I have overlooked any specific objections which have not yet been raised, please bring them to my attention. I understand that WP:RSN would prefer less Huffington Post sources. I intend to work on that. The article is biased because mention of a constitutional amendment has been completely removed when there is support for including a summary of it in the lead (Salon.) Are there any other outstanding objections that anyone has been able to discern? The article is also biased because recent favorable polling data has been removed. Also some people don't want to say that the movement is associated with the Arab Spring, so it's biased that way, too. Good luck fixing it! Dualus (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you simply would prefer less of the site used here. Perhaps if you raised it as a undue weight issue and discussed that, you could form a consensus on it. I would not object to the removal of Huffington Post references that are used improperly, may be too much undue weight to a single site etc, but, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. This article may indeed have many problems but the exclusion of information by consensus is not one of them. Because, that consensus can change regardless of who raises the issue. I specifically object to the Arab Spring as undue weight to the lead. My question is...is it even in the article at all? That seems like a good start, but realize it's notability to the article may not gain consensus either. The article has some bais. That is not in question. Nearly all Wikipedia articles contain some bias and it is commendable that you desire to fix it. It's your approach and specific reasoning as to WHY it is biased that appears not to have consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV tags remain by consensus

An admin already laid that one down. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins aren't infalliable. It is perfectly legitimate to tag the article until a consensus is reached on the various points that are disputed.
I have never seen such desperation to keep a tag out of an article - to me it makes it much more likely that there is a POV issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the admin, and until I see someone quote a policy that says that not all article content is determined by consensus, I'm calling bs on your point. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read the documentation for the tag - while the dispute is ongoing it is perfectly normal to tag the article. This is standard practice. Unless the admin is an uninvolved admin closing the discussion they have no more say than anyone else by being an administrator. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I trust the esteemed admin and unless you can counter it, the point has been credibly made and only gainsayed. And by the way, that interloper meme thing is hella funny. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other option, if the tag continues to be removed, is full protection for the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get busy now. And you got any way of backing up your argument? I haven't seen it yet. If the answer is no, then someone needs to back off. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the template documentation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x4 Ed is just an editor, the fact he is also an admin does not matter. If an editor feels an article is POV he can justifiably tag said article until the discussion is solved or runs out of steam, that is policy and local consensus does not override policy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does matter, cuz he knows his stuff and you two have not done your homework. So, I decided to help you out and get you both up to speed. Per the POV templates for the tags (pay attention to number 3). The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

  1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
  2. Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.
  3. There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved

Tag is needed. This is an article on a controversial subject and a current event. POV can change rapidly in this article so I think it should be added. Lots of people editing could be pro or anti OWS. The tag helps the reader to at least know that could be going on.

--Andy0093 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor who added the tag was discussing neutrality issues then yes the tag is justified. Is there a section were he was discussing it? I found it, in the section directly above. So policy ws followed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please. please, please, read number three, Consensus is that no disputes are unresolved. Unless that is addressed, you've just improvised what you think policy should be. A better respect for consensus would repair that. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel a consensus has been reached get an uninvolved administrator to close the relevant discussion(s) here by asking Dualus if needed and wait for the NPOV noticeboard discussion to be closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can point to a dispute that the actual editor's of article have not resolved, you have no grounds to insist on the tag. Furthermore, you have neither edited the article or been involved in any way in shaping that consensus. In short, you have no standing here, and are presumptuously acting as an admin. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[QUOTE] Tag is needed. This is an article on a controversial subject and a current event. POV can change rapidly in this article so I think it should be added. Lots of people editing could be pro or anti OWS. The tag helps the reader to at least know that could be going on.[/QUOTE] I shall wait for the decision on the tag, however, most certainly this will not be the reason for keeping it. If the "Abortion" article which I work on has had a heated argument going on for months with 5 or more pages of discussion does not have one, I doubt that this article should have one just because we need to help readers know that there is controversy. Many articles are being argued about, but that does not mean that they all have tags. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stick one on Abortion then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I'm not a fool. Most of the people working on that article have much more experience in matters of policy than I do. Many of them are administrators. I trust their judgement. Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are measuring the size of our edit histories I have 20000 edits and no blocks - I have plenty of experience of policy. Lets not forget WP:NOBIGDEAL. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was foul, would you remove it? We like a vigorous discussion, but you just went out on that one. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The consensus of actual editors of the article do not wish the POV tag to added. Outside editors need to respect that. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)[reply]

Local consensus doesn't override policy. You are behaving in a highly inappropriate manner. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now this scolding is very interesting. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since my view is policy based, and the policy is quoted, not merely alluded to, Angry's argument is both ironic and perplexing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Eraserhead said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of note full protection has been requested at WP:RfPP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That went down in glorious flames. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I didn't continue to revert you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, no consensus exits between actual editors of the article to maintain it, and I'm sure that is why you were so circumspect. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because edit warring isn't an acceptable justification to remove it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad reason. Now, one of these days I would like for the first time to see what aspect of POV policy you have relied on beyond the vague allusions that have presented so far. I really have no way of understanding what policy agrees with you on POV tags and can not guess what it might be if only being pointed towards the POV page is all I get to satisfy my curiosity. BTW, I don't feel entitled as long as the consensus is respected on the POV tag, but I am truly interested. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a straight vote of one against another. It is what all editors eventually live with from a formed discussion. There is no consensus on the POV tag as of yet. That doesn't mean it can't be formed and followed. You can't force an editor into a dispute. You can't beat someone up and then claim they were violent. No dispute exists between myself and Dualus. Constant reverts that are unjustified are edit warring. That is not a dispute. Claims and accusations against others is not a dispute. Consensus of contributing editors is not a dispute, it is the heart and soul of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus requires the support of reliable sources for it to remain in place. Can you think of better sources than Huffington Post to describe the calls for constitutional amendments? Is the Salon source sufficient for showing that Lessig is part of the movement? Dualus (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Better"? Better, as in you believe Huffington Post is biased, or better in that there are more reliable sources. Huffington Post is a reliable source for information when properly cited following Wikipedia guide lines. Limits to undue weight are reasonable if it is truly so. As far as I am concerned you have raised an issue and stated your intentions. As I have said, if your edit is not approved of by another editor and is reverted they need to justify the revert to form consensus. There is no reason you can't work on this page. No one is stopping you or anyone else. Just have more patience, be civil and please don't make accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you don't need consensus to tag an article - that has never been followed anywhere else on the project. Oh and you can "force" someone into a dispute by disagreeing with them - just as you can in real life - trying to stop this is absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you aren't even arguing the facts of the discussion now. Adding it...anyone can do, just as removing it can be done by anyone. Consensus is formed by all parties. And if you personally can be forced into a dispute by someone disagreeing with you....I suggest you review dispute resolution and Wikipedia:No angry mastodons sir. Nobody ever got trampled to death because they were editing an encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Dualus took this to ANI to request ADMINISTRATIVE intervention! He wasn't counting on it being him that was intervened on. Now Eraserhead1 (edit: and others) says that admin intervention AGAINST Dualus doesn't count. Interesting logic but absurd.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

Someone made a free vectorized version, but it doesn't render very well yet.
An image used in this article, File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be uploaded to enwiki for the time being. I'm not convinced it's the best possible graph on the subject. For example this one is far superior. Dualus (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 protest figure

I removed the 100,000 protest number. It only seems to be liked to a Nate Silver article on the protests. I have found no other Main Stream Media organization reporting on this number. The other cited source, which was The Nation magazine, did not list the number at 100,000. The article even says the number is most likely 100,000. He more or less says that he is guessing and that is unscientific. I do not thing the facts support the number enough to be included. If any other organization had reported than yes, but a simple google search does not show this number listed anywhere else except a few blogs which link to Nate Silvers Times article.

Best,

--Andy0093 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a WP:RS says it, we can include it. The NYT is a WP:RS. He describes his methods, estimates 70,000, and then says it's probably an underestimate, and ups it to 100,000. He doesn't call it a guess. He doesn't say it's unscientific. He calls it an estimate. That's what we should say -- the total was probably 100,000, according to an estimate by Silver. --Nbauman (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was already objected to, discussed, and decided.[66] The decision was to include the 100,000 figure. I intend to replace it. Dualus (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is baloney. This is only one source. Not one other person in the media has reported it as 100,000. NOT ONE OTHER SOURCE. Find me other sources saying this is 100,000 people. No it is not scientific, and no it shouldn't be included. This is the estimate of one man, who is a blogger for the NYT politics blog. Not one other source has put this at 100,000. To include it would be incredibly inappropriate. --Andy0093 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the estimate that Silver made was 70,000 with the opinion that it may have been as high as 100,000 and a confirmed (from news report estimates) of 38,000. The 100,000 number is by no means a scientific estimate. It is a guess, possibly an educated guess, but a guess nontheless. Arzel (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can question the statistical acumen of Nate Silver all you want, but New York Times blogs almost always pass the reliable source criteria. Ask on WP:RSN if you don't believe me. Dualus (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RS source linking Ravi Batra to OWS movement

Finally, a RS that meets the criteria demanded to explicitly link Ravi Batra to the Occupy Wall Street movement:

1. Fort Worth Weekly, ""Rising Up: A lost generation finds its place in North Texas protests — and in the fast-spreading Occupy movement". Oct. 19, 2011:

"The uprising comes as no surprise to Southern Methodist University professor Ravi Batra. In his 1978 book The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism, the economist predicted that Soviet communism would die out by the turn of the century and that monopoly capitalism would “create the worst-ever concentration of wealth in its history, so much so that a social revolution would start its demise around 2010.” People may have laughed then, but they aren’t laughing now".[67]

2. Kathleen Wells radio show (Loma Linda, CA) where she interivews Ravi Batra about Occupy Wall Street.[68], [69]
3. CNN Ireporter (national)[70]

This is in line with my gut feeling that as it is only "early days for the OWS movement" Batra's contribution is bound to eventually to emerge. It now has. Of course, this means the entry is going in. Here is the proposed quote:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[71] In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions [72][73] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[74]

The question now remains where the entry on Batra should be placed in the article. So far, it has been proposed that it can go in the Background section or Celebrity support section.Plankto (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been able to establish that Batra would be considered a celebrity. You also have not established that he has such a close relationship to the background of the movement that he rates being included in an article which must include only the most outstanding elements/people/ etc. Due to the necessity to keep the length of the article within bounds we simply can not list every person that has predicted that we are headed for hell in a hand basket, so as to speak, if we don't change some basic ideas about how to manage the problems we now face. Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a fair assessment by Gandydancer. As someone remarked above, 'to be or not to be' a celebrity inovles a subjective assessment and is thus hard to establish. It is however clear that within the ambit of this article, Ravi Batra is a celebrity, even a historical figure. Presently the article mentions the likes of Cornel West, Slavoj Žižek, Tom Chapin, David Amram, John Carlos, David Graeber, Chris Hedges, Stéphane Hessel, Jeff Madrick, Jimmy Wales and Richard D. Wolff. It is doubtful that they should be considerdd more notable than Batra when it comes to the subject matter of this article. Aside from that, let's not lose sight of the fact that the main objection to the entry, to establish a RS for the link has now been resolved. In view of the fact that Gandydancer continues to stonewall the placement of the entry in the article despite all the demands put up now having been met, other editors are asked to comment.Plankto (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Plankto's attempt to answer valid objections. Because such a good faith attempt to reshape consensus should be taken seriously, when I have a moment in a day or two, I will look at the links and chime in. I hope other do the same. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that I have stonewalled the placement of this information is absurd. I have repeatedly posted on this subject - that is not stonewalling, rather it is trying again and again to try to discuss the inclusion in the article. However discussion with Plankto by both myself and other editors has amounted to going over the same ground over and over again. For instance, Plankto continues to suggest that some of the "celebs" that are listed are no more notable than Batra. I'd agree with him there, however he has refused to accept the possibility of adding Batra to the list of those mentioned but have no copy, such as Wales and others. As for West, his presentation at the protest was covered by dozens of major news outlets. And as already mentioned, Žižek, who appeared very early to speak at the protest, is not widely known in the U.S., but is well-known world-wide. But I've said all this before, perhaps several times, but Plankto does not comment on it, he only continues to bring it up at a further date as though it's a new argument. After all this discussion Plankto is not willing to include his name in the list of those without copy but insists that he have copy even though he has gained mention only on the Thom Hartman Show, Truthout, and a few other minor outlets. In fact, he insists that he have more copy than any of the other celebs we have included. Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer has now conceded the point that Batra is no less notable than the people covered. However, it is not enough for him that I've established with RS that Batra has a) written national and international best sellers about how growing wealth disparity produces financial crises, b) been covered in national and international newspapers for his achievement, c) been awarded both medals of foreign legislatures and the IgNoble price for his predictions, d) predicted there would be an uprising against crony capitalism, or the influence of the rich over politics, following a financial crisis, e) popularised the concept of the "share of wealth held by the richest 1%" in the 1980s, f) written a letter on Truthout aimed at the OWS movement to support and guide it, g) had his ideas disseminated on the unoffical OWS web site, h) recently been interviewed on radio nationally syndicated radio shows (Thom Hartman and Kathleen Wells) about his relation to the OWS movement, and i) recently been featured in Fort Worth Weekly for his relevance to the OWS movement. And for this Batra should receive mention without copy along with e.g. singers and actors supporting the movement?Plankto (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to urge caution in being combative while trying to change a settled consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is being tested as your vomiting comment above also reveals. I suggest a bold solution.
  • 1) In background section, at the end.

    The theory that growing ecomomic inequality may cause depressions has been described in the works of Ravi Batra (1985) and Robert Reich (2010). Batra popularised the use of the term "share of wealth held by richest 1%" in this regard.[31][64]

  • 2) In the celebrity section, after the entry for Slavoj Žižek.

    Ravi Batra, who predicted "a coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos" in a 2007 book, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[65]

Hope you see the logic in this solution. Plankto (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a celebrity? Is that question.......or is the real question whether the header is simply...badly worded. How about that as a starting point towards agreement. Is celebrity the right term for this or should it be more appropriately titled as simply..."Notable personalities"? What's the thoughts on this?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to insert the proposed changes, to see them in the context of the article. Now, if there are valid objections, please state them and revert.Plankto (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert, but I still feel that Batra does not belong in the Background section because he has not played an active role in creating the OWS movement. However, I will remove this sentence:
"Batra popularised the use of the term "share of wealth held by richest 1%" in the 1980s."
because the reference used [75] does not say anything of the sort. Bowmerang (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter requested

Because of the IP hopper who is way too obsessed with tugging little boy's penises, I've asked that an edit filter be put in place so that good faith IP editors and new editors can continue to post here. I'll let y'all know if it's approved and implemented so we can let good faith unconfirmed users help. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's really helpful. If it's approved, then we can remove the protection on this page. It would also prevent the problem from spreading to other pages. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, if reliable sources comment on this "Occupy Wikipedia" movement these <redacted plural noun> claim to be representing, should there be an article on that subject? (Oh, and thanks for working on the edit filter. At least once a <redacted adjective> anon was reversed by another anon. It's not all anons, even on this article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've received confirmation that it's being worked on right now. As for Occupy Wikipedia, I'm just as ready to assume that what we've seen so far is really just one guy in his mom's basement (or some other basement hopefully more than 500 feet away from any schools, daycares, or playgrounds). For what it's worth (I'm not an RS), most of the Occupy folks and sympathizers I've heard from or about see Wikipedia as indirectly on their side (or at least not on the side of the %1), so I don't think we're going to be occupied. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. One can never be too confident how these things will work out, but it should give us some peace for a while. If anyone wants to know, it's in filter 58. And feel free to ask an admin to reprotect this page it if it returns. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wikipedia, see Talk:"Occupy" protests # I would like to propose Wikipedia:Project Occupy. 99.35.13.28 (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Newt Gingrich quote

In the section of 2012 Presidential candidates I included this quote. Let me draw a distinction. Virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually very American has a reason to be worried. I think the people who are protesting in Wall Street break into two groups: one is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other is sincere middle-class people who frankly are very close to the Tea Party people who care. And actually...you can tell which are which. The people who are decent, responsible citizens pick up after themselves. The people who are just out there as activists trash the place and walk off and are proud of having trashed it, so let’s draw that distinction. Another user keeps editing it so it appears like this. Let me draw a distinction. Virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually very American has a reason to be worried. I think the people who are protesting in Wall Street break into two groups: one is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other is sincere middle-class people who frankly are very close to the Tea Party people who care.

To remove the end of the quote takes out the "distinction" he is drawing at the beginning. I don't understand why the other user is editing out the end. It is troubling.

--Andy0093 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems perfectly reasonable for inclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was fixing to say similar. Glad to see the end of the quote re-included, since I think Newt Gingrich represents the emerging "converts" who can see past the propaganda dished out by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I'm a republican and support OWS as well as all the Koreans who I know are Republican. The end of the quote brings coverage of the "blackout" of republicans like me who are fully in agreement with Newt Gengrich. Keep up the good work out there, OWS! 완젬스 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity and artist involvement

We should have a separate section from 'Celebrity reaction' called 'Artist support' for artists such as musicians, actors/actresses, and writers who are supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Let's start a list:

Please add to this list. Krishyanity (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but this kinda violates WP:UNDUE and you're better off creating a WP:LIST or maybe a private blog or something? I think your ambition is admirable, but such a proposal might be shunned by other editors of this article. We'll see what other editors recommend? 완젬스 (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could be in prose or list. I think a list with references that clarify involvement would be the way to go. I'm taking cues from the Barack Obama endorsements page. Maybe we should split off the participants section into its own page? Krishyanity (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if you can make it in prose, then I think the article will be more fully developed. Don't just "name names" but try to say what the person did, specifically if they donated money or gave a speech or drew positive attention. Give an account of each celebrity, with what they did, and yes! I'll help you out any way I can after you get started, especialy make sure everything has a reference so it doesn't get deleted without discussion. 완젬스 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about an article List of famous Occupy Wall Street supporters? Some of my references are wall posts and photos from artists on facebook. I don't have the ability to edit this article and I'd like others to contribute as well. Krishyanity (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me you're about to learn "bandwagon effect" which means once you begin doing the work, others will volunteer more eagerly because their work is on top of someone else's work. That way nobody stands around waiting for someone to take the first step! Bystander effect I suggest start with both, but leaning slightly in favor of keeping only the "best newsworthy" events from celebrities into the article (but avoid WP:NOTNEWS) while facebook posts, and twitter, should go onto list first, but try to cite reliable sources which can back up the fact celebrities, generally speaking, are supportive through the social media outlets. (if this sounds confusing, it is, wikipedia has so many policies to memorize, but that's where i'll help answer any/all questions you have). Get started and I'll help offer guidance in any way that i can. 완젬스 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your advice? Should I start the List of notable Occupy Wall Street supporters page? How exactly should I "get started" when I don't have the authority to edit this article? Krishyanity (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it for you. ;-) I look forward to growing OWS and increasing its presence on Wikipedia--it's a shame so much merging is going on--makes me doubt people know how big this thing really is. Anyways, no more chit chat, it's time to let it begin! 완젬스 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit-power and the star. =) Okay, I added an "Artist reaction" section and moved the musicians out of the "Celebrity reaction". I think we may need to re-organize the article and rename the reaction to support, maybe even split the famous supporters and participants into its own article as I proposed earlier. The list of "Other celebrities/artists supporting the OWS movement are" at the end of both sections needs to be expanded and broken up into their own sentences if possible. It's a start. Krishyanity (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the artist section and agree it is needed however I changed the section header to Artist Participation for now. "Reaction" would assume an either direction sort of thing and right now it looks to be strictly about support at the moment. Doesn't mean it isn't the intention of the editor who created it to go that direction, simply that it isn't there yet. For reaction, I would LOVE to see someone find a reliable source stating Arturo Di Modica's reaction to the protests.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it too, however an editor that does not believe in discussion first has reverted the section. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm disappointed about that. There are so many musicians who are supporting this movement. It would be a pity and a shame not to document the musical side of this movement, as with every generation's protest. But let's not lose heart or hope. I'll start List of notable Occupy Wall Street supporters (as per 완젬스's suggestion) soon (and if I haven't already, feel free to start it - but I wanna make sure that it has a good start so it's not auto-deleted) and we can focus our efforts on that list. Krishyanity (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources saying the protesters want a constitutional amendment

Here are some sources which I have sorted roughly by those appearing most to least reliable to me based on the WP:RS criteria. Where would you personally draw the line on inclusion?

  1. Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) "What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want — Constitutional amendment on corporations is a starting point" Psychology Today
  2. Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) "Lynch Shares Views on 'Occupy' Movement" Needham, Mass. Patch
  3. Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) "Russell Simmons: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want Constitutional Amendment" Mediaite
  4. McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" NewsTimes.com
  5. Tankersley, J. (October 23, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street's Marketing Crisis: What Would an OWS Brand Look Like?" The Atlantic
  6. [76] and [77] are likely not suitable for inclusion, except as primary sources in support or as examples of secondaries

In light of these sources, are there any remaining objections to including the calls for a constitutional amendment in the article? Dualus (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source cited is a self-described blog which says, "I'm baffled that, having come away from one day at OWS with a clear understanding that this policy objective is important to the protestors, it seems to be unnoticed by journalists much more experienced than myself."[78] IOW a source that fails rs and weight, and says that an issue has been ignored by rs is being used as a reason to include something. TFD (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does "IOW" mean? A blog by an established writer working for an organization with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy still counts as a reliable source, but I would be happy to include other sources first, as more reliable, and this one merely for background material and the reporting it includes. Are there any objections to any of the other sources? Dualus (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IOW means in other words. See WP:RS - blogs are only reliable sources for the opinions of their authors. But the main issue is WP:WEIGHT. You have a source that says an issue has been ignored by the mainstream, which means we should also ignore it. It is not our role to correct the weight that mainstream sources provide to aspects of topics, but to reflect the weight they provide. TFD (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances I think this bears repeating: "It is not our role to correct the weight that mainstream sources provide to aspects of topics." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between polls of demographics and public opinion

There should be a new section for public opinion of the movement separate from demographics.

the part in question:

An October 13 survey by Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while 18 percent "tend to oppose" it.

needs it's own section since it's about opinion outside the movement and there's numerous other polls to look at.

UPDATE: I just created the section. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Nazis

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

No, we don't promote fringe groups who choose to endorse the latest fad. WP:UNDUE. If you can find a source saying that the ANP's endorsement is indicative of anything other the ANP's attempt to obtain publicity, I might feel differently. Dualus (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not undue when there are 44 news hits for it. It is notable given the coverage it has received and this discussion has already been resolved on the NPOV board, this section is to discuss were to add the line "The American Nazi Party has also offered support" one line from thirty sources is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally undue, as the NPOV discussion illustrates - there is no consensus whatsoever in that thread for inclusion. Please take your smear campaign elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my smear campaign, please redact your personal attack. The NPOV discussion illustrates that it ought be included, per all the sources which mention it. One line is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV discussion illustrates nothing of the sort - and if it isn't your smear campaign, why are you promoting it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am promoting nothing, per all policy's this deserves a line, it has 44 hits on google news, and a few million on the web, it is notable which means in gets included in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been argued to death. The opinions of fringe groups on current events are unimportant to articles about those events. TFD (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your removal of this content is an issue, I have tagged the article for neutrality. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition of content while it was being discussed on the talk page, with no support for inclusion, is an issue. And you are seriously suggesting that there is a 'neutrality' issue in not mentioning fringe material sourced from blogs you found on Google? That has to be the most ridiculous 'justification' for tagging that I've seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was it sourced to a blog? Or to one of the most widely viewed news networks in America? Sorry but undue will not fly here, given the news hits + google hits this is notable, it does not matter if you do not like it, policy dictates it ought be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. There is no policy that says Wikipedia content is determined by Google hits, end of story. Take your smear campaign elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is correct, a few google hits does not mean that a small issue must be included. That is not how NPOV works - 44 google hits should be weighed against the millions of google hits of the topic as a whole.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these is a personal blog? Fox newsMedia Matters for AmericaHuffington PostNew York PostSunshine State News Plenty of reliable sources mention it, so should we. I have taken the liberty of removing your personal attack. @Maunus that is just news hits, there are several million hits on google for it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting your 'sources':

Fox News - a mention in passing, along with The Socialist Party U.S.A, Communist Party U.S.A, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Mediamatters: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them."
Huff post - a blog
New York Post - as WP:RS? ROFL!
Sunshine State News - a blog

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

Per WP:RS blogs hosted by news agencies are reliable. It is not a mention in passing on fox, it was part of their news segment. All those sources are reliable and you know it, this fact is notable and it needs be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such necessity. As I said you have to weigh it against the entire coverage of the protest. The Nazi support is not in any way a significant part of that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually per WP:NPOV there is means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, plenty of reliable sources have mentioned this, however I look forward to the list of celebrities being substantially trimmed.
The key part is "proportionately".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and "significant". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latest POV tag

The dispute concerning the inclusion of Nazis has also resulted in an editor including the {{POV}} tag, which I have been trying to include based on the removal of polling data and calls for a constitutional amendment. However, the tag was immediately reverted. Something is happening here. Dualus (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps it was the wrong tag :o) I used a different one which should suffice The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you enlighten us as to which 'significant viewpoints' you think have been excluded? Is it the viewpoint of the American Nazi Party, or the blogs you found on Google? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the POV tag in regards to not using the ANP stuff. If there's a more legitimate reason, feel free to add it back. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the tag is valid for the Nazis or not, the #Sources saying the protesters want a constitutional amendment are not represented in the article, and I do not believe the claims of consensus. Those who say they are in support have been too quiet. Dualus (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-add it then. But it link it to that discussion, and not the Nazi one like it previously was. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that you simply add a {{POV}} tag. There were no links in the tag you most recently deleted. This article should also have a POV tag because the document by the Demands Working Group has been completely scrubbed. Dualus (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with your placement of the tag for the reasons you state, it may never be neutral enough to satisfy all and you are simply using it to get your way.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that may never be neutral to satisfy all, and we indicate them with the POV tag. I do not think of editing as trying to get my way, I try to improve the encyclopedia for our readers. Dualus (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that reasoning far more than anything else you have stated so far. I can live with it for now as no one has reverted with any argument against it. Consensus for the tag appears to be holding at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources saying the Demands Working Group published demands

Those who wish to keep information about recent polling data, calls for a constitutional convention, that there were 100,000 protestors in the US on October 15, and the connection to the Arab Spring out of the article intro at #Improving the lede above (including User:Gandydancer -- please see that userpage about minstrels and blackface) have also removed all mention of the Demands Working Group document so here are some sources about it:

  1. Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian
  2. Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
  3. Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider
  4. Gerson, M. (October 20, 2011) "Obama’s risky embrace of Occupy Wall Street" Washington Post
  5. Isquith, E. (October 20, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street’s growing pains" League of Ordinary Gentlemen

In light of these new sources, does anyone object to including the fact that the Demands Working Group published some proposed demands? In the mean time I am going to remove the opinion that they were rejected from the intro. Dualus (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start? First off, I did not remove "information about recent polling data, calls for a constitutional convention, that there were 100,000 protestors in the US on October 15, and the connection to the Arab Spring out of the article intro at # above". I wrote, with significant talk page discussion, the second paragraph. I also wrote most of the information re the document in the body of the article and there is a link to the document there. Actually there is a link to it in the reference I used in the lede as well. As for my gandydancer page, I had no idea that it looked like that! I thought that I had created a work page to work on the yodel article that I have (almost totally) written. Why you believe that it is somehow shocking is beyond me - though I'm glad to know that I need to delete it! So if anyone wants to read about the first yodeling in the U.S. read "my" article Yodeling. And finally, it seems that you have a grudge against me because I don't agree with some of your ideas and are attempting to cause me grief, and you're doing a good job of that - and I'm sick of spending so my of my time in this manner. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the #Improving the lede link. I was unable to see any link to the "99 Percent Declaration" document which looked like it had entirely been scrubbed. It still looks to me like you are trying to completely scrub all substantial mention of the DWG declaration. I have a very hard time believing you are not familiar with the state of your user page. Dualus (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't get angry very often but I've had about enough of this. You're suggesting I'm trying to "completely scrub all substantial mention of the DWG declaration". I have no idea where you get this notion, but since you are accusing me of intentional bias, I expect you to show exactly how and why I've attempted to sway the article. As for my use page, how would I know? I never go there. It was the first time I had used a work page and thought I had created one. Why are you making such a big deal of the fact that minstrels and black face are mentioned? Do you think that it must mean that I am a bigot? I am about ready to leave this article. I've worked on quite a few controversial articles, but I've never seen anything like this. Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were a bigot, I questioned the terms you chose to use on your user page. How do you feel about this compromise? Dualus (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you reverted without discussing your changes her on talk first, how do you feel about this compromise? Dualus (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to comment on the lede please go to the appropriate section and comment there rather than start a new section where you chose to suggest I'm deleting large sections of copy. You have made accusations and I now expect you to back them up by pointing out where I made the deletions. I find that all of my editing is now related to your wild accusations. If a new editor joins the group and sees what you are writing it may give them the idea that there must be some truth to what you are claiming. Thus, I want to see you point out exactly where I deleted the copy that you say that I have. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only way you've ever linked to the 99 Percent Declaration from the intro has been indirectly via a Huffington Post source. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Dualus (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are wrong. When I did my first edit to that section I added to what you had already posted WHICH INCLUDED THE LINK TO THE DOCUMENT. Gandydancer (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't freak out...but I sorta agree with that. Huffington still seems to be a major objection with little rationale but "indirectly" was something I was looking at last night. Don't know if Dualus has changed that or not but we can disuss it and figure it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I linked to it! The demand group was NOT mentioned in the lede, it WAS mentioned in the body where it WAS linked to the demands list. I don't know how many different times or ways I need to repeat this! And, I'm still waiting for information on all the other deletions that I supposedly made. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about accusations. Water off a ducks back. Lets focus on the article and improving it and find a way to move on. I don't want you to walk away from the article. Take a break, have some dinner, take a walk and comeback.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 1 Haack, cannot be verified to have any editorial over site for the blog and no evidence can be found to show the author has journalistic credentials. Unreliable source for facts. Threat it like the Huffington Post.
  1. 2 is probably the strongest reference with what appears to be akin to a University website with student journalist but may be paid staff.
  1. 3 looks like another blog but seems to have editorial over site. So treat it as an opinion piece unless you can show it is an actual article and can back trace it or show she is writing this as a story and not opinion/blog.
  1. 4 is a reliable source as an opinion piece because it is an opinion piece and labeled as such.
  1. 5 is a straight on personal blog on a hosted site and has no value here as a reference.

--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index headings

The present sub-headings in section 5 feel a bit labored. How about the following changes.

5 Reaction

5.1 Political establishment (drop: reaction, add: establishment)
5.1.1 The White House
5.1.2 Congress
5.1.3 2012 Presidential candidates
5.1.4 Other politicians
5.2 Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada
5.3 Unions (drop: reaction, add: s)
5.4 Business leaders
5.5 1% for the 99%
5.6 Writers (separate notable writers from artists and drop: celebrity support)
5.7 Artists (drop: participation, add: s)
5.8 Critics (drop: conservative -- as critics need not be conservatices)
5.9 Local residents
5.10 International reaction

Does that fly?Plankto (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a much more logical way to organize this. The current order is a mess. Krishyanity (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take care to avoid terminology like "political establishment" that carries revolutionary undertones. Also, given the scope of this overhaul you might want to wait for a pretty broad consensus before breaking ground. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today resource

Vatican meets OWS: 'The economy needs ethics' Oct 24, 2011 by Cathy Lynn Grossman. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that should go in the International reactions section. Dualus (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs frontpage WSJ resource

Goldman Sachs Sends Its Regrets to This Awkward Dinner Invitation; Bank Withdraws From Fund-Raiser After 'Occupy Wall Street' Gets Place at Table Ocotober 22, 2011 by Robert Frank in The Wall Street Journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions? Chronology? I'm not sure where that should go. Dualus (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

twitter as a source?

In the October 1st Chronology section, a twitter message from a protester is used as a source. How is a message on twitter a reliable source for an encyclopedia. I went to the footnote (#239) given for that quote and clicked the link that goes to an article in the Guardian. Nowhere in the article did I find that quote. This is not reliable or verifiable and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. DaffyBridge (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that last night as well but didn't have a chance to read the reference. The unsupported claim and false reference should be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What three side and what three disputes?

This will need to be spelled out. (replace POV tag: it is now abundantly clear from talk that there are multiple parties on both sides of at least three disputes.. Otherwise it's a groundless fabrication. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see three sections regarding POV issues, one says New pov tag, the other is directly below that and the other directly above American Nazis. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The POV tag can't be counted. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you can agree with asking for specific objections. These subjects are in dispute:
  1. connection to the Arab Spring mentioned in intro
  2. recent polls summarized in intro
  3. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the intro
  4. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the body
  5. description of 99 Percent Declaration in intro (I believe we may have reached a compromise on this one)
  6. description of the Goals Working Group (currently only one person on each side of this one)
I count at least two other active editors on my side of 1-4, and two or three editors opposed to my position on those first four at present. Dualus (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am against #2 as undue weight for the lede with ever changing information. Same for # 1 but not strong enough to revert (Edit: however...if it's not in the body of the article, how is it not undue weight for the lede?). Against #3 as possible POV pushing. I think number 4 is contentious enough to be a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Can live with whatever consensus is of the contributing editors on 5 and 6.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify whether you intend #3 and #4 to refer to well-sourced content regarding calls for constitutional amendments by OWS protesters and organizers, or whether you instead want to again insert an extensive discussion of Larry Lessig's conference, book, and other activities on that subject that OWS had nothing to do with, as part of an absurd POV-pushing OR section that also tells readers that OWS has been collaborating with the Tea Party, etc.?

I ask because, the former is something that could be appropriate for a WP article on OWS, while the latter is what you have been aggressively and quite rudely pushing for over the last week or so while repeatedly making obviously false claims about the sources allegedly supporting your research. So as you might imagine, I'm concerned by what exactly you take "description of calls for constitutional amendments" to mean. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that question is for me, please see #Sources saying the protesters want a constitutional amendment above. Dualus (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the question was for you. I will take your response to mean that you only want the article to mention that OWS protesters have called for constitutional amendments. Do let me know if I'm wrong. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off making changes. As you can see people will want to weigh in and discuss these.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of description and source of the Goals Working Group

Is the deletion of:

The Goals Working Group may produce an alternative document.ref name=haack>Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian</ref>

justified? Unless someone can come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be in the article, I intend to put it back in. Our readers deserve to know that the Goals Working Group is still working on an alternative to demands. Dualus (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you bring this up, what was the reason it was deleted so we can judge?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer said it didn't support the statement. I am sure it does. Dualus (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we hold off on this a bit to allow editors the chance to read the reference in full. I for one need dinner. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dualus, when you say "you're sure" the source supports the text that was in the article, what exactly do you mean? The footnoted text read, "The Goals Working Group may produce an alternative document." I just read the entire source and I didn't see anything about any document, let alone a document that is an alternative to some other document.. it sounds like some guy went to some meetings with a group and stopped going to meetings after some people wanted to invite other people to come in and vote on some unspecified ideas and he didn't think it was sufficiently egalitarian to invite specific people in for a vote. I know you think it's some kind of insult to ask for a quotation, but I am getting sick of reading entire articles you can't even bother to summarize and still coming away from it without knowing what the hell you mean.
Also, FWIW, this being a factual claim, I'm not entirely sure we should rely on an apparent blog piece by an "unemployed artist and anticorporate activist" which, though it is hosted on a media project run by The Guardian, doesn't seem like it is subjected to the full editorial and fact-checking process of the source—nor does it seem the author actually speaks for OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which Guardian bloggers have failed the reliable source criteria? Dualus (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you answer my question? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think I had not? Dualus (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Huffington is not considered reliable for facts

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_the_Huffington_Post_a_reliable_source.3F

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That information was not from a blogger. It was from a journalist employed by Huff Post and it used a direct quote. Do you understand it differently? Gandydancer (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your specific use was done with the use of the actual writer and seems to be used correctly to this formed consensus!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is right. Huffington Post is not considered reliable.

--Andy0093 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not reliable according to whom? It would be nice to back-up the claim with an objective source on the reliability of HuffPost. Instead of blanket-banning a new source, let's just exercise caution and try to avoid non-objective new sources (including conservative/liberal/libertarian blogs, Fox News, etc), and try to reference credible hard news sources if possible, and only reference non-objective news sources if there is no alternative or if the purpose of the reference is suited to the news source. Krishyanity (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally you'll seem while editing Wikipedia that citing Huffington Post is frowned upon. It would be the same if someone cited Breitbart.com, DailyCaller, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs or any others. HP is frowned upon greatly in the Wikipedia community when cited. It is not generally a reliable source. Most of there stuff if ripped off may stream news sources the CNN, WSJ, NBC, CBS', ABC, NYT's of the world, so it shouldn't be that hard to find a good source. To cite the HP is newspaper equivalent of citing the NY Post.

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I am A giving this opinion to you with years of experience editing Wikipedia. I have seen time and again HP rejected as a reliable source and B he does give a link to a notice board where it is ruled a unreliable source. FYI.

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could link the other discussions but the point is to simply state the general consensus of the overall community to form consensus here if needed. It's not a claim I am making but simply repeating the nut shell resolution (how it was resolved) made by that specific notice board discussion. That full consensus over several notice board discussions actually backs up two different editors for both their own arguments. 1) that Huffington Posts is generally not considered a RS for facts and that 2) it is still acceptable when quoting the specific journalist writing the piece (generally opinion). Naming the journalist allows others to verify the source for consensus discussion if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News stories published in the Huffington Post are reliable, blogs and commentary are not. The same applies to the British Medical Journal, the New York Times, Fox News Channel, etc. TFD (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct per consensus in general, and the last part is not per MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[80] Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Newspaper and magazine blogs

WP:NEWSBLOG

Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, in a ruling, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK commented that it expected journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines to be subject to the standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.[3] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use posts left by readers as sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, blogs are sometimes reliable sources, when they are subject to editorial discretion by news organizations with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The Guardian publishes the occasional retraction. Huffington Post doesn't edit its bloggers except in some circumstances. Dualus (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is not much better a source than Huffington for the same reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a request for uninvolved third party editor to do copyedit to lede?

In this way we can start fresh from a lede that is as neutral as we can get it and go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is copyediting going to affect neutrality? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought someone not involved would be neutral to the disputed information?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could just let everyone posts their own version of what they want and hash it all out directly.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that "copyediting" generally refers to editing something for spelling, grammar, syntax, style, formatting, etc.. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must we hide the 99 Percent Declaration from readers?

This edit doesn't make sense. It deleted this from the second paragraph in the introduction:

On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published a declaration of demands, goals, and solutions.ref name=99percentdeclaration>New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group (October 15, 2011) "The 99 Percent Declaration." Retrieved 20 October 2011.</ref>ref name=duda>Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange</ref>ref name=kingkade>Kingkade, T. (October 18, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 October 2011</ref>ref name=lopez>Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider</ref>

Who's opposed and who's for? Dualus (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit or the information? Or does that even matter to you?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters to me. You've been trying to get rid of the part that I've been complaining about people trying to get rid of. Why do you want it out? Dualus (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want it in?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the 99 Percent Declaration. Someone should make that article. Dualus (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there isn't a single mainstream newspaper or magazine among those many sources ... just a bunch of blogs. If it's covered in the MSM, why are we using blogs as refs? And if it's not, why was it in the article? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are 1-3 from #Sources saying the Demands Working Group published demands above. Which of those three in particular are you saying are not reliable? Dualus (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying none of them are from the mainstream media. And it's worthy of note that of the other sources you listed (the Haack blog piece and the WaPo opinion piece) neither of them seems to say anything about any list of demands by this group, whoever they are. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dualus, how is the 99 Percent Declaration relevant to the overall article about the New York protest specifically and how is it not undue weight in the lede?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:LEAD says we have to summarize the biggest controversies. Do you know of a bigger controversy on the topic? Dualus (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you would want some RS's showing it's the "biggest controversy" or one of them before embarking on this line of argument? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the people apparently opposed to the mention of the 99 Percent Declaration have already included such sources. The group rejected the issuance of demands, and has apparently decided to refer to them as goals. It's our job as sleuths to discover whether the demands and goals turn out to be the same document, but I wouldn't put it past them. On second thought, was there anything in the demands about instant runoff voting? I would sure like one person, one vote. Dualus (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see these sources in the removed article text, and I don't see them in your list above. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't even established that it is a controversy, let alone that it is a prominent controversy.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to new topic header: Yes, we must hide the 99% Declaration from the People, otherwise our oppressive empire will crumble. is that sort of rhetoric really necessary? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have established that it's the largest controversy, as far as I can tell. How do you read the sources? I think I see the problem. Dualus (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sources as falling a little short actually. You have not established this is even relevent to the NY protests but it certainly can be mentioned with a line or two, but is not a controversy from the sources. In fact all of those sources are talking about something that has not traspired or come to actually happen and are proposals for a possible future and come across a promotional to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you agree that a Guardian blog should come before a Huffington Post blog, but after current events are over, we usually try to get the stories which broke the news, although they are optional to include if they aren't usually reliable. It depends on what of several other categories they're in. Dualus (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed replacement

I propose to revert these two edits and replace the following information in the introduction:

On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published a declaration of demands, goals, and solutions.ref name=99percentdeclaration>New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group (October 15, 2011) "The 99 Percent Declaration." Retrieved 20 October 2011.</ref>ref name=duda>Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange</ref>xref name=lopez>Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider</ref>ref>ref name=haack>Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian</ref>ref name=kingkade>Kingkade, T. (October 18, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 October 2011</ref>

The proposed revert would also restore the mention of 100,000 US protesters on October 15, which has been discussed twice above with an apparent consensus to include. Specific objections? Dualus (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight, possible POV pushing and promotional.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And no consensus from editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's undue weight? It's the only working draft put forth. And, as your own sources have established, it's the most controversial aspect of the movement, so it belongs in the introduction per WP:LEAD. Dualus (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to state your case in the exact same manner and I will simply state over and over that you have established nearly nothing with all that but a few facts about a possible event from a single document that has not transpired as yet. Undue weight, POV pushing and promotional.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Fleming was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference inline.poster was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference nation.FAQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference wallstreet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference cnn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference anonmessage was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference adbusters3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Occupy Wall Street - Sep17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference The Tyee – Adbusters' Kalle Lasn Talks About OccupyWallStreet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference US protesters rally to occupy Wall Street was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ibtimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference twsC65 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference rabble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference socialistworker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference globalresearch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.” Accessed October 2011.
  18. ^ “Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed October 2011.
  19. ^ Johnston, David Cay (March 29, 2007.) “Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows.” The New York Times. Accessed October 2011.
  20. ^ “By the Numbers.” Demos.org. Accessed October 2011.
  21. ^ Reich Blames Economy's Woes On Income Disparity
  22. ^ Robert Reich 2010: Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future p. 20-24. ISBN 978-0307592811
  23. ^ "Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed October 2011.
  24. ^ “By the Numbers.” Demos.org. Accessed October 2011.
  25. ^ Alessi, Christopher (October). "Occupy Wall Street's Global Echo". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved October 17, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York City a month ago gained worldwide momentum over the weekend, as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in nine hundred cities protested corporate greed and wealth inequality. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  26. ^ Jones, Clarence (October 17,2011). "Occupy Wall Street and the King Memorial Ceremonies". The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2011. The reality is that 'Occupy Wall Street' is raising the consciousness of the country on the fundamental issues of poverty, income inequality, economic justice, and the Obama administration's apparent double standard in dealing with Wall Street and the urgent problems of Main Street: unemployment, housing foreclosures, no bank credit to small business in spite of nearly three trillion of cash reserves made possible by taxpayers funding of TARP. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ^ Chrystia Freeland (October 14, 2011). "Wall Street protesters need to find their 'sound bite'". The Globe & Mail. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  28. ^ Michael Hiltzik (October 12, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  29. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference truth-out was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Best Sellers From 1987's Book Crop was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Regular economic cycles : money, inflation, regulation and depressions, Venus Books, 1985 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bullnotbull was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ a b c "CallAConvention.org". CallAConvention.org. Retrieved October 19, 2011.
  34. ^ a b c Conference on the Constitutional Convention, Harvard University, September 24-5, 2011
  35. ^ a b c Lessig, L. (2011) Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York City: Hachette/Twelve) excerpt
  36. ^ a b c Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" Discovery / TreeHugger.com
  37. ^ a b c Froomkin, D. (October 5, 2011) "Lawrence Lessig's New Book On Political Corruption Offers Protesters A Possible Manifesto" Huffington Post
  38. ^ a b c Hill, A. (October 4, 2011) "Campaign finance, lobbying major roadblocks to effective government" Marketplace Morning Report (American Public Media)
  39. ^ Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
  40. ^ a b c Ratigan, D. (2011) "It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics" GetMoneyOut.com
  41. ^ a b c Auerbach, K. (2011) "Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution To Redress the Increasing Distortion of Elections and Political Speech by Corporations and Other Aggregate Forms" cavebear.com/amendment
  42. ^ Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post
  43. ^ Kingkade, T. (October 18, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" Huffington Post
  44. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference 99percentdeclaration was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  45. ^ Lessig, L. (October 12, 2011) "A Letter to the #Occup(iers): The principle of Non-contradiction" Huffington Post
  46. ^ a b Leventhal, D. and Palmer, A. (October 19, 2011) "Politico Influence - Intelligence and analysis on lobbying" Politico.com
  47. ^ Wiessman, R. (October 19, 2011) "'Occupy' Movement Purposely Has No Single, Set Demand" US News
  48. ^ Oremus, W. (October 5, 2011) "Academics Help Wall Street Protests Gain Credibility" Slate.com
  49. ^ Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
  50. ^ Blumenthal, P. (October 20, 2011) "Cenk Uygur Launches New Effort To Separate Money And Politics" Huffington Post
  51. ^ Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post
  52. ^ Cite error: The named reference adbusters was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  53. ^ Cite error: The named reference adbusters1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  54. ^ Brohinsky, S. (October 11, 2011) "As Economic Frustrations Grow, Protesters Gain Support – Majority of Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of the Occupy Movement" SRBI.com
  55. ^ Ipsos/Reuters (October 12, 2011) "Poll: October 2011" Ipsos-NA.com
  56. ^ Reuters (October 17, 2011) "New Yorkers support anti-Wall Street protests: poll" Reuters.com
  57. ^ Cite error: The named reference kingkade was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  58. ^ Lessig, L. (October 12, 2011) "A Letter to the #Occup(iers): The principle of Non-contradiction" Huffington Post
  59. ^ Wiessman, R. (October 19, 2011) "'Occupy' Movement Purposely Has No Single, Set Demand" US News
  60. ^ Oremus, W. (October 5, 2011) "Academics Help Wall Street Protests Gain Credibility" Slate.com
  61. ^ Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
  62. ^ Blumenthal, P. (October 20, 2011) "Cenk Uygur Launches New Effort To Separate Money And Politics" Huffington Post
  63. ^ Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post
  64. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
  65. ^ http://www.truth-out.org/occupy-wall-street-movement-and-coming-demise-crony-capitalism/1318341474. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  66. ^ Pitchfork article http://www.pitchfork.com/news/44353-wilco-bun-b-die-antwoord-david-banner-more-support-occupy-wall-street/
  67. ^ captured on LiveStream http://www.youaintnopicasso.com/2011/10/04/jeff-mangum-playing-at-occupy-wall-st-watch-it-live/
  68. ^ Facebook wall post http://www.facebook.com/reginaspektor/posts/10150317672311389
  69. ^ NPR - Pete Seeger Joins NYC Protests http://www.npr.org/2011/10/22/141615823/pete-seeger-joins-nyc-protests
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=457276720"