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 174.49.47.34 (talk) at 17:13, 8 December 2011 (→‎Occupy Tea PArty comparison). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Rtnews


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

Request for comment

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

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

Nazism discussion

I had the same experience - I picked three I thought must be the "best" and they were total crap. Then I quit looking... Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - The Nazi Party and Communist Party are fringe - but the coverage of their support is not. This is widely spread, and there is no reason to keep it off. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: The ANP has done nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support". Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable, and should not be mentioned at all. It serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. We don't mention Hitler in the article on vegetarianism, do we? Same rule applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This is little more than a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Wikipedia should have no part in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I see that TLAM is still citing 'Media Matters' on this, in spite of the headline in the linked article: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet It may yet become evident that those in the movement share those views, but simply being supported by them would be a guilt by association. Also, I fail to see this as a "smear campaign" as ATG would say since the media has by and large not reported on any of the transgressions committed by OWS participants. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Seems like an obvious case of guilt by association. Hundreds of "groups/parties" have mentioned support for OWS. Why just mention these two? NickCT (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Mention these two because it is widely covered and they are fairly significant. It's also covered that the Black Panthers support the group so we should add that in there too as controversy because that's what it is. AndyGrump is nothing more than an apologetic propagandist come on here to do damage control for his OWS buddies.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because it's not true, apparently. I think it's just a false meme. Looking at the sources, I'm skipping the one likes Drudge and the Tehran paper and a lot of the rest of them because they're obviously not reliable sources... looking for entities with some kind of reputation, I come to the Boston Herald. It's an opinion columnist, and he says that OWS is endorsed by a list of entities including the American Nazi Party and the government of the People's Republic of China... this seems unlikely to be true, so I can't trust this source... next, the reputable LA Times... but its a gossip column (the "Ministry of Gossip")... it says "Meanwhile, the American Nazi Party on Sunday issued a statement of support for the Occupy Wall Street crowd" and they have a link. But the link is here, which has says nothing of the sort, is not any kind of official statement, and doesn't mention Occupy Wall Street or come close... so this appears to be false. (There doesn't seem to be anything about Occupy Wall Street on the American Nazi Party website, that I could find.) Moving on, we have to drop a little in reliability, let's look at the Jacksonville Courier... it is not a news story but something called "Open Line", which may be an opinion column but is not signed and, inferring from its name, is just a place where readers can post stuff... whatever it is, it appears to be a stream-of-consciousness post by a stoned or deranged person... it says ""The Wall Street Mob has gained some interesting supporters. Among them, The American Nazi Party..." with no support for that. I have zero confidence that the writer is reliable or even sober. How many more of these do I have to look at? And these are the best ones. My patience is exhausted with this subject and with the the editor initiating the RfC, who appears to be a troll. (FWIW, even if it was true it's trivial, of course.) Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[2] The ANP report was archived, so yes they have endorsed OWS. You appear to have missed a great many of the reliable sources which were posted, such as Fox, Politico, Washington post. Perhaps you ought look again at the sources presented? The point is this is widely reported on, millions of people will have read about it and then look here and see not a word, this damages wiki`s credibility. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, but still. Who is the American Nazi Party and what is their organizational structure? Does that page constitute an actual endorsement by vote of any central committee, or is it basically some blogger who has discovered the wonders of the CAPS LOCK key? How many members do they have? What is there notability in the public discourse? If their name was "American Committee for Public Knowledge" instead of the inflammatory word "Nazi" how notable would this be? The fact is that I could convene a meeting of myself and my cats, call ourselves the Trotskyist Front, create a blog and endorse OWS, and if this was picked up by Drudge and Fox News and the Tehran papers, so what? This is maybe one step above "OWS was endorsed by Mrs. Pinckney Pruddle of 27 Hummingbird Lane, Sandusky, Ohio". It's not a notable event, at all. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your fallacious argument of a meeting with your cats doesn't do a very good job at hiding the fact that you are clearly biased, nor does the equally fallacious comparison with a fictitious other statement. Whether or not *you* think a party is relevant is irrelevant. The fact that it was so widely reported makes it relevant, which is what people have been correctly arguing here.
Townhall has a full editorial staff and meets the criteria as [[W{:RS]] The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because it's just guilt by association. Nothing could be more opposite from how these protests really are, than by linking them to Nazism. 완젬스 (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No ANP is not relevant, their support is not relevant. Connecting them and their alleged support to the OWS is WP:SYN and even throwing the ANP, nevermind Nazism in the article is WP:UNDUE.--Львівське (говорити) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Support is reported in WP:RS. WP is not censored. – Lionel (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes widely reported as fact. supports OWS with money or man hours, that is a benefactor/volunteer, not endorsement. Boston Herald turned out to be crap, http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 Oct 18, Todd Gregory. non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement, none of which are requirements for notability. a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Few members of the ANP can actually read, no chance in hell they are members of the press. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It's a poorly-sourced fringe issue attempting to link the movement to the Nazi party. I don't see this sort of accusation in the hundreds of articles that have been written on the protests in the mainstream media. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) poorly sourced? The American Nazi Party chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Absolutely not. Not only are the groups fringe, but there are no reliable sources reporting any connection whatsoever. Beyond the reporting that this is a right-wing attempt to connect the groups to the group this article is about, there is no sourcing at all. Seeing as there is definite sourcing about the attempt to connect these groups to these protesters, perhaps we should look at the attempts to enter the information in the same manner. The editor/s who are making these attempts all seem to have the same goals. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No We don't serve as the mouthpiece for the American Nazi Party. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Obvious fringe problem but inclusion is also a weight problem: there is not any indication why this is a significant item that merits inclusion. The import of information should be obvious to our readers, but at the very least we should be able to explain its inclusion to our readers. Saying "Nazis support OWS" leads to the question, "So what?" and there is no good answer. The opinions of Nazis hold no value in any society. wp:GHITS and politically-motivated Op-Eds aren't persuasive. This is the same guilt by association nonsense that Americans saw in the 2008 election with Hamas endorses Obama; Al Qaeda endorses McCain. --David Shankbone 23:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Lots of groups are trying to co-opt this movement, but it is a de-centralized, non-hierarchical movement. That gives it a low Drag coefficient that, miraculously, attracts many groups whose own agendas are floundering. For example, why is there widespread union support for OWS? The Union leadership announces their support. So that must mean everyone who belongs to such-and-such union needs to fall in line. Right? But then read the fine print. Because the bottom line is the "Union bosses" realized they were losing their own Rank and file to the movement (ie., their people were showing up at the occupy locations). Let's just say it was "expedient" for the unions to show support for the Occupy movements. But Unions are part of the OWS mix. They aren't dictating anything to OWS. OWS is not part of the Unions. Unions need OWS alot more than OWS needs them. (I would guess that the Nazi movement needs help with their own "rank and file", not to mention a HUGE credibility gap. Again, NO. If you need more examples of groups or individuals claiming support, I can name many more. How about Elizabeth Warren taking credit for providing the philosophical underpinnings and ballast for OWS? That's interesting Ms. Warren: if that's the case, then Warren is an anarchist in her roots, and is only (oh by-the-way) incidently running for public office. Could go on and on with examples of many groups and factions wanting a slice of the "OCCU" - pie. Christian Roess (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Based on what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any actual tangible connection between the ANP and the OWS movement (not even a diminutive one). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No unless we specifically mention all other groups as well that have voiced support. The list mentioned above, if it's started, could be a place for this information. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No (My unelaborated !vote) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes There's a discussion of the response to OWS from several other political bodies (the White House, Congress, 2012 political candidates) as well as the reaction from the public, celebrities, unions, Venezuela, etc. Of course a list of people and groups who support OWS is pointless and uninformative, but if and only if 1.credible sources are used and 2.those sources talk about the response more specifically than saying "the American Nazi Party supports the OWS movement" then just because you don't like the group doesn't mean their reaction is less deserving of mention than that of the Vatican. At a glance it doesn't look like many of the sources above are non-pov but that isn't fatal (to including the ANP's response, not to using the sources!). Re: the fringe problem, I have to agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that while the groups themselves are Fringe their response may well be poignant. And, frankly, if the only unifying feature of participants is membership in the 99% then why should the ANP be excluded? --68.149.110.63 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Does not seem to be notable enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes There is no reason not to mention position of ANP. But, of course, this mention should not be ambiguity or impression that the Nazis supported this movement through their actions or money. --Luch4 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, widely covered by reliable sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure– Just an example of an unpopular racist group failing to obtain free press by making a statement of solidarity. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitism discussion

  • Yes - Widely covered, notable. Anti-sementism is an element of the views of many OWS campers, and as they have no real leadership or manifesto, it warrants coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - again, it seems to be a smear campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No:There is no evidence that anti-semitism is shared by a significant proportion of OWS participants outside of a tiny minority. The fact that the movement has a few kooks in it is not surprising, nor is it notable enough to warrant mention here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Widely noted with many examples. No sense in hiding it under the rug. There is no requirement that it be shown to reach some magic number of people to be incorporated. Such faulty logic would dictate that nothing bad ever be reported because one could simply say that none those that do bad things don't represent the movement. If it was one or two incidents then probably not. It is clearly far more than that. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - ...with requisites. The article on the Tea Party solved the issue of reporting on alleged racism by not trying to account for how widespread racism was, or by simply stating the Tea Party movement was racist. Rather, it focused on the discourse of some accusing it of racism while others defended it, and it focuses on a few major events. Similarly, this article need not state that the Occupy protest movement has an antisemitism problem, but rather has been accused of it, and it could include references to supposed events and counter arguments. This should likely fall not under goals, or philosophy, but rather as a sub-section on reception. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I scanned the list of articles that came up in the nominators link. The two serious sources that appear (i.e. the New York Times & Washington Post Article) refute the anti-semitic charge or point out that it's marginal. If we do want to add a sentence about anti-semitism it would have to be so heavily qualified that it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning. NickCT (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary and the Wall Street Journal also had pieces (they may be opinion but they claimed facts). I think we should have a section to the effect that, "Many notable conservative figures have claimed that the OWS movement is anti-Semitic, particularly because of criticisms of Israel, but others, including the Anti-Defamation League, have investigated and concluded that this is not true." Why do you object to a statement like that? --Nbauman (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per NickCT. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'No. The nominator's link produces nothing of value. Doing my own search, I find (in reliable sources as opposed to polemic blogs etc.) only the same stuff that NickCT finds, to the effect of "some bloggers have claimed anti-semitism, but it appears to not be true". Not notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per NickCT. I would just point out that the Washington Post link is an op-ed column, not a news article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    re the op-ed column - Duly noted. Apologies for not stating it as such. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No But I think maybe 1 sentence, with a response as user Cast has proposed, but not a whole entire section, which I'm against. 완젬스 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, if the tea party can have a "racial issues" section, so can ows. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no way an entire section will ever get consensus over here, like over at the tea party article, so 1-2 sentences, take it or leave it. If you're trying to divert attention away from the issue by comparing it to the tea party, you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone. 완젬스 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:CONSENSUS to brush up on what it says, because that's what is common (and applied) to both articles. 완젬스 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - seems WP:UNDUE to me to use individual comments and turn it into a standalone section. Unless this becomes a relevant part or chunk of the protests, then no. Unless it gains traction in the media in some form, then no. Until then, all of this can be summarized into a single sentence - a section is too much weight.--Львівське (говорити) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The incidents are being reported in WP:RS. Ironically racism by Tea Party members is only alleged. OWS members actually went on anti-semitic rants on TV! I saw it! – Lionel (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of references for Tea party members shouting racial epithets (see [3] for example). The question isn't whether one or two guys within a much larger movement are racist/anti-semetic. The question is whether racism/antisemitism is a pervasive theme within a movement, or whether it represents a viewpoint pushed by a significant portion of a movement's members. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not if ows is racist, rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the difference? It's still guilt by association, and will attract edit warring & make the article unstable. Can't anyone else see that? 완젬스 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical wikipedia mob rule, published racism undue here, not undue at tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not in the majority, then just wait your turn. You're trying to change an OWS article during the height of OWS popularity. If you bring up a proposal (an entire section!!!) on antisemitism knowing it will fail, is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point which everyone knows nothing good will come from it. It just creates division between editors when the article still has plenty of peaceful improvements we could instead discuss otherwise. If you know an entire section will never gain consensus, then propose something more popular so that the "mob" will agree with it. When you're on the side of the minority, the burden is on you to work with the majority (unless you're like Dualus who bypasses consensus) because without consensus, even the most noble & well-intentioned edits will never stand, and you know that. The tea party is de facto racist whereas only 2 reliable sources have barely said anything usable about OWS being antisemitic (because as user NickCT said) the statement would have to be so heavily qualified, that it wouldn't be worth mentioning. 완젬스 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    re "rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable" - I think you should be posting your comments in the section above, but as I said above, OWS has reportedly gained the support of the latino community,former leaders of ACORN,labor unions,Kayne West,the mayor of Richmond, California, Jay-Z, vetrinarians, Canadians, etc etc. Should I go on? Get the point? You want to mention all of these groups? If not, why are you so focused on the ANP? NickCT (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayz, vets and acorn, you left out Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, CAIR, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Hugo Chavez, Revolutionary Guards of Iran, The Govt of North Korea, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah, a regular who's who of obscurity. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok.... But you're missing the point. You said we should mention ANP b/c their support has been noted in RSs. I pointed out that an endless slew of folk's support has been noted in RS, and that it's not piratical to mention them all. Again, why are you so focused on highlighting support from particular groups? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Absolutely not. There are no reliable sources reporting any connection of this accusation whatsoever. Beyond the reporting of anonymous people who have shown up at some protests, there is no sourcing at all. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources which mention it, your saying there is not is pointless. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it a mouthpiece for the leftwing nutjobs of the OWS, wiki reports on what reliable sources have written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO - This is more desperation from the Far Right. It's a story generated just like the recent ACORN connection given by an anonymous source to Fox News in the last few days. Christian Roess (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Seems to have generated a great deal of controversy and has been covered in a great many reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per NickCT and Dave Dial. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think it deserves a small paragraph which names the major players in the smear campaign and has a thorough refutation. Smear campaigns are a notable part of politics. "This right-wing attempt to discredit both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Democratic Party’s hesitant embrace of it is reprehensible."[4] I also saw an organization of Jews condemning the smear campaign.[5][6]. So yeah, it's notable and thoroughly refuted as a smear campaign of the Right. Be——Critical 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I don't understand this discussion. The issue is not whether there is credible evidence that OWS is anti-Semitic, but whether WP:RS have said it was. I take the position that there is no significant anti-Semitism. We should give the (false) charges, and then the rebuttals. Then readers can decide for themselves, and I'm sure the weight of evidence will overwhelmingly convince them of my position. The alternative is to ignore the issue completely, and people looking on WP for information on the charges will get nothing, rather than WP:NPOV explanation of the charges and the rebuttal. Commentary and the Wall Street Journal editorial page are WP:RS, whether you or I like them or not, and even though they're frequently wrong. Other people have made this point above, and I don't see any responses to it. Can anyone explain why they don't agree with my position? --Nbauman (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, instances have been widely covered by reliable sources. This should be covered like alleged racism is at the tea party movement article. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin who closes

Please take into account the lack of actual policy based reasons for excluding this content. Several editors have said there are no reliable sources regarding the antisemitic remarks being made. This is patently false, it was deemed a serious enough matter by the Anti Defamation League[7] to release a statement on the matter. Some say no as they believe it is a smear campaign, this is not a policy that i am aware of, nor have any sources made this claim that I know of. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the antisemitism discussion? Or the Nazism discussion? (or both?) 완젬스 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The antisemitism discussion, I will create a subsection for the ANP discussion as basically the same arguments have been put forth there as here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note I found sufficient RS for covering this in a small paragraph. Be——Critical 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khamenei discussion

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

Not all or nothing: presenting a 3rd option

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

At one time we did have a short discussion with a good ref, but it's long gone. This situation is similar to the incident when a "protester" took a dump on a police car...or so it was said. I believe that we need to remember that there are thousands of homeless in NYC, and most of them live in the very same area that the protest is being held. Not to paint all the homeless with the same brush, but many of them are addicts and/or have serious mental problems. These people have been doing such things in NYC long before the movement established their occupation of the park, but it did not make national news. Same thing for racists - there's nothing new about blaming the Jews for our financial problems - and I can imagine that the protest would draw this sort of racist to the occupy site like bees to honey. Rather than report that the protesters are Nazi, Jew-hating, Commie, dirty hippies, etc., I believe that the information could be covered in an unbiased manner. If we had a reference... Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 100%, and the onus is on people who want to include it. Quick question though--are you saying the "good ref" is long gone? Or the discussion is still in archives or had been deleted? I think a single sentence, in context (with how rare that antisemitism is) can be added, as long as it is put into the proper perspective. There's no way an entire section on antisemitism will ever see the light of day here, and I think the nazism has even less of a chance than antisemitism. 완젬스 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find it. For all I know my memory could be wrong. I know we both agree that the task of any editing at all in this article was such a hellish experience till Dualus was banned that it was hard to keep up with what the hell was going on. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if these are the refs from the inclusion I remember, but these two turned up from the past article. [8] and [9]. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reliable source, Media Matters, that explains the issue, "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them]". We could use that story for the article. TFD (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds, Gandy, I'll check it out it. Thanks for link thefourdeuce but not quite controversial enough! ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters is not a reliable source. It is like asking the arsonist who started the fire. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I would go that far, lol. They're a private non-profit, so they can allow their editors/bloggers more unrestricted and "no strings" journalism & blogs. It's a good site, has lots of recaps & summaries of what the other sides are saying. Each video is like a miniature documentary--highly recommended and very informative for any Wikipedia editor who works on poli-sci articles. 완젬스 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MMfA has come up many times at RSN and is rs. You are confusing the neutrality of a source with its reliability. Certainly it is true that right-wing blogs are playing up the Nazi Party story. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have them, let's see them. 완젬스 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These groups may all support OWS, however with a U.S. population of 312,577,000 and most of these groups having less than a couple of thousand members, how can it be justified to add whatever they may believe to the article? I don't think the Black Panthers have any - aren't they defunct? How many are in the American Nazi Party - I'll bet it's not many. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American Communist Party - 2,000 Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you have added is perfect, the mention of the antisemitic remarks with the rebuttal is NPOV and balanced the way an article ought to be written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 100%, and I have to say as the most vocal critic of including ANY momentum-halting criticism of OWS, I must proudly say that Amadscientist (an editor I admire for being a great Wikipedian) has written the content in such a way as to make both sides happy. Somebody give this man a barn star! (I've given him one already too recently) 완젬스 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If I said I support the OWS, would my name be included in the article? As I get it, OWS is no way connected to both parties, so leave them alone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Schoen article

I've pulled the following:

On Oct. 10 and 11, the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland interviewed nearly 200 protesters.[1] Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, 98% would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and 31% would support violence to advance their agenda. Most are employed; 15% are unemployed. Most had supported Obama; now they are evenly divided. 65% say government has a responsibility to guarantee access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement. They support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary.[1]

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

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

I'll just say that Washington Monthly and ThinkProgress are not exactly neutral. Kelly hi! 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting they be used as a source for the poll, of course. I'm just illustrating criticism of the poll. More:
If anyone has suggestions for a neutral source handling the poll and its criticisms, we need to use that. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I flatly state that the poll most be included, albeit not by way of Schoen's opinion piece. But how are you somehow missing that these are all political commentators, including Schoen (whose article is in WSJ's opinion section), and not just "some bloggers"? Not your best attempt at a spin, but I must say that I find your consistent love for the outdent tag to be endearing. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can "flatly state" whatever you like; WP policy does not require that we exclude Schoen's analysis. And yes, it's pretty obvious that the people making political commentary are all political commentators; if you want to make a notability claim, I'll take a single WSJ piece by an expert in the field over four random bloggers, who don't seem to have any particular credentials of note, any day—especially when some of these pieces that allegedly deserve equal (or greater) weight turn out to contain no actual substance (e.g. one of those four columns says nothing on the subject except "Schoen wrote a dishonest column full of claims that couldn't be backed up by his own research. Hey, what's a campaign ad if not bogus claims not backed up by research?"). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I "flatly state" something, I do so in the hopes that others will pick up on it, including yourself. The one article you're referring to sets out to illustrate how these "poll findings" are being used as fodder for campaign ads. For those keeping track, here's also a piece highly critical of both Schoen's declared as status as a Democrat and his methods from the Huffingtonpost:
Again, what I'm illustrating here is that Schoen's interpretation of said findings in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece has met with criticism of his methodology. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous. As an experienced WP editor, you should know that doesn't mean it must be excluded from the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon inspection, it's clear that the HuffPo piece says zero about his methods. It merely says he's a partisan that's helped republicans and sharply questions whether he has genuine Dem street cred. Please be more careful when you are telling other editors what sources say. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to inspect a little closer; the "methods" I'm referring to include his presenting a particular brand of criticism (i.e. Fox News typical) alongside his declared status as "Democrat". This, as I've illustrated, he has been repeatedly criticized for; i.e. according to these various references, it's tactical and misleading. In fact, the Huffington Post article above references the following article in its first paragraph:
But yes, indeed, experienced editor that I am, I therefore state—again—that if Schoen's opinion piece goes anywhere, it need go in the criticism section, as it is criticism, and the fact that Schoen's interpretation has met with criticism needs to be included as well. The poll itself, meanwhile, needs to be in the demographics section from a neutral source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding the objection - are you (or your sources) claiming that the poll is fabricated due to ideological bias by Schoen? Are the blogs that are objecting to the results neutral? The "Fox News contributor" thing seems irrelevant, especially given the ideological nature of the blogs you've listed as sources. Kelly hi! 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue isn't the poll itself. It needs to be included like any other poll. The issue is a follow up opinion piece by Schoen being used as a source for it, which has been criticized as being misleading from the various sources above. Schoen himself is a subject of some controversy, as seen above. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you were referring to "methods" of Schoen's, particularly his methods of analysis, that have something, anything, to do with the quality of the analysis, rather than rhetorical methods used by partisan talk shows he appears on.
Also, not that I disagree with putting Schoen into the criticism section, but have you noticed that both criticism and praise are liberally scattered throughout the article? If we were to carefully segregate all criticism and praise into their own discrete sections, the article would look very different. Presently, it seems that individual items of criticism or praise appear in the topical section that is most relevant to the criticism or praise. Doesn't seem a huge problem to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the partisan talk show that employs him? He's a Fox News political analyist. Anyway, his opinion piece is just that; there's nothing technical about it, and basically just reads as an anti-OWS rant, full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions. It's typical fare. What isn't typical is it being used as factual material in the demographics section here. Like I've said, and another user in an earlier thread stated when this came up, it needs be wrangled into the "criticism" section as that's quite plainly what it is, regardless of where whatever else may be. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims are not borne out by reality. "Rant full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions"? Where do you get that? It is quite clearly expressing his professional opinion as a public opinion analyst—one that seems to be held in relatively high regard by reliable sources, and one that is explicitly stated to be based on professionally conducted research. Nothing in it whatsoever sounds like a rant. It is written in a disinterested tone. And it was never presented as factual material; it was ONLY ever presented with a clear attribution to the author. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be confused into thinking it's objective fact just because it doesn't appear in a section explicitly labeled "criticism". It was never presented as anything more than it is—his informed professional opinion on a subject on which he appears to unquestionably be an established expert. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people" doesn't sound like flat, personal opinion to you? Now that's rich. And the guy is in no way shape or form objective—he's a Fox News employee—so I would appreciate if you'd drop that byline; it's just ridiculous. And, yes, it was presented as statistically factual; the criticisms above illustrate exactly why that's a problem—the poll itself doesn't match up with said claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's obviously his professional opinion, based on professional research, on a subject on which he is an expert, and is presented as exactly that. There is no magic "this guy works for Fox news so we ignore his worthless opinion" button you can press on WP in order to automatically exclude a well-sourced, relevant, and very notable opinion.
(And no, the opinion piece was never presented as anything other than the thought of Douglas Schoen. If there is relevant and notable criticism, of course that is fair game for inclusion, but not as a basis for excluding the Schoen analysis). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, Factchecker, there is no such button, but there is a requirement for neutrality, and the ideology here is thick and deep and must be taken into consideration before being presented as fact; opinion piece goes into opinion (including at the Wall Street Journal) and criticism ought to go in criticism here. It is unclear how Schoen's two other partners interpreted the data as, for example; this is Schoen's personal interpretation and commentary, published on a sister website to that of his employer, Fox News. All of which is entirely relevant, as the several criticism pieces above point out. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is a requirement for WP articles, not individual claims made by individual sources. If we required the latter rather than the former, a vast swath of WP articles would be permanently stuck in Stub status due to inability to add any content to them. We need not present ideology or opinion as fact, and the Schoen analysis you removed did not do so. Finally, any and all analysis or criticism of Schoen's analysis must, like any other analysis or criticism, be published in a reliable source if it is to be reflected in a WP article, and should only be given the weight it has been given in the mainstream press—in other words, a piece in the WSJ will generally be given more weight than multiple blog posts even if the blog posts call the guy a filthy liar.
So, since you seem to have vowed to remove this material so long as there is no "balancing" commentary, let's hear your proposed article text reflecting the "other side"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't state opinion pieces as fact here. There's no compromise about that here. If there's subjectivity from Schoen, which there clearly is, it's solely in the realm of his opinion. I don't need to lecture you on that. Attempts to weasel around the criticism won't be considered, either. As for the criticism, it would read something like "According to Fox News analyst Douglas Schoen ...." and then "Some political commentators have been critical of Schoen's analysis ..." with attention to what critic said what. Standard procedure. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I removed a claim he misrepresented his results, and an accompanying analysis of the results, neither of which were in the sources cited. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the lower end of what we should use as sources, but not unacceptable. The way it's used here, it's just stating some rather obvious stats about their beliefs, not to push a point the way it's used in Doug Schoen's opinion piece. The piece by Steve Benen, lead blogger of The Washington Monthly seems of equal merit. If they disagree over the facts, perhapse we would be wise not to use either. We might consider going straight to the numbers. Be——Critical 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for just linking straight to the PDF and I agree with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the sources you've mentioned here are "reliable" according to Wikipedia standards, whether anyone here likes it or not. I suggest you write a letter to the sources critical of Schoen if you feel they're picking on him. As for my "brood"; care to elaborate on what that may be, exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox news can be used for some things, but is a questionable source. Be——Critical 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If Think Progress is considered a reliable source than the standards for WP have fallen off the cliff. Your brood, is you, BCritical and your fellow Think Progress and MMfA reliable souce believers. About all they are reliable for is their opinion, much like Newsbusters on the right, and those that use them as a primary source always are editing from a biased point of view. Those that say FNC is a questionable source have no backing in reality or published journalistic studies as well. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FNC = Fox News Network? It's questionable on Wikipedia. Do not call your fellow editors a "brood." Thinkprogress is not an RS for most things, and probably should not be used here. The Atlantic, however, is an RS Be——Critical 06:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be around much over the next few days, but don't forget to think about what counter-commentary, if any, you wish to "balance" the Schoen opinion piece. And, it's probably best to avoid unreliable sources (such as ThinkProgress, which demonstrates its unreliability by manufacturing fake claims that Schoen never made and then refuting those in an attempt to argue that he "grossly misrepresented" his results; funny that they had to misrepresent Schoen's claims in order to say what they wanted to say). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone stating that Fox News is not a reliable source for Wikipedia had better be able to back that up with consensus. Huffington Post IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE on Wikipedia and this has been shown to be the general consensus of the community as a whole. Stop playing games on sources you don't like. Fox is as reliable as MSNBC or CNN. Just because half the stuff they post is biased in your perception proves nothing. And this comes from a liberal with little respect for the network...but that is not how Wikipedia determines a source as relaible.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the other thread (below) where you also made such a bold claim against HuffPost as RS, that's not an accurate summary of WP:RSN discussion on HuffPost's reliability. Opinions of WP editors vary widely, as they do with Fox News. So we judge news pieces by their own merit. Only a month ago you yourself said "The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution." [10] -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it should be clear that claims that Fox is "not reliable on WP" are clearly false. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox is at least just as ideological and questionable as the Huffington Post, as are any Murdoch outlets. That should be obvious enough. Now, I see that you've just attempted to add back the poll information sourced through Schoen's opinion piece just as it was despite this discussion (presuming I wasn't watching?), but we need a solid, neutral source for this poll material free of Schoen's ideological filter. Where Schoen's opinion piece is employed, it needs to be clearly labeled as exactly that. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Both sources are partisan, but Fox is a major, long-standing international news organization. HuffPo is a blog that turned into a mega-blog hosting numerous other bloggers. Apples, oranges. And I didn't do anything "presuming you weren't watching", but thanks for continuing to ABF. I waited for days for you to say anything that would indicate a sound policy rationale for excluding this. You didn't. I also invited you to suggest sources and article text to achieve whatever "balance" you wanted. You didn't. I'm not going to argue with you about explicitly labeling the piece an opinion piece, but the article text would be ridiculous if we did that in the case of every POV opinion piece in this article. I assume you don't object, however, to also labeling the responses to Schoen as opinion pieces, as well.
Finally, I really would immensely appreciate it if you would stop making personal attacks in your edit summaries and here on the talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those "days" were a major holiday there, and if you wanted some questions answered you could have asked here.
Regardless, "Factchecker", I'll give you credit for one thing here; you can be funny, whether you intend to or not. Complaining about "personal attacks" for me referring to you as "ideological" (which, flatly, you are—and that's no attack, but a fact), and then stating "You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well" despite you being well aware of my long history on Wikipedia and large amount of authored GA articles. But what's funnier is your apparent lack of grasp of it, as pointed out by BeCritical (which is exactly what I'd have pointed out). The double standard reminds me of you referring to me flatly as a "dick" and an "asshole", and then going to a arbitration board when I accuse you of editing from a purely ideological standpoint. Well!
And, of course, Fox is hardly 'any other news organization'; it is a highly partisan major news organization, it just happens to be the best known of Murdoch's many media outlets, all of which have a similar political bend. That's the neutral fact of the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have your fingers stuck in your ears? I did ask those exact questions here, as I pointed out; you made no response, as I pointed out. So it's silly to suggest that I didn't bring it up.
Yes, I've complained about the actual personal attacks that you actually made and continue to make because WP you want to edit this article in ways WP policy doesn't support. You started with the personal attacks because you didn't have a sound policy argument. I complained about it and called you a dick, and you now pretend as if this is both a defense for the attacks you made and justification for you to continue the same attacks. It's not. You're even trying to make it sound like *I* started making personal attacks and then complained about 'your' attacks, when all I did was call YOU out for making personal attacks (it's in the dozens now) and called you unkind names in two brief comments complaining about the personal attacks and asking you to stop. Since you refused to stop then, and refuse to stop now, Yes I've complained to WQA rather than stoop to your level.
Not even sure what to make of your "any other news organization" comment. Are you quoting somebody else? Yeah, Fox is partisan. So is HuffPo, which is of obviously lesser stature than Fox news. So what? We're not talking about anything that appeared on Fox news. Rather, you want to be allowed to exclude well-sourced material by a relevant expert because you think his association with Fox means he isn't to be trusted. But WP policy does not, in letter or in spirit, allow you to do that. Tough luck. (You also seem to think he isn't allowed to call himself a Democrat if he doesn't lean towards the far left of the party; not really sure what to make of that. Plenty of real, genuine Democrats are Fox news contributors. One of my best friends is quite far left, farther than me, and appears on Fox all the time to represent a Democratic view. And he is certainly not faking it.)
Finally, it's unclear to me where you got the idea that BeCritical "pointed out" that I was wrong about any WP policy. Seeme he was actually agreeing with me. And he'd be right to do so: WP does not require or even suggest that sources used in articles must themselves be neutral; that's a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which, as I pointed out to you before, requires that articles be written from a neutral point of view. As should be obvious, this often involves including material from partisan sources.
At this point, I'm not even sure why I'm even making a good-faith attempt to argue policy with you when you continue to attempt character assassination. Maybe I should start attributing dishonest motives to you, too. Wouldn't that be fun?
"Factchecker", please, spare me further attempts at defending Fox News. It's quite clear that you edit with a strong pro-Fox point of view. And, yes, the "level" you've stooped down to in the past is base, grade-school name calling, which you're simply not going to be able to drag me down to. And now you're being dishonest as well; I frequently pointed out that Schoen's opinion piece without criticism was WP:UNDUE, as keen as you apparently are on it. I've also frequently pointed out your ideological editing, and I will continue to call a duck a duck until that duck stops acting like a duck; that's not a personal attack, that's pointing out the objective obvious.
Further, you consistently attempt to describe Schoen in the manner that Fox attempts to do so, going with same of forced, false balance by highlighting that Schoen once worked for the Clinton administration (nigh three presidential terms ago) despite his heavy Republican partisanship, as outlined in the criticisms above (and see WSJ blurb at the end of his article that ignores his Fox News position for maximum news blurb use; nice!). If you haven't seen any of the numerous criticisms of this guy out there, then you've intentionally got your head in the sand. I highlighted several of them above; he's hardly the neutral "expert" you'd like to make him out to do be—like you, he's working with a strong right-wing ideology in hand. No amount of text bolding is going to change that, unfortunately. And, come on, I'm not interested in any yarns about "quite far left, farther than me" friends anyone may have.
Earlier I argued that Schoen's opinion piece was not neutral—as in not a neutral source for data, data which was previously plainly taken from his opinion piece. As someone who has participated in perhaps nearly 100 article review processes on Wikipedia, I'm well aware of the neutrality policies here, thanks. I am also aware when someone's attempting to spin them in their favor. We do not present data from an opinion piece by a News Corp employee as simple fact on Wikipedia, whether or not you'd like to present them as "a professional pollster who once worked for the Clinton administration", just as Fox does.
Now, to be clear, while I was gone you posed no questions to me, unlike what you say above. Who are you trying to kid? Seriously, if you want to edit here without hassle, you're going to need to try to be a little more neutral or that ideological stance is going to catch up to you, as you're not going to find me relenting any time soon. Good luck attributing "dishonest" motives towards me; primarily because it'll be tough to figure out my political views. Am I a libertarian? Am I a socialist? Am I a mystic Sufi? Am I COMMUNIST? Uh oh! You won't know because I'm not here to push my views on anyone. :)
Sure, you can always resort to base name calling again, I guess (I request that you try something more creative than "dick" or "asshole" though). Also, say, how many reverts has that been for you in the past 24 hours? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer going to respond to comments that contain personal attacks. Please redact them. The nastiest thing you should be saying about me on a Wikipedia talk page is to claim that I am pushing POV (though in actuality, it appears that's what you're doing). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll data?

Okay, so using the poll itself as a neutral source for it in the article, exactly what data to we include? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should include the part that Schoen includes along with his opinion on it. It was sourced to the article with his opinion and his opinion should be placed in the article as well as the poll. He is a notable expert and we can attribute it as his opinion, keeping NPOV. Regardless of whether you think his employment at Fox News is relevant or whether you think Fox News is a reliable source or not, there is no consensus saying it isn't. You have given no actual grounds for which to filter or exclude any of this material or his opinion.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See any of the numerous criticisms above and comments about Fox News/News Corp all over this talk page. No one in their right mind would claim Schoen is neutral; Schoen's ideological spin is clear, and Wikipedia is not a platform for it. A user above suggested we go straight to the PDF to maintain neutrality, which I agree with. The question now is what to include from the results. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well. No one said Schoen is neutral -- nor is anyone quoted in this article really neutral on the subject of OWS. WP does not require that sources be neutral. By the way, be careful to avoid OR while deciding for yourself what material from primary sources should be included. You won't be able to say much without committing OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, right on, we don't have to have neutral sources, we have to have reliable sources which we report neutrally. It's not OR, but could easily be SYNTH, if we use it to make a point. I think it would be pretty easy to hit the high points of that data. Be——Critical 20:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand right, we have to take account of the double answers: 

15.Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is performing his job as
President?
44% Approve
9% strongly approve
35% somewhat approve
51% Disapprove
24% somewhat disapprove
27% strongly disapprove
5%Not sure

Be——Critical 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, BeCritical, and your comment regarding reliability and neutrality is exactly what I would have responded with. As for questions, I guess we should just flatly hit the major ones. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MISLEADING Description of Douglas Schoen

Bloodofox: you keep reverting and reverting to ensure that Douglas Schoen is explicitly described as a "Fox News analyst". This is misleading, technically factually incorrect, and POV-pushing.

Schoen's bio says he is a "contributor" to Fox news, the WaPo, and the WSJ, has advised Mike Bloomberg and Bill Clinton, and has lectured at Harvard, Columbia, and Penn. You are cherry-picking the "Fox" affiliation and seem to be presenting it in a false light, insofar as it appears he is just as much a "WaPo political analyst" and a "WSJ political analyst" as he is a "Fox news analyst" -- to say nothing of the fact that none of these is his principal occupation, which in fact a pollster, i.e. a founding partner and chief analyst at a prominent polling firm. You keep trying to justify that only the Fox label is appropriate, insisting that this is his "current occupation", contrary to fact.

Really it is clear you are trying to push POV by including this (again, cherry-picked) description in order to imply that he is just another uncredentialed, right-wing partisan talking head like Glenn Beck, which he's not—Harvard magna cum laude, Harvard Law, doctor of philosophy from Oxford, lecturer at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. If you are going to insist that "Fox" appears in that sentence just because you and some blogger think that he needs to be smeared in this fashion, I'll insist we give a more thorough reading of his CV in order to prevent the highly imbalanced, partisan-POV-pushing impression you are trying to make it have.

I also find it noteworthy that even the sources you cite have nothing of substance to say except to call him a liar, but say nothing to back that up, and imply he shills for Fox. Nothing but vacuous ad hominem attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have done the same, I'm just going to paste here what I wrote on my talk page:
He's both a pollster and a Fox News employee; yeah, he "shills" for Fox. Firemen work for fire departments. It's not "POV-pushing" to assert that that's his job. What's POV-pushing is when you reach a decade behind to cherry pick his employment under the Clinton administration. Stick to his current employment and spare me the smokescreen.
I guess you also didn't bother to type into Google "Schoen Fox News analyst"; Fox identifies him as exactly that (when it's convenient for them, apparently). So, yeah, it might have been a good idea to try that before jogging through his lecturing circuit and education above.
You're also wrong; we now have that he's currently a pollster and a Fox News analyst, which are both solidly factual. Further, anyone sorting through the numerous references I've outlined above (and, well, most any articles about Schoen from the left wing he claims to belong to) will see there's far more to criticism of Schoen and his methods than that "he's a liar". Here's another recent critical piece about Schoen we can add to the pile:
And from it a notable quote pointing out Schoen's darling status in the Murdoch/News Corp circuit: "The Post also didn't disclose that Caddell and Schoen both work for Fox News, which spent the last election cycle pulling hard for Republicans, up to and including providing millions of dollars in donations from its parent company to GOP-linked groups."
All that said, please refrain from spamming my talk page if you're going to just paste it all here as well. A note when you attempt to open arbitration cases involving me would, however, be welcome. Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did Google for any sign of Schoen being generally referred to as a Fox employee or analyst. Most sources don't describe him that way, so it shouldn't be surprising I didn't find anything. If we're going to tell readers information about his background that is "solidly factual", we'll also include mention of the other news outlets he's a contributor for, as well as additional details about his career. This is necessary in order to prevent the description from being misleading and POV-pushing. It would be better if you would simply cease the attempt to label Schoen in a POV way, though; we haven't labeled the numerous liberal and far-left liberal sources in this article in the same way, in order to broadcast their perceived political leanings to readers. It seems a patent NPOV problem that you insist on labeling a non-far-left source in this way.
And yeah, I sorted through the "numerous references" above. They're all partisan blog pieces by non-notable people that lack credentials anything like Schoen's, and that criticize Schoen for being affiliated with Fox News and for not being Democratic enough, or rather, that he's faking being a Democrat; one of them (the ThinkProgress posting) says he misrepresented his results, but that article misquotes him and only refutes things he never actually said. The Washington Monthly article attacks his methods only by referencing the false ThinkProgress claims. The only other piece that says anything about his methods merely questions how the poll respondents were selected; the author has no expertise in the field and admits he does not know how they were selected, but complains they couldn't possibly representative of the movement, without suggesting what kind of poll would yield representative results.
Anyhow, if you're going to try to cherry-pick the loaded "Fox News analyst" description, we're going to give his full background and mention the other news outlets he works for, because it's not our goal here to describe people in misleading ways.
By the way, I also reverted the title of this section back to what I called it when I created the section. Please don't remove the word "misleading" again. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News describes Schoen as a "Fox News analyst"; he's an employee. The other outlets he's contributed to now and then are irrelevant for the purposes of the news blurb.
Notably, earlier you also attempted to claim that Fox News doesn't employee Schoen on BeCritical's talk page, but were swatted with references demonstrated to the contrary. [Nice try]. From the attempts at weaseling out of Schoen's profession and presenting him as a neutral figure, to defending Fox News whenever the subject comes up, to general WP:LAWYERing around policies that you're familiar with, you've well demonstrated yourself to be a highly ideological user.
Your criticisms of the criticisms above are entirely irrelevant; you're a highly partisan editor. They exist and there are many of them. That's all this article cares about.
Further, your grade-school personal insults, refusal to notify me when opening arbitration cases that involve me, fondness for posting the same material as you've posted here on my talk page (at the same time no less—wtf?) and your general ideological, scorched earth stance on editing says volume about you as an editor, and I urge anyone else to take note. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented nothing whatsoever to show that Schoen is an "employee" of Fox News but merely an occasional "contributor" to the other outlets; that's just an unsourced POV you are trying to push. You also present nothing to substantiate that he is getting paid by Fox but not WaPo or WSJ. Just because he gets referred to as a "Fox news analyst" in the text of some piece shows nothing at all. The claims of random, uncredentialed bloggers making claims about his relationship to Fox, also, show nothing. Your claims I am "weaseling" are baseless, and at no time have I presented Schoen as a neutral figure, as I've already pointed out, so it's dishonest and misleading to pretend I am claiming something I am very obviously not claiming.
You, sir, are the highly ideological user who wants to exclude commentary by a well-credentialed, notable expert at any cost, or merely to give him a misleading and POV-pushing label if you can't exclude it altogether. I have tolerated dozens of insults without responding in kind, with the exception of the single brief period during which I called you two nasty words in response to your numerous insults, and at no time have I attempted to base any arguments on ad hominem attacks, which is practically all you have done despite thousands of words typed on your part; at least 3/4ths of it is your character attacks and nothing more.
You keep repeating a name-calling incident that was quite justified (based on your ongoing insulting and uncivil behavior) in an attempt to make it sound like I am the one making PAs, when clearly it's been you all along, as evidenced by the fact that you are still unable to even discuss this issue without going on and on about how allegedly ideological I am. You are almost flat-out LYING when you claim I've refused to notify you about arbitration cases I opened, as I opened a single case and immediately notified you. (And no, un-archiving already-existing comments that were removed by a bot, and reposting them without adding anything is not opening a case while failing to notify you). You also say I have a "fondness for posting the same material as you've posted here on my talk page" based on a single comment that I reposted here after deciding that's where it should go. And on the WQA complaining about your personal attacks, you went off on some tangent about how I use OUTDENT too often. If your purpose is to make ad hominem attacks and nitpick on silly and irrelevant trivia in order to distract from any rational discussion of a relevant content policy, I guess I can't stop you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to someone as a "dick" or an "asshole" on Wikipedia is under no circumstance justifiable. These are the basest forms of personal attacks possible and speak for themselves. Your talk of personal attacks holds no water; I've accused you of ideological bias, and will continue to as you continue to act in turn. Your defense of 'you made me do it' also isn't doing you any favors.
Further, no, you absolutely did not contact me upon reopening the arbitration case. Anyone can see that from my talk page. That's pure weaseling. As for spamming my page; I will repeat, if you're going to do it on my talk page, then do it there, and if you're going to do it on this talk page, do it here. Don't spam my talk page in some kind of spite post.
I've produced numerous sources that refer to Schoen as a Fox News employee, including Fox News. And, as demonstrated by various critique pieces—including those reaching back into 2007—Schoen is regarded as highly ideological and as little more than a Republican party fundraiser in the circles he and Fox claims he belongs to. I've produced ample evidence to this, despite your harking back to him being "well regarded" and so very professional, while you return to the mantra of his critics being unworthy to worship at the Altar of Schoen due to his superior credentials. This isn't rocket science. What's bizarre here is your continued attempts at defense about the guy. Do you have some horse in this race, "factchecker"?
And, by the way, I mentioned your use of the outdent tag because you were using it every few responses. It was getting disruptive, just like capslock or over use of bold. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zzzz. If you don't have anything sensible or civil to say, don't say anything at all. I'm not going to stoop to this finger-pointing and name-calling and accusing the other guy of dishonest motives. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have left both FOX and MSNBC mention out of the article. Readers may find that information at the articles for these people. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that removal of his employment at Fox News presents a biased picture; he's as much a pollster as he is a Fox News employee, and anyone else would get exactly the same treatment. Just because "factchecker" here will go to any length to raise a stink about it isn't a reason to give Schoen any special treatment over anyone else. I should also point out that "factchecker" is flatly lying above; had he done a Google search for "Douglas Schoen Fox news analyst", he'd have found that Fox themselves describe him as a "Fox News political analyst" and he's widely described as such elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that both previous inclusions (FOX and Clinton) were used to attempt to bias the reader's view of the poll. I was the one that first removed Clinton saying that it was not related and have followed this discussion to this time. For this Criticism section I have come to believe that anything other than the fact that he is a pollster and the other is a journalist are appropriate. I am not siding with anyone, just doing what I believe to be best for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you feel that his current employment at Fox News as an in-house political analyst is somehow not as noteworthy his position as a pollster? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is relevant is the profession and expertise that made his opinion notable on the question in the first place: he is an established, well-regarded public opinion analyst. That's why his analysis was respected enough to be published. You're the one trying to slap cherry-picked, POV-pushing labels on him. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Bloodofox. Was I not clear? I said, "I have come to believe that anything other than the fact that he is a pollster and the other is a journalist are appropriate". Perhaps it would have been better if I had worded that "nothing other" rather than "anything other". Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@"Factchecker": He's a Fox News employee writing for a sister News Corp/Murdoch media outlet; The Wall Street Journal. Gee, I wonder what the relevance is, and how hard it is to get published by your employer.
@Gandydancer, your reasoning was unclear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's self-employed. His employer is Penn, Schoen, and Berland -- the polling firm he founded. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's flatly ridiculous. He is indeed a pollster, but he's also well established to be a regularly paid by—yes, in other words, employed by—Fox as a Fox News Analyst, just like any other Fox News employee. There's no getting around that. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you produced anything at all to show that he's not only on the Fox payroll, but primarily employed by them, and not on the payroll of the other outlets, and not primarily employed by them, and not primarily employed by his own firm—which you haven't done, and probably can't do—it would be SYNTH for you piece that all together to label him in a particular way in order to push a POV. So this is really neither here nor there. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're not convincing anyone, "factchecker". I've produced probably around a dozen references referring to Schoen's employment at Fox News and even various commentators detailing issues with Schoen not disclosing it. I direct anyone reading to any of those references posted above. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous. None of this substantiates what you want the article to POV-pushingly claim, i.e. that "Fox News analyst" is his One, True, Current Occupation That Absolutely Must Be Mentioned If We Discuss The Man At All. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, numerous source identify him as a Fox News Analyst. The POV in avoiding this term is entirely yours. It's not even Fox's, who you so forthrightly defend at every corner. Further, we're only discussing that he's a Fox News Analyst as much as he his a pollster, not whether he should be struck from the article; please don't present the case as otherwise. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Describing him as a "pollster" is directly relevant to the data being presented, and shows he has expertise on the subject. Mentioning his affiliation with Fox presents a particularly relevant POV he has which is directly relevant to OWS. Its a matter of editorial judgment. Mine would say, the reader needs to be informed of his possible POV, but deciding whether or not he has POV and what it is should be up to the reader. Thus, mentioning Fox is a good way of heading the reader in the direction of questioning, but which way that questioning will lead will be up to the reader's own POV. It's a way of fine-tuning Wikipedia's neutrality. Not mentioning his democratic affiliation or Clinton et seq is a way of leaving the reader neutral, since it's highly likely that in general he's more republican than anything. We could avoid the hassle of all this by just giving his name and the data, which is probably the preferable solution. Be——Critical 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. You're saying we should mention Fox to give the reader a wink and a nudge and a tip-off that he's a Republican partisan—but we should specifically avoid mentioning the ties that would suggest he's anything other than Republican—because you think he's a Republican? In this sentence we need to either make no suggestion of his political leanings, or give a balanced picture of the affiliations from which readers could infer what his political leanings are.
Note that the article already reflects two responses to Schoen's analysis, even though those responses are blog posts by non-notable people in online publications of at least questionable pedigree (and notwithstanding the fact the criticisms are vacuous and rely on guilt by association and unsubstantiated claims of dishonesty.) The "OMG THIS GUY WORKS FOR FOX NEWS" angle ought to be adequately covered by the quote already in the article describing him as the "quintessential Fox News democrat" (nice substance in that argument!). The POV from that sentence doesn't need to be injected elsewhere just to skew the overall picture in favor of that POV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These opinion pieces are just as notable as Schoen's, as much disdain you may have for them as much as you may wish to to dismiss them. Schoen wrote an opinion piece on the Wall Street Journal, a sister News Corp/Murdoch media outlet toFox News, who employs him. The POV here is your own; if we were neutrally covering Schoen, as anyone else, he'd be described by way of his current employment status—Fox News political analyst and pollster. You've previously stated that you don't want him to be conflated with the likes of people such as Glenn Beck (presumably due to Beck's previous status as a Fox News employee). I don't think that's valid reasoning. Let the reader decide how they feel about Fox News instead of sweeping his employment under the rug. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly obvious those pieces are nowhere near as notable as Schoen's. Posting something on the interwebs is no substitute for expertise, solid academic and professional credentials, and wide recognition of your expertise and credentials. (And again, the criticisms themselves are based almost exclusively on guilt-by-association/name-calling and dishonest misrepresentations of what Schoen said, though I'll thank you in advance for noting that I am not trying to insert material saying that.)
If you really wanted to "let the reader decide", you'd agree that we can either say nothing about his background, or give a balanced picture of his background. Instead, by cherry-picking the label you think most effectively undermines his credibility, and refusing to mention labels that don't undermine his credibility, but are equally relevant and well-established, you're attempting to push POV. QED. The end. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion about Schoen's background, who you seem to revere. I also see no dishonest representation at all on the part of these critics. The critics we're currently citing are just as notable as Schoen, and the criticism seems to be widespread regarding Schoen's interpretation of the results of the 198 person survey. I refer readers to them above. The internet has a bevy of critical pieces on Schoen to draw from if we need more.
Nah, we're not cherry-picking anything here; that's what you were doing when you were attempting to add his work under the Clinton administration (nigh three administrations ago). We're disclosing his current employment status. That's pretty straightforward, standard practice, and completely neutral. Ignoring his Fox News Analyst position in favor of solely representing him as a pollster is what presents the POV problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your totally irrelevant comment on what I personally think of Schoen, I don't revere him—but if you think the credentials and expertise of the other people stack up against his, let's hear it, in detail. Otherwise, it's clear Schoen has the reputation and expertise that the others lack.
And if you think you have an argument that a couple of unheard-of blogs and the online edition of a niche political magazine stack up against the WSJ, the most widely circulated newspaper in the US, and one of the most highly respected, let's hear it, in detail. Otherwise, it's clear that these sources deserve far less weight than the WSJ. You're already getting a free pass on this, in virtue of the fact that these vacuous and non-notable claims are being included in the first place.
And if you think you have a source showing as an objective fact that the only affiliation worth mentioning is "Fox News analyst", and that we absolutely must mention this if we say anything about him at all, let's hear it, in detail and with carefully explained references. Otherwise, it's clear we need to give a balanced presentation of his media affiliations that doesn't cherry-pick the Fox link in order to undermine his credibility.
I'm guessing you're going to respond by saying you've already done all of the above. But you haven't. Put your money where your mouth is and show us the correctness of your arguments—don't just claim correctness. Let's see the sources and arguments, right here in reponse to this comment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, I simply refer you to the numerous responses I've posted above. Centrify's gushing descriptions of all things Murdoch/News Corp should give it all away. Type Google "Schoen Fox news analyst"; tada. Right wing to left wing to Fox themselves, it's common practice to refer to Schoen as a Fox News Analyst and a pollster, and it's POV to do otherwise. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't produce a single source that shows the only reasonable way to identify him is to call him a "Fox News analyst" and ignore his other affiliations and everything else on his CV. No such source is out there to be found. You're trying to push POV by cherry-picking the description in an effort to undermine his credibility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, all that's on the menu here is referring to him by way of his occupation, which you're desperately trying to avoid. He's a Fox News Analyst and a pollster. You've proposed we also mention that he worked under the administration Clinton three administrations ago, and, er, doesn't work for Fox News. The first option is POV cherry-picking. The second is flatly wrong. Respond with as many face-off, "bottom line" posts as you want, but at this point I'm just prepared to refer the reader to the numerous articles I've posted above, and, well, plain old Google for common knowledge. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At no time did I suggest we should mention the Clinton link but ignore the Fox link; please don't lie about what I've said and done.
Produce a source that shows we should refer to Schoen as a Fox News analyst and not a WaPo analyst and not a WSJ analyst and not author, former advisor to Clinton and 15 heads of state, Harvard/Columbia/Penn lecturer, or anything else, or there is really nothing to discuss here. We can't and won't mention the one link that undermines his credibility while ignoring the others. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with centrify, when Obama comments on something after losing the office, and we put his comment in wikipedia, we aren't just going to put his relevancy as whatever his "current occupation" is, we would mention that he was a former president. Same should be done with Shoen as his other occupations are completely relevant and notable. Although I don't think that working for Fox News undermines your credibility, it has more viewers than CNN now and is much less bias in my opinion.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing and the bias of editors and authors

All editors have bias, as do all authors of articles. But to determine what is an acceptable source takes more than claiming, "That's not RS". You must show how the community has determined this. Huffington Post is NOT a reliable source per the consensus of the general community yet it is used here against the consensus of editors many, many times. Now I see others saying that major news organizations such as Fox News are not acceptable at Wikipedia? Really? Back it up or it's just a fabricated claim. Sorry, but you can't use one source against consensus and then fabricate something against a major news organization just because you don't like them.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an accurate summary of WP:RSN discussion on HuffPost's reliability. Opinions of WP editors vary widely, as they do with Fox News. So we judge news pieces by their own merit instead of your general thumb down or up. And I notice only a month ago you yourself said "The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution." [11] -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never use Huffington Post as a source, unless it is a source for a person's own words. If Henry Kissinger wrote a piece for HuffPo about OWS, I might find it notable and might source it as an extraordinary historical figure's words about the movement. But beyond that, HuffPo is no more a reliable source for facts than NewsBusters or DailyKos. So much has been writen about OWS, that if the only source for a particular piece of information is HuffPo without corroboration from other sources, then that information is better left out. --David Shankbone 08:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why anyone would not use good reporting from Huffpo? I think there is a silly bias of at play, and Arianna had a little fun with a NY Times interviewer who shared it. (emphasis added for the hell of it)
NYTI think that hiring a slew of traditional journalists seems counter to the model that made buying you appealing to AOL.
AH We already had 148 journalists on payroll at The Huffington Post. I don’t know how you can say that.
NYT I look at your writers much less than I find myself clicking on stuff that’s been aggregated or the more salacious, boob-related posts.
AH That’s really a shame. I think you’re missing out. Jason Linkins is doing some of the best media writing. Amanda Terkel’s coverage of Afghanistan has been ahead of the curve. Shahien Nasiripour has been breaking news constantly on Wall Street reform. Maybe you should be reading more of that and clicking less on the boobs.

Yes IP editor, I did say that as that is what the consensus is. Further more, that consensus stated that IF Huffington post is used, it is NOT used as fact but opinion and attribution to the author is required. I don't see that here. What I see is the liberal bias of Huffington Post being used for the biased opinion as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for using Fox News' biased opinion. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, "IP editor" was me - my goof) Why do you say it? Reporting is reporting, and good reporting is undeniably on the Huffpo, as the ignored quote makes clear. If the alleged consensus is so, how can it be defended and why would anyone allow it to stand?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that link the IP editor left to RS sourcing. It is not any of the discussions that took place about Huffington Post. And where are the discussions referring to Fox News as not being reliable?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't really look. [12]. And you can search for Fox News discussions in WP:RSN archives yourself, there are plenty. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link I left as "IP editor" works, but just in case, it can be cut and pasted using this http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03talk-t.html. Por nada. It is definitely a discussion about the Huffpo, but if it didn't get used in a previous discussion here, so what? Is there a defense, besides one of tradition or authority, for not using the fine reporting of the Huffpo such as Arianna so clearly established as undeniable? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox news [13] is to be used with extreme caution, [14], and opinions on the Huff Post are similarly divided. They should be used, if at all, with extreme caution. Be——Critical 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both Fox News and Huffington Post fall into the same category as questionable sources that, if used at all, should only be used with more reliable sources that corroborate their information. The format for both sources is too polemical; they are best not used in my opinion. --David Shankbone 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is not "polemical" about most, if not all, good reporting? Woodward and Bernstein, Sy Hersh and Izzy Stone were all polemical reporters. I've looked at a few Wiki policy pages and not one admonished against polemical reporting. If it did, we could not use Matt Taibbi's reporting on Goldman Sachs, though it has held up as incredibly reliable. I sense a straw man objection. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have good evidence that Fox, at least, spreads falsehood. HP is considered to have less editorial oversight than many. Be——Critical 05:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above notice board discussion did not actually reach a consensus. It comes close to one in regards to climate change but I call all of that "No consensus".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Be, if you brought "good evidence" don't you think you might share it with your classmates? Just askin'. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, how many times do I have to post something before it's posted? Please read the discussions before commenting as if you know what's been said. It's disruptive, because when you say something so blatantly out of sync with reality, people think you know what you're talking about. As Hitler put it "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods." Please don't think I am accusing you of a lie, merely not reading my posts. Be——Critical 03:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once would be enough. now where is the "good evidence" that Huffpo reporters, not bloggers (we do have clear lines between opinion and reporting, after all) are not fact checked. Now, why are we barred from anywhere on WP from citing Huffpo reporters such as 'Jason Linkins, Amanda Terke and Shahien Nasiripour? Exemplars all of good reporting. Anything saying they can't be used is as, Arzel so correctly said, crazy talk. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, the discussion was "no consensus it's reliable," so I think we need to use it with caution if at all. Both of them, Fox And HP. Be——Critical 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! No, there is consensus that Huffington post is a biased partisan publication and therefore cannot be used to reference facts. This community consensus was made over a course of several notice board discussions that came to a consensus. The Fox discussion is one and was no consensus made on anything. No consensus means that no community decision was made.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is not reliable; in addition to the concerns and discussions that BeCritical cited, they have repeated too many known falsehoods, including two "Lies of the Year" from the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact. We should not use them. I'll also add that its parent company, News Corporation, is not reputable and is under investigation by the U.S. government for foreign corrupt practices, as well as involved in a far-reaching corruption investigation by the British Parliament. --David Shankbone 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox news is used several times in the article. Perhaps it should be removed. Be——Critical 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I can see the use of Fox or HuffPo is 1) for opinion; or 2) that a second reliable source corroborates what Fox News reported. That invariably leads to the question of why use the Fox source, but I think removing sources can be disruptive. Moving forward we should refrain from using either of these. --David Shankbone 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Be——Critical 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy talk. There is simply no comparison between FNC and Huffpo, and frankly it is a little disturbing and insulting to even have this discussion here. BeCritical, David, if you want to go down the RS path I suggest you do it in the correct arena. BeCritical, you should find it highly ironic that the Opinion survey you cited earlier would based on current information show FNC viewers to be far more correctly informed than there counterpoints on the cost of the Obama Health Care legislation and the effect of the Recovery Act. Just because FNC does not toe the Liberal line does not make it unreliable. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no comparison. They're individually unreliable sources. If you want to take it up again on the RS noticeboard, I suggest you do that... please post a link here. I'll post the evidence above, you post your evidence or arguments, and we'll see what other editors think. Be——Critical 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Fox News is unreliable, even to many conservatives, not because it doesn't "toe the Liberal line" but because it practices irresponsible journalism. There are plenty of examples in the FNC article and a daughter artilcle, Fox News Channel controversies (and in archived discussions). Activist-minded editors like User:Arzel have managed to keep out much of the valid criticism there but that shouldn't be allowed to carry over here. -A98 98.92.189.168 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a single news organization that is perfect. I find it HILLARIOUS that the OWS activists here are calling me an activist because FNC reports on some of the dirt associated with OWS while the rest of the liberal media largly ignores the dirt while jumping on any transgression that was ever done by any single person that said they were a tea partier. Forgive me if I laugh away the extreme hypocrasy represented by editors here. Arzel (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're frustrated with MSM coverage of the Tea Party, but this is no place to take it out. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read some of the stupid "FNC is not a reliable source" sections in the past. The one above is specific to AGW, for which the AGW crowd here on WP don't view anything as reliable unless published in an academic journal, (but that is a discussion for a another time). Fact is FNC is a reliable source, and you are simply wrong. QED. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to discuss it. Take it to the RS/N so we can have outside opinions. Till then, the consensus is that FNC is unreliable. Be——Critical 01:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't MSNBC, you can't just keep repeating a lie until it becomes true. FNC is reliable, and your opinion here means nothing. Arzel (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how many times have you repeated the lie that Fox is reliable.. 98.92.185.15 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to have a Wikipedia-wide ban on a source to declare the source problematic for use on a particular article. In addition to the concerns listed above, Fox's sister News Corp property the New York Post has had some of the most biased reporting about OWS (infamously calling the protesters "animals"). It can be disruptive to use some sources for a particular subject, and I have always found HuffPo problematic. If we are using information that can be classified as "only reported by Fox News" or "Only reported by Huffington Post", we shouldn't use it here, so they are just not needed. --David Shankbone 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is Fox news problematic or questionable? You can't just say "I think fox news is questionable and therefor it must be added as opinion". What about Fox News is questionable,is it simply the fact that they tend to be conservative and don't agree with your viewpoint? In my experience, fox is very professional and factual. But HuffPost HAS been reviewed, and it actually HAS gotten consensus in that it should be used with caution and always be attributed as an opinion to the editor it was written by. I agree with AmadScientist. We need to take a long look at anything attributed to HuffPost and make sure it is following guidelines set by Wikipedia and set by consensus. And Becritical, last time I checked, it was "innocent until proven guilty". There has been no "consensus" on Fox News's reliability, and having controversy alone does not make it unreliable. Your opinion that it is not reliable is not fact and as you said, this is not the place to discuss it making this entire section a farce. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news being unreliable is not fact, it's science, per the above. Be——Critical 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many times did you fail science class in school? Just asking because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be generous to Be's unlettered argument,and presume he meant to say it's empirical. But, per usual, he vaguely refers to a argument made somewhere else. So who said what where above, Be? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per tone: Gentleman, if that you be, do not in good faith allow this discussion to turn to arrogant speech such as is here. For indeed, such talk doth poison such discussion and might earn thee both a reprieve from this page.
C'mon guys, play nice. We don't want to start looking at what each considers other's faults. None of us is perfect and fault might found be with any of us at any time.(olive (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Be's evasiveness needs to be called out; it has gotten tiresome. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you ask him about evasiveness, rather than what you both did above which is presume to attack someone else's education. Kind of arrogant don't you think. Something to consider.(olive (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I'll consider it a smug suggestion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're misusing the word given what I've said. Consider it a gentle suggestion from an editor who is tired of coming onto talk pages where the environment deteriorates into a mud slinging fest. No argument about content on this kind of encyclopedia includes disparaging remarks about someone else's education even if any of us knew what that education consisted of. (olive (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hella smug, still. Practice what you preach; I have a talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing I've learned on Wikipedia, it's not to repeat myself more than a few times. That's how you lose your spirit around here. You get worn down by those who come back having not considered your posts, and just keep you going. Any editor who thoroughly reads the above will understand. Be——Critical 07:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if the argument was actually made in the first case. I have no idea of what case Be was referring to and I have indeed looked. Still evasive and not helpful. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news [15] is to be used with extreme caution, [16], and opinions on the Huff Post are similarly divided. They should be used, if at all, with extreme caution. Be——Critical 13:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becritical, the discussion you refer to saying that consensus was made that Fox is unreliable,came up with no consensus.There have been numerous discussions on whether or not Fox is reliable and every single one has come up with the same result, it is reliable. The fact is, we have a strong consensus that Foxnews should be deemed a reliable source. In the last month we have had no less than three threads on this topic at various policy pages... and all of them have resulted in the same consensus: Individual Fox News reports can be challenged, but Fox News itself is a reliable source. The continued POV pushing on this is becoming disruptive. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give the links then. I have not seen that consensus. Be——Critical 06:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal at the Criticism section

Note: this thread was archived then restored to active talk space for further discussion. -A98 98.92.186.126 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somedifferentstuff removed information sourced to (and directly supported by) CBS news, The Chronicle of Higher Education and the New York Times, with the edit summary "Misleading. Find a better source."

Let me paste a couple of quotes from the sources, which you can compare to the removed text:

many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." That framework shapes the "I am the 53 percent" backlash (53 representing the percentage of Americans who pay income tax, a figure that ignores other forms of taxes levied). One of the "53 percent" message-based images that went viral, in an appropriation of a clever Occupy Wall Street tactic, admonishes the protesters to "suck it up you whiners." In other words, earning your way is the American way![17] "The Chronicle, based in Washington, D.C., is the major news service in the United States academic world."[18]
"The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it."[19]
But as they have, conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968. [20]

These seem to me to be just the kind of sources we should generally require for an article. Also, they are directly giving summaries of a particular position of a particular group, which is what we need for writing an encyclopedia, that is we need an overview. I recognize that people are not going to like what they say, but that's not a legitimate reason for removing the information. It might be a reason for finding similarly high-quality sources to expand the coverage or give more context. But not to remove it or engage in original research or synthesis (as with some of the other edits[21]). Having read the quotes from Rush Limbaugh and others, and noting the other quotations used in the sources, I do not have any impression that the removed text was inaccurate in any way relative to how conservatives have criticized and portrayed OWS. I would appreciate people's comments. Be——Critical 21:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at the NPOV noticeboard Be——Critical 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A criticism section should be sourced from the critics, not from someone who states that they "support the protesters". The misuse of the Chronicle piece is sufficient reason alone to exclude this, even ignoring it's utterly unencyclopaedic tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies not on primary sources, such as you are suggesting, but on reliable secondary sources, such as I used. Be——Critical 00:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should find some sources (primary or secondary) that actually offer criticism rather than insults? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those offering the criticisms should have phrased those criticisms differently. But that is not up to us to decide. We merely report what our sources tell us. If they tell us that the criticisms are insults, that's what we report. We also report what those insults were. You're asking that Wikipedia not report the sources faithfully, or else that we only use sources which report something we think is correct. But that's not how it works. I'm trying not to use the word "censor" here, but isn't that what you're suggesting? Be——Critical 01:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that a section entitled 'criticism' should contain criticism, not insults. If you think that articles should have an 'insults' section, then propose it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insults are a form of criticism. If you want to paint conservatism in a more rational light, I suggest you find some good sources, rather than taking out the good sources I found. I've been searching again for some reliable sources that show conservative criticisms of OWS in a better light, and so far I haven't found any. Be——Critical 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your intention is to paint conservatism as irrational, as you seem to imply, I think you should maybe find another article to edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never implied that, and I'd love to have reliable sources on criticism of OWS that had more substantive criticisms. But I didn't find such sources. I did find RS that said certain things, and I faithfully reported their information: just read the quotes above. It's up to you to find something better or different or additional, but it's not up to you to remove reliably sourced material from the article for no other reason than that you personally don't like it or disagree. Be——Critical 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the other way round. If you wan't to include material, you need to justify it. And the Chronicle article isn't RS for conservative criticisms of the 'Occupy' movement - because it isn't about such criticisms. I suggest you read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have to justify removing well-sourced material. The justification for including it is that it's what the reliable sources say. A source article need not be primarily focused on a sub-subject of our subject in order for us to use it. As long as the article is addressing our general subject, we can use sub-sections of our source. Now, the Chronicle article is about Occupy Wall Street and culture war. That's fine. And it specifically addresses your objection here: "By focusing on caricatures of pot-smoking, drumbeating hippies, instead of on the economic messages related to the "We are the 99 percent" meme, some in the media appear to be redirecting the national debate away from what unites us and toward what divides us" and here: "At first glance, that kind of thesis might seem convincing in light of conservative attempts to slander Occupy Wall Street as an anti-American counterculture." In other words, yes, the criticisms have been mostly insults. So that's what we report. Be——Critical 03:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are cherry-picking the source to provide the 'criticisms'. If these are actually the only reliable sources commenting on criticisms of the 'occupy' movement, they hardly merit inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT. Actually, I'm sure they aren't the only criticisms - find some better ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not cherry picking sources, which you can disprove by providing some others. The WEIGHT is fine for a small sub-section, especially because these sources are very good: The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the major news service in the United States academic world, CBS news, and The New York Times. Be——Critical 04:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love the timeless Wikipedia debate as to whether the burden of proof rests on the person who adds or the person who removes. That aside, one of the key priciples here is to never state opinions in Wikipedia's voice. There are a couple of places such as the Erickson paragraph and the text that was just reverted by AndyTheGrump that stray from that requirement. It would be more encyclopedic to summarize the criticisms rather than use extremely inflammatory quotes, but in some cases it's not possible to agree on such a summary, and so a couple of quotes from prominent critics, that convey some ideological or practical objection rather than simply being derogatory, should be included. I think the charges of anti-semitism need more context because it implies that some people think anti-semitism is a major theme of OWS. I think the last paragraph about a majority of Americans supporting OWS is not a criticism and should go someplace else. Brmull (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh! That's what was taken out long before my summary was taken out [22]. The problem here is that our RS summarize the criticisms, but the original criticisms were so inflammatory that even the summary of our RS's summary is inflammatory. Be——Critical 04:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that version is better than the one that currently exists, but maybe it would be best not to lead with the demagogues Limbaugh and Beck? Are they really the most prominent critical voices? Brmull (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Aren't they? Who would you suggest? I've heard Limbaugh is in fact the mouthpiece of the Right. Be——Critical 05:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found another source [23] It's not helpful except in that it confirms my suspicion that the text I put in is probably an accurate reflection of what's out there. Be——Critical 06:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience with editing this article Becritical is correct. The criticism about the neutrality of the article started right off the bat from both editors that seem to be sympathic to the protests and those that seem to not be. Many politicians that have been willing to speak up at all are well-aware that the protest is popular with voters and are not willing to voice criticisms. Most "intellectuals" seem to be supportive. Early on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., were added but their comments were so inflammatory that we got demands to delete them such as, "But it's not true!" and one editor even said that "we" were only including such comments to make fun of them. It is difficult since it seems that the notable "for" people sound well-thought-out while the "against" people sound (to some of us) just plain nuts. I have looked for criticisms myself, and they are hard to find - as Becritical has said. IMO Limbaugh, etc., should be included, using direct quotes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes would be a step ahead at least. But keep the sources I found in the article to help prevent further challenges along the lines of our cherry picking our quotes. The meta-summary I put in is more encyclopedic and uses secondary instead of primary sources but people seem to feel as if it's putting the criticisms in the voice of Wikipedia. There is also the issue that what we have are conservative criticisms, people speaking at least in their own opinion for conservatism. That will be more difficult to convey with direct quotes, but if we don't convey it then we just have a few people mouthing off. So the best solution is to summarize the reliable secondary sources like we're supposed to here, but if we can't do that then let the primary sources speak for themselves. Be——Critical 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandy, that user with the Chinese symbols as a username said he just added the Glenn Beck and Limbaugh quotes to make them look bad. @Critical Every source that you claim are the only sources you can find of criticism are left-leaning sources that are making their bias analysis of the criticisms. I think we should "summarize" the actual quotes themselves and not whatever the Huffington Post or CNN says about the quotes, because that is not NPOV. Also, not all polls find that most people support the movement. The latest poll, found here, http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1670 finds that most people don't agree with the movement.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I've said in the previous section above, I too think inflammatory terms like "ingrates" should not be in wikipedia's voice. Regardless of whether these criticisms are couched in qualifying terms like "critics have said..." because that's just a weaselly way of getting them in there. As someone said above, these petty insults are not worthy of encyclopedic criticism. "Messy"? Really? Protests aren't meant to be neat and orderly. It might be interesting to compare regular editors here with their comments on the Tea Party articles. I would also like to note that BeCritical has responded to every single post in this thread and the one i link above, a pattern which appears to crowd out natural discussion. I would suggest that he let others weigh in more before replying. -A98 98.92.189.139 (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three times I have changed the word "ingrates" to "people" because there isn't actually any quote of a conservative using the word ingrates, it was just a word that the liberal sources used to describe the conservative viewpoint, and each time it was reverted. All the criticisms in the criticisms section are presented from an OWS supportive kind of view, trying to make the critics look wrong. It certainly isn't encyclopedic or NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"NPOV" is by definition whatever the reliable sources say it is. So if they are what you consider "left" or whatever but are RS, then WP just summarizes what they say. That's how it works.
Terms like "ingrates" were never in Wikipedia's voice, but were attributed to others. And if that's what the RS say, that's what we say.
It's all about the sources, and the only way you can legitimately argue about whether we should summarize them (without whitewashing) is to either say they are not RS for Wikipedia, in which case we can go over to WP:RS/N, or else find other reliable sources which cover these things differently. But what the arguments above boil down to is that some of the editors here don't want to cover the criticisms because they don't like their tone, or else whitewash them, or else use primary sources. So I would call on you to find good sources or accept the ones I found, and to not whitewash what those sources say. Be——Critical 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV in a nutshell: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." No where in the npov page does it say a neutral point of view is what RS says it is. I don't think what you had met those requirements at all. It wasn't fair and without bias nor was it said with an impartial tone. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reported what the sources said in an entirely impartial tone. People just don't like what the sources said. And they can't find any better/other sources. If I were to whitewash what the sources say (whether they be the primary sources such as Limbaugh or secondary such as the ones above), for instance by refusing to describe the issues in the same or similar words to those which the sources use, I would be guilty of placing my own POV ahead of the facts, and that is what you are asking me to do.
Words used by the primary sources: "parade of human debris," "They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you," "stupid," "Abject tools," "idiots," "great threat," "Doink rank amateaurs," "they think they're so tough," [24], "“jealous’ Americans who "play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac," "mobs," [25]
Words used by the secondary sources to characterize the view of the primary sources: "ingrates," "growing mob," "shiftless," "class warfare,"messy," "indolent," "drug-addled," "anti-Semitic."
Words used in my summary: "ingrates,""shiftless," "indolent," "messy," "anti-Semitic" and "drug-addled" "mob" "class warfare."
Now, you would have us not relate that bad words such as the above were used. They aren't "encyclopedic." But what's unencyclopedic is to whitewash. To whitewash would be to take sides. Be——Critical 02:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia is all about impartial tone. Words like "ingrates" and terms such as "drug-addled" should be recast without the inflammatory tone. You can say the people were ungrateful. You can say they were thinking unclearly because of drug abuse. The whitewash you are afraid of is exactly the guideline we are all given. If the article wording angers the reader, you have failed in writing an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say again that our impartiality is in reporting our sources, not in changing what our sources say to fit a particular mold. Be——Critical 05:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Have you looked at WP:NPOV lately? No one has suggested changing what sources say, just how we report it. Editors control the tone here through word choice. Encyclopedically, "ungrateful person" is much better than "ingrate" even though they have the same effective meaning. The former is critical of the person's behavior, the latter comes off more as a personal insult. I thought you understood this distinction but your persistence here leads me to believe otherwise. -A98 98.92.185.156 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You define the difference well, and you show exactly how your approach would perpetrate inaccurate information on the reader. Insults were hurled, not intellectual evaluations. The primary and secondary sources on this say that conservatives portrayed OWS in a particular way, and we report that without sugar-coating it. We report the insults, because that's what they were. Be——Critical 06:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See section below

Summary question re criticism section

For anyone coming in here fresh, here's the issue in a nutshell: I found some very high quality sources which say that conservatives have portrayed OWS in an insulting way. They use certain harsh words to describe how the conservatives portrayed OWS. The primary sources of conservatives throwing insults reads much the same as the RS descriptions. The question in contention is whether we are allowed to say, based on the summaries of the situation given in our reliable sources, that conservatism has portrayed OWS as *blank*, *blank*, and *blank*, instead of trying to leave out the offending insulting words.

  • Quotes and sources are given at the beginning of the section above.

Here is the text in contention:

Many [This non-specific characterization is directly from the sources] conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work.[2] Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream. However, polls do not back up such a characterization, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression.[3][4]

  1. ^ a b Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd: In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway. By Douglas Schoen, Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2011
  2. ^ Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman
  3. ^ Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011
  4. ^ Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says The New York Times October 21, 2011 By Kate Zernike

Be——Critical 06:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised at some of the comments, such as, "If the article wording angers the reader, you have failed in writing an encyclopedia." I agree with Becritical. It is not our job as editors to change the tone of the comments. Certainly if the news report used the word "ungrateful person" I'd hardly think it would be correct to change it to "ingrate". Gandydancer (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, I would not agree to this edit. It is too broad, has combined too much information into one small bit of info and then says it's not accurate by using one (of many) poll to prove it. I see no way to rescue this edit to make it acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) PS: (wish I had time to say more but it late here...I just wanted to get a short note in so that it did not seem that I supported the edit by my above post) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Gandydancer (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attached to any particular way of summarizing the sources, I just don't want notable criticisms or RS rejected or whitewashed. There are different ways one could summarize. But in some way we're going to have to give the reader the broad-spectrum info on conservative/Right-wing criticisms of OWS. Be——Critical 06:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you provide, which is also where the word "ingrates" comes from, is The Chronicle of Higher Education, which I've never heard of. Can you explain why you are using this source? and why it is appropriate to cite them for this article? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, The Chronicle of Higher Education is a news service in academia. Unless there are objections, it looks to me like an especially good source per WP:MAINSTREAM, probably better than the CBS News one. I looked it up on the WP:RS/N, and it's been mentioned several times. I didn't see any objections to using it as a source, although using its forums was questionable. Be——Critical 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually quote of a conservative actually using the word "ingrates" or is it just a left-leaning source trying to make conservatives look bad by putting words into their mouths? I would like to know what quote your source is "summarizing" and if that "conservative" actually used the word "ingrates" which I doubt. And if they did, does that person have notable authority or was it just some guy off the street? None of your sources are primary but rather are a bias analysis of quotes taken out of context and I am not sure whether this is POV pushing UNDUE weight or both.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could use direct quotes from primary sources, although that's not the kind of sourcing we're supposed to use in Wikipedia. But if you read above a little more closely, you'll see that the words that we would use from the primary sources would be no more intellectually stimulating. I'm sure you've seen the quotes. But here's a bit of Rush if you want it [26], and here is Cain. You seem to be contending that using the RS secondary sources is causing us to be less kind to the critics, but the quotes will tell you that the source's characterization is an accurate reflection of the reality. Be——Critical 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking will do more harm than good because it will make this article appear less neutral. All Wikipedia articles are to adhere to an apparent Neutral Point of View unless you want to undo the hard work may of us on the pro-OWS side have conceded on the grounds to better our credibility as editors. If we make this article blatantly biased, it will be ineffective, compared to the more cogent use of subtle bias. Think about it from a perspective of how to peddle influence. If we make the article seemingly biased, then we have none.완젬스 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to make it biased. What you're saying is that the way the Right has responded to OWS is so horrible that if we openly portray it as it is then we will be accused of being anti-Right. Maybe, but that's not our concern. We might find common ground however by using quotes from Conservative leaders. Be——Critical 21:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:MAINSTREAM apply to the first source? The Chronicle of Higher Education specifically targets academia. I would suggest using sources like The Wall Street Journal for the conservative view. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAINSTREAM applies because Wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopedia, and takes academic sources more seriously. The Wall Street Journal would be fine, but it looks like we're not going to get away from the name calling: You know how they have been pigeonholed...the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots. It's not a good idea to feed wild animals, ragtag protest movement. Whatever, the more research I do, the more appropriate the "bad word summary" I wrote looks. Here you have your preferred source summarizing that the Right has pigeonholed OWS as "scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots." Be——Critical 21:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand the context of the first article you cited. Look at it again and read the beginning of the next paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did, what's important is that WSJ says that that is how they have been pigeonholed. Whether WSJ agrees or not is irrelevant, my point is that WSJ says that that's how they've been criticized. Confirming the other sources above. Be——Critical 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how does "ingrates" accurately describe that? Again you find sources that are left-wing, can you not find any primary sources? you are intentionally finding bias sites that portray the conservatives' criticism, first of all as wrong, which is not NPOV and second of all as more hostile than they intend. Your bias is clearly shown in your versions of the paragraph, and it doesn't accurately describe the criticism, I am not trying to whitewash it, you are trying to blackdry it.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you don't like the word, you need to find other equally RS sources that contradict it. Not that it's necessary to include that word, just that it's fully allowable. It's also accurate in fact, but that's my own opinion. Be——Critical 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another look at the Chronicle source [27] and I notice that the line about 'ingrates' and 'fear of responsibility' is actually framed within a comparison to the Tea Party. But this context is lost in Becritical's summary criticism: Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envioust of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work . Worse, the second half of that summary refers to a Tea Party leaflet. And the next sentence is more criticism from the TP -- "shiftless, messy, drug-addled, anti-Semitic" -- Is this RS? I'm not convinced that petty insults from the TP belong in this article. And one more thing: as it stands now, the criticism section starts with conservative bloggers -- is this appropriate? At minimum it should be moved to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. -A98 98.92.184.135 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about the conservative bloggers. I see no relevance re the Tea Party context. The quote is "Replicating this decades-old culture-war paradigm, many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." The Tea Party quote is picked out as representative of the whole "As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it..." But you and Jacksoncw are getting down to what you think now, and that's not how we work at WP. What I wrote is a summary, accurate I hope, of how RS say OWS has been characterized by conservatives. Whatever we may think of it, whether we think it's accurate or morally acceptable or whatever, if I correctly summarized reliable sources then there should be no problem. Be——Critical 04:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's not about whether my summary was perfect. It's about whether we are allowed to simply summarize how our sources characterize conservative criticisms. If yes, then let's rewrite it so everyone agrees it's an accurate representation of the sources. Be——Critical 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the Chronicle source, I was referring to the WSJ source you provided recently[28]. After the "pigeonholed" remark read the beginning of the next paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. "Instead, a deeper look at those who sympathize with those two movements—one largely of the right and the other largely of the left—suggests they are more accurately seen as expressions of economic anxiety and anger that have spread well beyond ..." But that's not a description of criticisms which have been made, so not part of our criticism section? Is this what you mean? Be——Critical 15:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical,you keep telling me what I am saying and what I mean but you're wrong. I'm not "getting down to my opinion" you have inaccurately misrepresented an already bias representation from sources that are questionable, that's my point, not what I think, what it is.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not questionable. Your suggested sources -primary sources- are. If you think the summary was a misrepresentation, then help me write it better. But don't try to keep the info out of the article. The question we need to ask ourselves is, "How do reliable sources summarize the criticism of Occupy Wall Street, and how do we accurately summarize what the reliable sources say?" We are to summarize, we must not modify what the sources say. Be——Critical 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here is yet another quote from an RS, which I found by accident:

The conservative reaction has been similar. A great many conservatives stress the conditions among the tents. They crow that Americans will never fall in line behind a bunch of scraggly hippies. They dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals. They argue that the Democrats made a huge mistake embracing Occupy Wall Street as an expression of economic and social frustration.

[29] a piece by Matthew Continetti, "a conservative journalist and associate editor at The Weekly Standard."

I'm posting the above because it is exactly the same kind of summary given by the other RS, and objected to by editors on this page. Please, allow these sources to be summarized. [30] [31]Be——Critical 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New version of text summarizing how RS have characterized criticism of OWS

Old text:

Many [This non-specific characterization is directly from the sources] conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work.[1] Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream. However, polls do not back up such a characterization, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression.[2][3][4][5][6]

New text:

Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work.[7] Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream.[2][8][9][10][11][12]On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street."[13] Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."[14] Newt Gingrich, front-runner in the Republican presidential primary race said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath."[15][16][17][18] insert other quotes?

Text for sourcing individual words

Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates[12][7][19][20][21] who fear responsibility[7] and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work.[7] Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream.[2][8][9][22][11][12]On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street."[13] Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."[14] Newt Gingrich, front-runner in the Republican presidential primary race said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath."[15][16][23][18] insert other quotes?

Other refs

[19]

[20]

[21]

new ref, useful

References
  1. ^ Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman "By focusing on caricatures of pot-smoking, drumbeating hippies, instead of on the economic messages related to the "We are the 99 percent" meme, some in the media appear to be redirecting the national debate away from what unites us and toward what divides us."
  2. ^ a b c Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011 "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it."
  3. ^ Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says The New York Times October 21, 2011 By Kate Zernike "...conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968."
  4. ^ The roots of American disorder By Matthew Continetti, CBS news November 22, 2011 "The conservative reaction has been similar. A great many conservatives stress the conditions among the tents. They crow that Americans will never fall in line behind a bunch of scraggly hippies. They dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals. They argue that the Democrats made a huge mistake embracing Occupy Wall Street as an expression of economic and social frustration."
  5. ^ Occupy Wall Street Heckles Obama, Descends on GOP By Melanie Jones in International Business Times, November 22, 2011 "Some conservatives however, view reactions like Obama's as encouraging the protesters to continue what they view as disrespectful and disruptive actions by lazy leftist who want to destroy capitalism. The Republicans include Bachmann's fellow candidates in the GOP primary, as well as prominent Republicans like Karl Rove."
  6. ^ Why Britain needs a written constitution By Linda Colley in The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2011 "A prime reason for this diffidence is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"."
  7. ^ a b c d Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman "By focusing on caricatures of pot-smoking, drumbeating hippies, instead of on the economic messages related to the "We are the 99 percent" meme, some in the media appear to be redirecting the national debate away from what unites us and toward what divides us...Replicating this decades-old culture-war paradigm, many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.""
  8. ^ a b Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says The New York Times October 21, 2011 By Kate Zernike "...conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968."
  9. ^ a b The roots of American disorder By Matthew Continetti, CBS news November 22, 2011 "The conservative reaction has been similar. A great many conservatives stress the conditions among the tents. They crow that Americans will never fall in line behind a bunch of scraggly hippies. They dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals. They argue that the Democrats made a huge mistake embracing Occupy Wall Street as an expression of economic and social frustration."
  10. ^ Occupy Wall Street Heckles Obama, Descends on GOP By Melanie Jones in International Business Times, November 22, 2011 "Some conservatives however, view reactions like Obama's as encouraging the protesters to continue what they view as disrespectful and disruptive actions by lazy leftist who want to destroy capitalism. The Republicans include Bachmann's fellow candidates in the GOP primary, as well as prominent Republicans like Karl Rove."
  11. ^ a b Why Britain needs a written constitution By Linda Colley in The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2011 "A prime reason for this diffidence is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"."
  12. ^ a b c Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it By Douglas Rushkoff, Special to CNN October 5, 2011 "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence."
  13. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Rush Limbaugh Flips Out, 'The Next President Could Come From (Occupy Wall St)' was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference mediaite was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ a b Gingrich Takes GOP Lead, Takes On 'Occupy' National Public Radio transcript November 21, 2011
  16. ^ a b Religion on display in Republican debate by Anna Fifield in the Financial Times, November 20, 2011
  17. ^ Gingrich to Occupy: ‘Take a Bath’ The Daily Beast November 21, 2011
  18. ^ a b Populist Movements Rooted in Same Soil The Wall Street Journal By GERALD F. SEIB, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 "You know how they have been pigeonholed: The tea-party movement is nothing but a collection of right-wing, under-educated rubes and radicals, while the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots."
  19. ^ a b Any leaders out there? Anyone? by Tom Ehrich of the Religion News ServiceNovember 22 2011
  20. ^ a b The Harvard Crimson By Lucy O'Leary Tuesday, November 22, 2011
  21. ^ a b Occupying Common Sense By Thomas Berry, The Patriot Post Monday, November 14, 2011[highly conservative source]
  22. ^ Occupy Wall Street Heckles Obama, Descends on GOP By Melanie Jones in International Business Times, November 22, 2011 "Some conservatives however, view reactions like Obama's as encouraging the protesters to continue what they view as disrespectful and disruptive actions by lazy leftist who want to destroy capitalism. The Republicans include Bachmann's fellow candidates in the GOP primary, as well as prominent Republicans like Karl Rove."
  23. ^ Gingrich to Occupy: ‘Take a Bath’ The Daily Beast November 21, 2011
Comments

What a highly contrived piece of work. Lump together the complaints and then strike them down with a classic NPOV of "however" from a singular poll in time. We do not exist within a vacumn, and you should not try to frame a retort on a singular poll favorable to your point of view. The result is a rather nice example of WP:OR I must say. You should go get it published somewhere if you think it belongs. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no OR, but the text can be improved. That is the process here. I also found a few more RS, all saying the same things. The poll sentence is dispensable. Be——Critical 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the section after However can be removed from your wording? It is that linkage which is the OR, specifically synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no synthesis of material. The source says "...are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it." We could be more specific and say "However, polls do not back up the characterization of OWS as outside the mainstream, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression." This is why I like the constructive criticism, it forms better text in the end. Be——Critical 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does having a favorable or unfavorable opinion with OWS have to do with anything in the sentences preceeding it? Your logic suggests that the sentences prior to "However..." are negated because 54% of poll respondents on Oct 13 (well before the most recent stuff) have a favorable opinion. To top it off you don't even see the synthesis? Arzel (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Arzel didn't even see or read the additional sources above. He's still harping one "one poll" and regurgitating tired complaints. The above is not synthesis. It is perfectly valid to balance criticism. He just doesn't like balance. -A98 98.92.186.126 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a job well done. I see no significant problems and I think all the major criticisms were represented and articulated succinctly --David Shankbone 05:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the word ingrates and the tone of the sentence is not in the Reliable sources. And OWS is far outside the political mainstream according to many other polls, contrary to bias, liberal Time Magazine's survey done relatively early on in the movement. Your summary is simply not accurate or NPOV and needs a lot of work before it gets put in. And I'm not surprised Shankbone over here likes it, he has been adding every bubbly picture he takes with his smiley little captions describing how majestic the OWS movement is. And if you want to add the Time poll, you should also add the many other polls that support the theory that the movement is outside mainstream politico, including the one done by Quinipiac that is in the Public Opinion section.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "ingrates" is in the sources, and the tone is a bit less strident in my summary than in the sources, I think anyway. Here is the source (one of the best) and also quoted above. The poll will have to be taken out of the final version as you say. If you are Arzel, stop making statements about the sources without reading them. Otherwise, please no offense. Be——Critical 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several notable personages such as Rush and Gingrich who have made notable statements critisizing OWS, and the quotes should be included. Be——Critical 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with Gingrich, but I'd prefer someone of a higher caliber than Limbaugh, who is on the same level as Ann Coulter. The less polemicists we use (I realize Gingrich skates a fine line) and the more 'serious' critics (say George Will or Charles Krauthammer) the better. --David Shankbone 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that... okay, you tell me what we do about that, because these people are notable. They speak for a huge segment of the population. To speak from the other side, why would we ignore their criticisms? What kind of censorship is that? I'm not really opposed to leaving out quotes (not that Gingrich said anything much nicer), I just don't know how we should handle it. Be——Critical 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read an article by George Will and didn't find anything usable. Any suggestions? Be——Critical 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@becritical, We shouldn't ignore their criticism; we should add their quotes but not what some bias liberal website thinks about their quotes which is what you keep trying to do. Also, you can't put words in conservatives' mouths either. You keep trying to put the word ingrates in there, but no conservative actually said ingrates and it is defamatory to imply that they are so unprofessional. Add the quotes, that's fine, and if you can find sources that oppose the quotes, add those too. But we can't "summarize" a conservatives' viewpoint accurately when the information is coming from a liberal website. Add the quote, and just the quote, and don't add words like "ingrates" that aren't actually quoted from conservatives.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Factchecker_atyourservice said above, "You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well... WP does not require that sources be neutral." To which I responded "Hey, right on, we don't have to have neutral sources, we have to have reliable sources which we report neutrally." You need to do further research. Read the quotes, and you will see there is no question of professionalism. Be——Critical 20:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be cherry-picking WP Policies. Sources don't have to be neutral, but the article does, you might have forgotten about NPOV. The source might say it, but it isn't encyclopedic or neutral, find another way to do it.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not strive for neutrality, at all. It strives ONLY to neutrally represent the reliable sources, that is to not biased in its representation of what those sources say. Neutrality itself is NOT an issue. We do not write neutral articles at Wikipedia. We neutrally represent sources. As I did above. Be——Critical 19:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved in this particular dispute, but I have to give kudos to BeCritical for displaying a sophisticated (and correct) understanding of WP policy. Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for mainstream thought, and nothing else, and no matter who thinks mainstream thought happens to be wrong on this or that subject, Wikipedia still merely presents the world as it exists according to mainstream thought—with limited, if any, attention to what is outside the mainstream. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks (: Be——Critical 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?

Per this undiscussed deletion, perhaps we need to go to mediation? There is no justification for deletion of such well-sourced content which sticks so closely to the sources. Be——Critical 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the matter up on the NPOV noticeboard again [33] Be——Critical 20:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this removal, Somedifferentstuff seems to think we need more than one source to say "many." The source is sufficient to the statement, and the other sources back it up. I could say "all," or leave out "many" and just say "conservatives say," since the sources merely state how conservatives have characterized OWS, but "many" is, well, a conservative statement. Be——Critical 00:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So let's look at your sources regarding conservatives and "ingrates". You have 5 listed. The Washington Post specifically states that Newt Gingrich referred to them as ingrates, not "conservatives". Then you have one from CNN where Rushkoff specifically states that he is referring to "mainstream television news reporters" - again, not "conservatives". Then you have one from The Patriot Post which states, "by their detractors", again, not "conservatives". Another one from The Harvard Crimson which is specifically talking about Harvard students, again, not "conservatives", and one from The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the only one that states, "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I don't need more than one reliable source to have that word. There is no "undue weight" there, there is just an obvious statement which is well sourced. But as I said before, the word is not necessary, so why not stop basing your objections on it? You removed much more than that word. Let's hear your objections to the rest. The other sources are mere support, to let you know that the first RS did a good job. Tearing them down as not being specific enough misses the point. Again, what other objections do you have? We can take out the word. We could use quotes from the RSs instead. We could do a lot of things, but I do not think that would satisfy you, because you don't want that information in the article. I think that, not just because of your reverts, but because you are not trying to help me fix the text, you are in "attack the text" mode only. When I object to something, I usually offer alternative ways to do things. Be——Critical 03:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I demonstrated that using the blanket term "many conservatives" to describe the protesters as "ingrates" violates NPOV. You need to be careful when using blanket terms like that. I just added a beginning to the section. I used the word "Republicans" which is taken directly from the source. Let's build upon this. What next sentence do you think would be appropriate to add. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is better. Okay, we have to somehow convey the general content of the RS above, and that might be more acceptable to you with attribution. We can use the sentence you put in the article, and going on from that say "The demonstrators have been portrayed as..." or "commentators such as X and Y, say that the commentators have been portrayed as..." and then give a summary of the terms used by the sources. It's not going to sound nice if we accurately portray what the sources say, but hopefully the attribution will be enough. We could also use some quotes from the sources. If we can't agree on a paraphrase like I did above, then we could use a couple of quotes. Be——Critical 19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to participate, I assume you don't disagree with the current version minus the word "ingrates." Consensus is among reasonably active editors. Be——Critical 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE WEIGHT

User:becritical added this, "Conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates..." - He has this attributed to only one source which creates an undue weight issue. How do we know conservatives refer to the protesters as ingrates? Because one article says so? You need to back this up with more than one mainstream source if you want this to be in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this odd. What about all those Ron Paul supporters out there in the streets with signs? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, one source would be sufficient if it's a good source (which it is), but that sentence is supported by all the sources, including the conservative ones. Also, the claim is that they see them as, not that they say they refer to them that way. This is the source characterizing, not quoting. Be——Critical 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List all the sources that refer to them as ingrates. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The obsession with the word is inappropriate. One source for that is sufficient, and other sources support the meaning, as well as the quotes. But okay, how about we take out the word "ingrates?" Does that satisfy you? Be——Critical 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, the other source which most directly supports that specific word is CNN "ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos." Ingrate means an ungrateful person. So that's at least two directly supporting the word. Now, you have something to explain: why did you take out that large bit if all you're concerned about is that word? Be——Critical 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it reads "some conservatives and tea party activists say", But as you said yourself "the claim is that they see them as, not that they say they refer to them that way." So shouldn't it read: "some tea party activists and conservatives see them as and not say? Also, you should move the citations to be after each specific phrase attributed to that source so readers don't have to look through them all to verify one claim.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could say "see them as" if you wish, although in actuality for the most part they only say that they see them as (to extend your logic). The meaning is the same, however. And no, there is no reason to move the sourcing for two sentences of about 72 words. Be——Critical 04:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is a reason, for the ease of the audience. Wikipedia strives to be easy to read and verify, and it would be much easier to verify if the exorbitant 5 sources for 2 sentences were organized rather than cluttered at the end, leaving the reader the nuisance of sifting through each of the articles to verify content.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern for readers is touching, but readers will not be going over it that closely, or if they are they will not mind reading a couple of quotes in the references which will take them two minutes. And as for the editors here, I'm sure they have all taken the two minutes to read the source quotes. Maybe even some of them read a bit of the articles, too. References do not need to be placed after each word, making them redundant and truly cluttered. Let's get the content worked out first, and we can go over the source placement again later if you wish. Be——Critical 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user:Jacksoncw. You need to place the pertinent references within the sentence so editors don't have to waste time sifting thru the sources. I've removed the material until this takes place. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's off to either AN/I, or mediation. I haven't decided which yet, and will be back probably tomorrow. Cheers. Be——Critical 13:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on anything else, footnotes should be placed as closely as possible to the specific language they substantiate. For example, if one of your sources ONLY substantiates that X claims Y, but not the rest of the sentence, the footnote should appear right after "X claims Y" rather than just being tacked on to the end of the sentence. This is standard practice in some (perhaps many) academic circles, including academic legal writing. And more importantly, this is the best way to clearly convey to the reader exactly which source substantiates what claim. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the Chronicle as a reliable source. This isn't a news article, it's an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not reliable. Taking this guy's opinion and crafting it to appear as if it is a fact that "conservatives see OWS protesters as ingrates," is original research. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are, I believe, what we call Newspaper and magazine blogs or similar, and I already checked them out on the RS noticeboard. As I said before, the word "ingrates," though reliably sourced, is not necessary. But trying to keep the entire paragraph out of the article, or removing full sentences when you disagree with one word is unacceptable. It is also possible to attribute, as with "According to conservative and political commentators such as X and Y, conservatives see..." But the way you are doing this makes it seem as if you just hate the content and will not participate in the editorial process except to stonewall. Thus, I'll be requesting mediation. Be——Critical 01:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I agree with the editors that suggest that the refs should be within a sentence rather than grouped at the end of it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted above, which is here [34], regarding conservatives and "ingrates". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People obsess over that word which we could take out. But that word alone was not removed. No one has said that my summary of the sources was in general unjustified by those sources. I don't have to source every word, I can paraphrase as an editor. I did a good job of that, or if I did not people should have helped me with the text, rather than attack it. We are supposed to edit together. But I see no constructive suggestions, only complaints, mostly about a single word which we could take out. Can the sources in general be paraphrased as saying what I put in? Yes. Do they sometimes use the exact words I used? Yes, and that's further justification for them. Is there any doubt that the summary of how conservatives have generally portrayed OWS is accurate? No, I don't think there is. So, what is the objection? There are no substantive objections that I can see to the general summary. So help me with the text if you think it can be bettered, but don't just make up any complaint you can, or it will look as if you just want to keep this material out of the article. Be——Critical 09:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OWS-Tea Party section

A comparative section may be need. Yug (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I've read a lot of comparisons. Be——Critical 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to collect sources here, everyone can add too : ). Then, if someone is interested to start the writing: be bold. Yug (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a new article for that--we already have complaints about this one being too long. Gandydancer (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't belong in this article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gandyd and Somedif. If a new article comparing and contrasting this movement and the Tea P would be created (taking care to avoid OR) then I would be open to adding a sentence in our article with a link to that one.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus Rock Mafia - IT'S A LIBERTY WALK! video supporting OWS 500,000 at time of writing ,,,and less than a week old

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovs0fpFgeqw Miley Cyrus Rock Mafia - IT'S A LIBERTY WALK! support OWS ....She should be added under wealthy supporters Bionaught (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube isn't a reliable source, and you really need a second-hand source instead of original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done [35] Be——Critical 01:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source regarding Demographics/survey section

I came across an interesting source describing a recent poll surveying public opinion about OWS. The results indicated that while over two thirds of respondents agreed that "the government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor", a majority of 56% said OWS "does not share their values". A nearly identical majority of 57% said the same about the Tea Party movement.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/survey-a-third-of-americans-identify-with-occupy-tea-party-movements/

Take a look. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. Combine with the articles that say the two movements share some goals and causes. The statistic that "Over two-thirds or 67 percent of respondents said the government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor." needs to be fitted in somewhere. We really should have an expanded economic and political context section. Be——Critical 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused references

I'm moving unused references here in case they are needed later. [1][2] [3]

[4]

[5] [6] [7] [8]

What happened to the deaths section?

S51438 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't about OWS, if I recall. Be——Critical 02:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths occurring at OWS are not about OWS? S51438 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Brother (...where art thou?).

M&Ms says:

The article reads like a load of old garb. There is no objectivity in the writing.

Also the word malfeasance is used as a verb when it is not a verb.

All in all, the article is packed with the rhetoric of someone who believes passionatetly in this movement. This is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.155.16.96 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I've been saying! S51438 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally anyone who's opposed to the movement will see imbalance as long as there is any semblance of neutrality. -A98 98.92.187.48 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, the same would be true of people who support the movement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Domscheit-Berg, potential resource

In 2011, Daniel Domscheit-Berg was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of top global thinkers, with Sami Ben Gharbia and Alexey Navalny.[9] He stated Occupy Wall Street was the Best Idea. In print, on page 60, #24 for shaping the new world of government transparency.

99.181.136.135 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems secondary, at best. Some plausible value, unlike most of the "list of top global thinkers" you've added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why we would add that to the article other than pushing your POV that the OWS movement is right? What does Foreign Policy magazine have to do with top thinkers? What makes his opinion notable? Him being named a top 100 thinker on a random, irrelevant magazine certainly doesn't. Is this informative or relevant in any way? Let's think about this.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in the authors and academics section. No reason not to put it in. We eventually have to work on splitting the article, but I don't really want to till it's a little better developed. Be——Critical 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of commentary already. That particular quote does not seem to add any new of unique information. If there was a particular, notable or unique reason why the Domscheit-Berg made that assertion then it might be different.--Factchk (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Commentary About Lack of Message

I've added a quote from Matt Taibbi's recent piece in Rolling Stone about the protests. The quote itself provides an alternate opinion that some in the protests feel that the movement is a good in and of itself. I'm not sure if this is the right place for it so I decided to put in the Demands section and see how everyone reacts to it. If something like this already exists elsewhere in the article please let me know. I'm happy to debate placement, notability, etc.--Factchk (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using two accounts on this article? Are you User:Factchecker atyourservice? Be——Critical 08:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Assimilation

I think the criticism section should be assimilated into the rest of the article into their respective sections. The entire Organization and group processes section is a bubbly paragraph of how majestic the movement is, but there has been criticism. We should cute/paste some information from the criticism section into the other sections not only for accessibility but to keep things NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the criticism section is only a part of what it will be, so let's get it straightened out and then consider your suggestion. Be——Critical 20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a point, though. Praise is sprinkled liberally throughout the article wherever it might be topically relevant, but much of the criticism is being pigeonholed into its own labeled section for no reason other than it doesn't reflect positively on the movement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a lot of praise, but I did revert a bit from the "The Conscience of a Conservative" in the Washington times, which is no more reliable than huffington post on the other side. In fact I just got done cleaning out a lot of POV text and sources from both sides of the debate. Be——Critical 07:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

The Occupy movement originated[10] as US Day of Rage, an idea published[11] on news blog Wikileaks Central on March 10, 2011 by Canadian editor Heather Marsh, reporting action taken by Wikileaks Central writer Alexa O'Brien and modeled after the Day of Rages being held at that time in the Middle East and North Africa. Early promotion by the Wikileaks Twitter and blog was reported[12] as being instrumental in the group's success. It was renamed after an article by Adbusters.

70.66.36.9 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've made a valid assessment. I concur with adding this historical anticedent to the "Origin" section.--DeknMike (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This overwhelmingly goes against common understanding of the protest as it's been reported in mainstream media, so proceed with caution. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organization and Group Process

There have been complaints that the Finance Committee isn't using funds correctly or not at all, I added this information but it was removed, not sure who or why. I'd like some advice on what information should be used and how to add it from this source.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Tea PArty comparison

Under the demographics section, it says "Some news organizations have compared the protest to a left-leaning version of the Tea Party protests." I added a rebuttal from the Washington Times and it was deleted. Any objections to me adding a jist of this rebuttal?--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have provided is dead/broken. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the address: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2011/nov/17/occupy-wall-street-no-tea-party/ --174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Anti-corporate protests to hit London". The Sydney Morning Herald. AFP. October 12, 2011. Retrieved October 12, 2011. Protests against corporate power that have taken hold in the US are to hit Britain on Saturday with a rally in front of the London Stock Exchange. Occupy London Stock Exchange (OccupyLSX) [...] is backed by British anti-austerity group UK Uncut, the London-based Assembly of the Spanish 15M movement and the People's Assemblies Network Global Day of Action.
  2. ^ Map: Occupy Wall Street Spreads Nationwide—and Beyond (Updated). Mother Jones.
  3. ^ "Occupy London Stock Exchange attracts 9,000 followers on Facebook". Metro. October 12, 2011. Retrieved October 12, 2011. A group called Occupy London Stock Exchange said a Facebook page about the protests had attracted more than 9,000 followers with more than 3,500 confirmed attendees. Campaigning organisations, including direct action group UK Uncut, confirmed they will support the action in the heart of the capital's financial centre on Saturday.
  4. ^ "Occupy Wall Street protests come to London". The Guardian. UK. Press Association. October 12, 2011. Retrieved October 12, 2011. Protests against the global financial system which have seen huge demonstrations in New York's Wall Street will spread to the City of London this weekend. [...] the so-called OccupyLSX [...] We stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, protesters in Spain, Greece and the Middle East who started this movement.
  5. ^ "Occupy the London Stock Exchange". Facebook.com.
  6. ^ Sparkes, Matthew (September 28, 2011). "Protesters plan to occupy London Stock Exchange". The Daily Telegraph. London. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)
  7. ^ "Paul: Economy biased against the poor" (Video). Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. CNN. July 16, 2010. Retrieved October 7, 2011.
  8. ^ Merchant, Brian (October 6, 2011). "Climate Activists Join 10,000 Protesters to Occupy Wall Street (Video)". TreeHugger. Retrieved October 10, 2011.
  9. ^ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,23#thinker24
  10. ^ Dorling, Philip (October 29, 2011). "Assange can still Occupy centre stage". Sydney Morning Herald. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Text "http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-can-still-occupy-centre-stage-20111028-1mo8x.html" ignored (help)
  11. ^ Marsh, Heather (March 10, 2011). "@USDayofRage announces Facebook page". Wikileaks Central. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Text "http://wlcentral.org/node/1454" ignored (help)
  12. ^ Dorling, Philip (October 29, 2011). "Assange can still Occupy centre stage". Sydney Morning Herald. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Text "http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-can-still-occupy-centre-stage-20111028-1mo8x.html" ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=464795532"