Talk:Occupy Wall Street

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

Inclusion of Oct 3, 2011 The Occupied Wall Street Journal publication?

As various news organizations twist and skew what OWS is/was all about, I think its absolutely noteworthy that a lot of the history and impetus of the movement was summed up in OWS first official publication, created by consensus vote of the General Assembly, "The Occupied Wall Street Journal". This four page newspaper-format publication covered a lot of information. http://www.businessinsider.com/occupied-wall-street-journal-2011-10-03?op=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.175.230 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

American Nazis

Discussion closed as no consensus for inclusion.

[1] Per the sources which have been presented at this NPOV board thread I am of the opinion that the ANP offering support needs one line at a minimum in this article. It certainly meets notability requirements and the only argument against is "guilt by association" which is a policy I am unable to find anywhere. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC) No, we don't promote fringe groups who choose to endorse the latest fad. WP:UNDUE. If you can find a source saying that the ANP's endorsement is indicative of anything other the ANP's attempt to obtain publicity, I might feel differently. Dualus (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC) It is not undue when there are 44 news hits for it. It is notable given the coverage it has received and this discussion has already been resolved on the NPOV board, this section is to discuss were to add the line "The American Nazi Party has also offered support" one line from thirty sources is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC) It is totally undue, as the NPOV discussion illustrates - there is no consensus whatsoever in that thread for inclusion. [User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC) It is not my smear campaign, please redact your personal attack. The NPOV discussion illustrates that it ought be included, per all the sources which mention it. One line is not undue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The NPOV discussion illustrates nothing of the sort AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I am promoting nothing, per all policy's this deserves a line, it has 44 hits on google news, and a few million on the web, it is notable which means in gets included in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC) This has been argued to death. The opinions of fringe groups on current events are unimportant to articles about those events. TFD (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Note TLAM attempted to insert this material while this discussion is taking place. I have reverted. And BTW, a good proporting of the '44 news hits' are blogs, or reader response. So much for 'proof by Google'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Your removal of this content is an issue, I have tagged the article for neutrality. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Your addition of content while it was being discussed on the talk page, with no support for inclusion, is an issue. And you are seriously suggesting that there is a 'neutrality' issue in not mentioning fringe material sourced from blogs you found on Google? That has to be the most ridiculous 'justification' for tagging that I've seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Was it sourced to a blog? Or to one of the most widely viewed news networks in America? Sorry but undue will not fly here, given the news hits + google hits this is notable, it does not matter if you do not like it, policy dictates it ought be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Nope. There is no policy that says Wikipedia content is determined by Google hits, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Andy is correct, a few google hits does not mean that a small issue must be included. That is not how NPOV works - 44 google hits should be weighed against the millions of google hits of the topic as a whole.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Which of these is a personal blog? Fox newsMedia Matters for AmericaHuffington PostNew York PostSunshine State News Plenty of reliable sources mention it, so should we. I have taken the liberty of removing your personal attack. @Maunus that is just news hits, there are several million hits on google for it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I would just like to point out that the credibility of your argument is being ruined by the sources you are providing. First, they certainly are not unbiased sources (although modern media is not necessarily expected to be unbiased). Second and more importantly, the Huffington Post article you posted is indeed a blog post. In addition, it is not a legitimate source of information, given that the author actually lies when discussing the first video he posted. He states that the video shows a mob of OWS protesters attacking a "black, NY policeman" when it actually shows said police officer attacking a protester. Although I think that the Wikipedia page should be edited to include some discussion about possible racism arising in the protests, the issue should have multiple political perspectives and a wide range of legitimate media attention before it can be posted here. Drezken (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for posting your 'sources': Fox News - a mention in passing, along with The Socialist Party U.S.A, Communist Party U.S.A, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Mediamatters: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them." Huff post - a blog New York Post - as WP:RS? ROFL! Sunshine State News - a blog Now stop wasting peoples time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Per WP:RS blogs hosted by news agencies are reliable. It is not a mention in passing on fox, it was part of their news segment. All those sources are reliable and you know it, this fact is notable and it needs be mentioned. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC) There is no such necessity. As I said you have to weigh it against the entire coverage of the protest. The Nazi support is not in any way a significant part of that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Actually per WP:NPOV there is means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, plenty of reliable sources have mentioned this, however I look forward to the list of celebrities being substantially trimmed. The key part is "proportionately".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC) ...and "significant". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I can't understand the hesitancy to add information about a notable argument. Stepping back from simply the American Nazi Party, the OWS has come under fire (justifiably or not) for anti-semitism among protestors. These are some notable sources on both sides of the issue: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegitaU (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2011 Most of the sources presented have been opinion pieces and just repeating these opinions would violate WP:WEIGHT. However your last source is a news report which says, "The Occupy Wall Street protests, now in their second month, have increasingly been criticized by a variety of groups, most of them politically conservative, for flashes of anti-Semitism." It also provides balance to those views. We could use that source, but it is far from what a number of editors have been suggesting. TFD (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC) 47 results on G News now for this, around 40k on the web, still of the opinion this is not notable people? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The source used was from Bret Baier's "Political Grapevine",[7] which covers political trivia. Whether or not it is rs, it is no indication of noteworthiness, more likely the opposite. And saying that the American Nazis also support OW after saying that it is supported by Russ Feingold is a smear against him. Also his article is about fringe groups that support OW, so picking out the one is injecting a POV that Baier did not intend. TFD (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC) It is wonderful that you know what Baier intended, however do you do it? We can of course mention all three groups he mentions, but the ANP have had more coverage, 66 google news hits now btw & 50,200 on the web, still not notable? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 68 hits for the ANP on G news now 48500 on the web. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC) G News hits remain stable, About 111,000 results on google search Bing gives 62 News hits. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC) So what? You've already been told that Google hits don't determine Wikipedia content. Drop the stick, and leave the carcass to rot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I have removed all your personal attacks, any more will result in a request for administrative action to be taken against you. Policy dictates content, not you ATG. Policy is quite clear, this is notable as it has received widespread reporting. Your assertion that it has not is wrong, and if you do not actually have a reason other than you don't like it then I shall return the content to the correct place. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC) You are pushing an agenda. You have no support for your attempts to link the 'occupy' movements with fringe racist political groups. And finally, it is you that doesn't understand policy (or pretends not to) - you are clearly attempting to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Keep this up, and I'm sure that administrative action will follow soon enough... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I have to agree with Andy. The ANP is an insignificant fringe group, and their opinion should not be give any weight at all in this article. Their "endorsement" is peripheral and irrelevant to the subject of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I support Andy as well. And I'll go one step further and say that anyone that removes another editor's copy is a ******* ****. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC) If this were just from the ANP website then yes, however this is not reporting on the ANP opinion, it is reporting on what a great many reliable sources have reported. Which is that the ANP has endorsed this protest. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Some sources to show how widely reported this is. Israel today MagazineFox NationThe BlazeDaily CallerTown HallSunshine State NewsDrudgeThis one is amuseing, Occupy ResistenceCharleston Daily MailThe GazetteWAPOIB TimesFox News I Know not all meet RS criteria (IE Drudge) These are used to show how widespread this has become. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Maybe. But you tried to delete all mention of anti-semitism from the article, even though it was backed up by reliable sources. -- Veggy (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I've read through this, I disagree with everyone (except Veggy) currently. While it may not require a sentence, though that would help clarify (NYPost): "“Thus far, however, anti-Semitism has not gained traction more broadly with the protesters, nor is it representative of the larger movement at this time.” At a minimum they should be listed in Occupy_Wall_Street#Demographics with a catch-all term anti-semites. To not list this is not proportional; yes it's significance is overblown by those opposed to OWS; this does not remove it from reality. To do so is over sensitive censorship. - RoyBoy 16:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Yes the anti Semitic stuff also warrants a line or two. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC) There's already a line in the "criticism" section. I'm not sure that it warrants much more. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I just want to mention how opposed I am to the inclusion of anything about the American Nazi Party. This is like the "Hamas endorses Obama, Al Qaeda endorses McCain" nonsense. WP:GHITS don't determine anything, and the statement "The American Nazi Party supports OWS" inevitably leads to the question, "So what?" because it's fringe. --David Shankbone 17:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Sources Michigan MessengerNew York PostDelaware County Daily TimesBoston HeraldLA TimesJacksonville CourierA Belgian paperTehran timesIsrael today MagazineFox NationThe BlazeDaily CallerTown HallSunshine State NewsDrudgeThis one is amuseing, Occupy ResistenceCharleston Daily MailThe GazetteWAPOIB TimesFox NewsSF GateThe HoyaNewsmaxFuse TVFox againLife NewsWashington TimesMedia Matters for America The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC) "So what?" AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Your first source says, "On Monday, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation posted an editorial claiming the movement was filled with communists and Nazis". TFD (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Please do not misrepresent sources, the first source actually says "Not only the Communist Party but also the American Nazi Party has endorsed OWS as well" in reporting on what was said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC) And the last source says "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Yes it does, it is however the only source which calls it a smear. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Only one user is keeping this thread alive, a thread whose proposition to mention Nazis has garnered no support due to weight and fringe problems. Aside from the one user, does anyone have an objection to hatting this discussion to allow it to be archived? --David Shankbone 23:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Not me. Go ahead... AndyTheGrump (talk) I can name five editors who dais this warrants a line in the article, hat it and I shall start another. Do not hat ongoing debates, wikipedia is not censored after all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC) There is no 'ongoing debate'. Your 'Five editors' have said nothing here. And if 'Wikipedia isn't censored', does that mean I can go back to accusing you of running a smear campaign? What the heck, I'll say it anyway - your facile attempts to insert smears into this article are yet another reason to give you the boot, Nutley. We didn't want you here earlier, and we don't want you now. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Ahem. As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges. [9] My two cents. Not that Wikipedia cares. You've got your inherent, entirely predictable, well-established biases, you've got your vague rules that can be interpreted in oh-so-many-ways to support defining "notability" and the like however you want (coincidentally, things that look bad for OWS are not to be included while unsubstantiated nonsense on the "Tea Party protests" page is not only allowed, but stories which debunk those reports are apparently "not notable"),and you won't budge. OWS is supported by the fringe because, other than the in-and-out types who show up for a photo opportunity and to say "I support you guys" and maybe tell their future kids "I was there" (foolishly thinking that'll be a point of pride and not shame), it is the fringe. Just ask Gallup. -- Glynth (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources for above

References

Disputed graph of # of news stories: Tea Party vs. OWS

This graph is sourced directly from this blog [10]. At this point, I'm not contesting the number of news stories or his methodology.

I do, however, take issue with labeling 4/15/2009 as "Day 1" of the Tea Party Protests. There were at least 25 protests associated with the Tea Party before Tax Day, the first one starting in January 2009. The blogger, Nate Silver, also writes the following: ::"Unlike the Wall Street protests, however, the Tea Party rallies were a one-day event, and coverage declined thereafter, to an average of 215 media hits per day over the three-week period from April 15 to May 5, 2009." I'm not sure his article was meant to be a in-depth expose', or just posting on some new information quickly for his readers, but even a cursory glance at our very own Wikipedia article here -- List of Tea Party protests, 2009 -- would have revealed that there were hundreds of protests in 2009, most of them after Tax Day.

Even if we're allowed to copy Nate Silver's graph essentially verbatim, there's no reason that we Wikipediers can't add some needed context. If the graph is similar when "Day 1" is set to 1/24/2009 or 2/16/2009, then maybe let's keep. Otherwise, I think the graph is trying to tell a story which isn't there.

Oh yeah, a labeled y-axis would be helpful too if someone could generate that. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly what you think the caption(s) should say and I will try to update it. Dualus (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First I would like to WP:AGF, so there might be a point about this graph I'm missing. However, to me it seems to imply that OWS gets less coverage than the Tea Party got and that is unfair. However, this appears to be based on an inaccurate proposition - that Day 1 for the Tea Party was 4/15/2011. I think if it were just the caption, it would be an easy fix, but the graph itself is the bigger problem.

To make for a fairer comparison, Day 1 for the Tea Party should be 1/24/2009 or 2/16/2009 or something that could be arguably the first date of Tea Party protests.

• Do you have this data available, or would we have to violate WP:SYN to get it?
• If we do have the data, would the contrast still be as striking, i.e., would there be a purpose of still keeping this graph in the article?

I'm open to hearing other interpretations of what the graph is trying to convey. Please let me know if I'm assuming too much, and if there's an alternate interpretation.

Thanks Ufwuct (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the image is useful as it fails to compare the correct start dates for the Tea Party. There would be greater parity in the curves if the modest beginning of the Tea Party was charted. Furthermore, the image implies a connectin between the Tea Party and OWS that is unexplained in the section. It does not illustrate a point in the section. The image should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I also think that if the graph were to be modified and kept, there should be a sentence in this section summarizing the graph or at least alluding to it. Still wondering if it's worth keeping though. Ufwuct (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Modifying it would raise two concerns: how much original research or synthesis can we stand in an image of this sort, and your earlier query about what the image is trying to convey. Its purpose is unstated and unclear. It should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt. Maybe another 12 hours, and if no alternate explanation, then delete. Ufwuct (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be deleted purely because it offer no context or value moving forward. The implication is that while the TPM started quickly it leveled out, while OWS started slowly and then exploded. It tells no story, yet opens up many unanswered questions. Arzel (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed delete, doesn't really make sense to use it anymore. 완젬스 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose restoring this graph because of its consistency with the Google Trends graph. Dualus (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, NO 완젬스 (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Adjusting for the sampling rates, are there any reasons to say that they are not consistent? Dualus (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what I see on the Google source is a source which is generally the same topic. What I do not see in the Google source:

1. A simple or transparent explanation of what "Search Volume Index" is.
2. Any discernible resolution on the X axis.
3. Any clearly stated (not implied, not weasel-worded) claim that the Tea Party unfairly got more coverage or positive publicity than the Occupy Wall Street protests have received.
4. Any claim to April 15 being "Day 1" of the Tea Party Protests. (On the contrary, the maximum peak seems to be in Q1 2009, with a marked increase in February 2009.)
5. Any new data which shows this is really relevant to the Occupy Wall Street article or to this section regarding media coverage.

If this is an accurate and an important data point for this article, then there surely must be better sources. The Google Trends source (see #4) suggests that it's probably not a very important or true point after all. Ufwuct (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned we're using raw data from google trends in one of our articles. That sounds like pure and unadulterated WP:OR. SDY (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting the Google Trends source directly to the article clearly would be. It does not appear Dualus has done this, but is using it as a reason to place the first source back in the article. Either way, it's insufficient. It also appears that, despite all the complaints about this source on this thread - what the source states and what it implies - NONE of the complaints have been addressed, and instead the EXACT SAME source has been re-added. Ufwuct (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Elliot picture

Chelsea Elliot

Hey- I've just received a very nice portrait of Chelsea Elliot, who I am told is "one of the women who was maced early on by Anthony Balogna." I don't know enough about the subject to be able to find a use for the picture, and we do not have an article on her, so I'm throwing it out here. If you can find a use for it, then great; if not, then it's not the end of the world. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice pic but I don't see how we could possibly use it... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I also can't see how we could use it here, but it can be used in the WikiCommons page on OWS. It could also be used in other articles, such as the article on protest art. Get creative. --Cast (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Try starting the discussion at Commons and those "other articles". I am unclear why you posted it here if you yourself claim "I also can't see how we could use it here". Nice pic, but not notable enough for inclusion. It is also a rather POV image in my view, but thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please include per WP:NPOV -- do we still have the statement about the police officer who lost ten vacation days for pepper spraying her or was that removed? Dualus (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Silly comment. Nothing about NPOV says we should commit a bunch of OR in order to provide a soapbox for a protester featured holding a sign in a user-submitted photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Come now, there's no need for the aggression. Amadscientist, I submitted it here for precisely the reason I said; I thought the people here best situated to find a use. I am not the same person as Cast, who you quoted. Factchecker, while I agree that Dualus's reasoning is shakey, this is a photo of a newsworthy individual, by a notable artist, and part of a series published on a notable website. Hardly just another "user-submitted photo". If you can't find a use, so be it, but there's no need to be so dismissive. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How am I to know it's been published on HuffPo (link?) when you post it saying that you "just received it" and provide a word-of-mouth description making it sound like it was simply passed along to you by a friend? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You may not be the best to judge aggression. As stated, you have misgivings and yet dropped it here to see what would happen. Again, you may wish to create discussions in those other places. Is the lack of quotes less offensive perhaps?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any remaining objections to inclusion of the story of the first pepper spray victims and their attacker? Dualus (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Happened in Spain first

I believe the Occupy Wall Street protests were inspired by several European demonstrations? - and NOT the other way around (for once Europe is one step ahead of the US in this matter): See for example the early protests in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Spanish_protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokajsen23 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What we believe as editors has nothing to do with what we place in articles and we also don't use other Wikipedia articles as references, nor does it look like the article even states this, or even should.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So to support your case, you might want to look for a reliable secondary source that makes the connection.--Nowa (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nowa Thank you. As a suggestion, maybe a better intro would be to emphasize that the Occupy Wall street demonstration was the first time the US mainstream media started to report on these events? For example The article states: "Internationally, other "Occupy" protests have modeled themselves after Occupy Wall Street, in over 900 cities worldwide." Shouldn't such an unsupported "belief" be deleted from the text? Or at least a reference should be provided, right?

This article in W.Post describes similar demonstrations in Spain six months earlier. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/spanish-revolution-thousands-gather-in-madrids-puerta-del-sol-square/2011/05/18/AFLzpZ6G_blog.html There have been many other similar events in Europe over the last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokajsen23 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but let me show you how this works. The article says that Adbusters initiated the protests. This is the reference. This reference says that there are similarities to the European and Middle Eastern protests in that social media is used by all three. It doesn't say, however, that Adbusters got their idea or were inspired by the EU protesters. In order to make that statement in the article, we need a reference to support it. As far as the other assertions by the article, we can put a tag in if needed, but better first to review the article to make sure that what is stated in the intro isn't supported by a reference in the body. (P. S., when you edit a talk page, you should press the icon at the top of the edit window that looks like a pencil writing. That will put your signature a the end of the comment. The icon is the fourth one from the left.)--Nowa (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The OWS action and the similar ones in other countries were inspired by the objective conditions in those places. The other fact that there was an initial organizing entity is quickly lost in the ground fact which the creator of this thread conflates with that of origin. In the other countries too there should be an identifiable entity in the role of AdBusters. But that AdBusters did in fact play that role for OWS, is at this point, I believe, an accepted and clear fact. In effect, "OWS" is their branding, so even the posing of a question of the matter of fact is odd. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe demonstrations in other countries were precisely not related to "objective conditions in those places"(?), but primarily addressing the unfortunate and global impact of unregulated banking. Just like OWS, right? Secondly, regarding the article we are discussing: @Nowa: Why is it fair to post that OWS catalyzed global activism without any documentation? But whereas any statement arguing that OWS (or Adbusters) were inspired by prior events outside the US requires a strict reference? Why then not simply leave out speculation about such matters? --Bokajsen23 (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For more details on proper citation see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also, if you feel something in the article needs a source, you can edit the article and put {{CN}} after the portion that needs citation.--Nowa (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the final "See Also" paragraph there are no references to the Spanish (or Greek, or Icelandic, etc) protests (but there is a link to the Tea-Party?) So maybe this article can be about a domestic US demonstration And a separate article should perhaps describe any global-connection between these many events over the last couple of years? For example like this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_October_2011_global_protests --Bokajsen23 (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See Also would be a good place to put in a link to 2011 Spanish protests. Did you want to go ahead and do it?--Nowa (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is locked (until January 2012) so I cannot make any changes? But yes, I would like to add the reference to the wiki-article: "15 October 2011 Global Protests" in the "See Also" section, and, if you insists on keeping the statement regarding the impact of OWS on global activism in the intro, I suggests mentioning the "15 October 2011 Global Protests" in the intro also for balance and context. Or else leave out any unsubstanciated claims about "who inspired who" altogether.--Bokajsen23 (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is only Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi semi protected. As a registered user, you will be able to make edits to it once your account is more than 4 days old and you have made 10 or more edits to other Wikipedia articles.--Nowa (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nowa Thank you very much for your help!--Bokajsen23 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Nowa (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that this editor has added the info to the Background section without a reference. What should we do? Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My post has been deleted. I have found a reference where one person involved in OWS claims to be inspired by the Spanish Protests: http://www.spanishaustralia.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=50:15-october-it-all-started-in-spain&Itemid=10&tmpl=component&print=1 Here is another reference: http://www.allmediany.com/details_news_article.php?news_artid=2107 My point is that the claim in the beginning of the article that OWS inspired hundreds of demonstrations around the world is without reference "Other "Occupy" protests modeled after Occupy Wall Street have occurred in over 900 cities worldwide.", and secondly, any claims that OWS was inspired by previous events are deleted (for example due to lack of references). This is just silly; clearly people in the US associated with OWS are trying to market themselves through Wikipedia ;-) Either we should remove the self-promoting sentences in the (locked) intro, or else include a statement that places OWS into context. I have added some links in the "See Also" section as a start. --Bokajsen23 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Journalist Firings

Per the suggestion above, here is a draft of section on the two journalist firings. Feel free to edit directly or leave comments below.--Nowa (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Two freelance journalists have been fired for their participation in the Occupy Wall Street protests. They are Caitlin Curran and Lisa Simeone. Caitlin was a journalist employed by public radio station WNYC. She was covering the protests for WNYC and was photographed holding a protest sign on October 15, 2011 at Times Square NY . Her manager fired her for violating editorial standards by participating in a protest she was covering. Lisa Simeone was fired on October 20, 2011from her position as a host of Soundprint, a journalistic program produced for National Public Radio (NPR), for her leadership role in October 2011, an Occupy DC organization. Both Soundprint and NPR considered her role to be a violation of journalistic standards.

References

• Adam Clark Estes and Dino Grandoni, “Another Public Radio Freelancer Gets the Ax Over Occupy Wall Street”, The Atlantic, October 28, 2011
• Soundprint annoucement re Lisa Simeone firing
• David Zurawik “Lisa Simeone confirms her firing from public radio's 'Soundprint' show”, Baltimore Sun, October 21, 2011

This is an interesting subject, but I wonder how notable it is and if it may be something to tread lightly on. If the subject of journalists being fired is added, it will most likely become something of a hotbed issue for BLP. Generally speaking, journalist are expected to cover their subjects, not join them. This is an ethics problem that should be handled in a delicate way. It could be something that creates a bigger problem than intended.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I put brief mentions in Timeline_of_Occupy_Wall_Street#October_2011 which may be enough for now.--Nowa (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of multiple issues swirling around these dismissals, Felix Salmon of Reuters covers the issues of media ethics in today's Occupy Wall Street and media ethics--Nowa (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually an issue a few Occupy Organizers have discussed, having seen firsthand journalist interviewing them ask to be included in the movement or GA assemblies. While this cannot be used per MOS as OR, I wonder if there are secondary sources that discuss the subject in greater detail. Remember that simply having the information is not enough. There must be reliable, secondary sources. I caution editors, as this can quickly become a matter the subject themselves may have a problem with if not handled correctly. There is no room for dispute on this one as BLP is clear that all unreferenced information must be removed...not may be removed...must be removed (regardless of positive or negative information)--Amadscientist (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

By "the subject", do you mean the media ethics?--Nowa (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject is the person themselves being discussed. We have to assume that any contentious material may be disputed by that person or any editor. Regardless of whether the information is negative or positive we must be careful to make all material nuetral and fact based with no OR, POV or synthesis of information.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this material should be included. Dualus (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Man defecates on police car

Why has there been no mention of this?

References

• Stinking up Wall Street: Protesters accused of living in filth as shocking pictures show one demonstrator defecating on a POLICE CAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.71.61 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review prior discussions.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A single event is WP:UNDUE. Dualus (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what they said about the Tea Partier who was accused of spitting on the Congressman. Yeah, you know what I'm reffering to, and you probably believe the Left's version of events, don't you? Y'know, despite what the video actually shows. WP rules can be "interpreted" to mean whatever you want if you're well-versed in them enough and have enough editors on your side (and it's well known which way they lean). -- Glynth (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for winning me the bet

The bet was that this would be the most biased article in the history of Wikipedia. Nazis, Communists, Islamist and David Duke arent mentioned. Anti-semitism is barely covered. Only selective polling is used. The 100s of reported crimed are not covered. This is insanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

From WP:CONSENSUS it says Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. and you're free to participate in helping shape consensus, otherwise you're free to leave. Wikipedia reflects the work of its editors, and you're free to not like it. You may help improve the article and cite WP:Reliable sources, but there is hardly any mention of what you speak in neutral sources. Anything overtly critical of OWS would tend to provide WP:UNDUE weight, and you'd be tagged as a WP:SPA so tread lightly or find neutral sources for your unusual linkages. 완젬스 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Which side did you bet on? Dualus (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: bias... "Anything overtly critical of OWS would tend to provide WP:UNDUE weight"

Enough said. -- Glynth (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is who we have to deal with on this article

• Dennis, S. (October 30, 2011) "Top 1% Files for Trademark of 'Occupy Wall Street'" Intellectual Property Brief

• Doyle, J. and Jaccarino, M. (November 2, 2011) "Manifesto of demands is bunk, Occupy Wall St. protesters say" New York Daily News

• "Occupy Wall Street Commercial" ("commercial"? Clearly unaware of being accused of being communist.)

I've worked on a lot of fast-moving articles over more than half a decade, mostly as an IP editor, but this has got to be the only article where the subjects themselves were clearly trying to disrupt orderly editing. Then again [11] isn't bad. Dualus (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, please explain in detail your association with Occupy Wall Street protest and how you have or do not have any conflict of interests yourself? Seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I, Dualus, am not now, and nor have I ever been, a member of the Occupy movement. When I use the word "we" on Wikipedia, I am referring to the other editors who are here to improve the encyclopedia. I may share some goals with the activists, but at this point they have published so many contradictory things that I have no idea what those shared goals are anymore. My one contact with the Occupy movement was to take four photos, some printed matter, and donate a few coins to make me feel less self conscious about taking printed matter without paying for it at my nearest protest city which was dozens of miles away. I have lived a simple life in a Christian home in America, thousands of miles from New York. I enjoy editing Wikipedia because it helps me meet smart friends online. As far as I know, I have never been in a direct conflict of interest with the material I was working on, except once about three years ago, and those edits no longer exist as far as I know. I am here to build an encyclopedia, and my one demand is to improve the encyclopedia. If I was actually the author of the 99 Percent Declaration then it would include instant runoff voting, [12], [13], and [14]. I have no financial or familial interest in any subjects I have edited in the past several months. I have no conflict of interest. --Dualus (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not your best work, but I will take your word for it. By the way...even if you had a conflict of interest, that alone would not exclude you from editing the article. But being open about such allows others to judge whether the contributions are within MOS for such. Also, just stating you have no association with the OWS movement, does not mean you don't have a conflict of interest. The point was to have you make a general disclaimer of such one way or the other. Also...who suggested you were the author of the 99% Declaration? I could have guessed you weren't from the copy paste.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)\

You suggested I was trying to author the document. I have not been, but I agree the question as to whether it is possible to influence the process interests me. Dualus (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you know what you are saying let alone what I was saying. But, if it really went over your head I will be blunt. You were using the copyright of another person on Wikipedia to prop up the document of an non notable person and a fringe group for personal political beliefs. If David Haack is not notable how is the document he co-authored notable? You still don't attribute the authors and after major ( I mean MAJOR deletions of text and sections) the article is little more than undue weight to Wikipedia for a fringe idea that the Official Website went as far as disclosing from their server information, that the group administrator himself deleted the document from the GA site. But even with your use of the document as a primary source you don't seem interested in mentioning that much on the article...you know...the official statements of the real OWS organization and the true governing body, the New york City General Assembly. I still find that as strange.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why give a diff of your own comment when you're talking about someone else's?

Amad's comment reads:

Fair use doctrine is not Wikipedia policy and you have to do more than use the text from the document as copy paste to create an article. Does not fall under fair use for Wikipedia. You are attempting to "prop up" infromation to give undue weight to Lessig for this document. Please explain why he is even in this artcile you have created if not to push the point of view that you hold. Why not mention the author...David Haack, instead, who is credited in numerous sources as having written this document as far back as August. Could it be that he is not a notable figure? Could it be that this was only presented at some point and then turned down by the governing body of OWS? It could and probably is the reason. You are pushing an article to effect the events of the movement...not record or document them.

Which part of that are you saying "suggested [you were] trying to author the document"? I don't get it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NFCC? Dualus (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that also doesn't say that you were trying to author the 99% Declaration. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, please explain in detail why or why not this isn't just chat and how your disruption isn't far worse.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I second that, please be clear because I've given you WP:AGF but the well has gone dry, and I've been biting my tongue not to trigger WP:Witchhunt but you're so close to getting accidentally warned/blocked for no reason, because it looks like you're going for a power grab by using your influence on Wikipedia to influence the article to your personal agenda, which makes me believe you have some goal which you are trying to painstakingly attain through all this runaround. Why not just come out and be real with us, most of us strongly support OWS and want it to succeed, but to me it looks like trying to broker your influence here as an editor--so how does that help you off-wiki? Amadscientist and I are trying to help cleanse all these OWS pages so we can find out whose hands are clean, and whose are not. Any comment about our suspicion to you having off-wiki affiliation to OWS? A straightforward denial can ease my doubts and give me another week's worth of patience. 완젬스 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of his edits seem to be aimed at promoting Lessig's book.Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no financial interest in Lessig's book sales. I met him once at the Stanford Law Library, where we discussed the collection. Dualus (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody suggested you did; Gandy merely pointed out that you seem intent on promoting the book. That's not what WP is for. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get it - that is exactly what he is up to. He wants the Demands group included because they mention a constitutional amendment and Lessig's book does as well. Here is his post over at Protest movement:

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig had called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution[50] in a September 24-25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[51] in Lessig's October 5 book,[52] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[53] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.[54] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[55] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[56] Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan,[57] Karl Auerbach,[58] Cenk Uygur,[59] and others.[60][61] Some protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.[62][63][64][65] [edit] New York City

He should be barred from all Protest articles (at the very least). Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, is any of this true? You seem fanatical about making the OWS articles violate Undue Weight with your 99% declaration, and your growth of sections disproportionately with how we, the community, have reached consensus against your viewpoint at every critical crossroads. You act like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and you make new arguments and find creative ways to weaken our power to stop you. You seem to try and push Gandydancer's buttons to make her frustrated with you (constant examples of sarcasm/belittling such as this) daily to anyone who disagrees with you. After a lengthy debate, when you lost consensus, you still insisted not only that the rest of us were wrong, but you sent us on a Snipe hunt which throws up red tape we must deal with before we can even proceed to productively edit the article. You make dozens of OWS/99% edits per day, some of them are just to create red tape which makes your edits so heavily fortified because of the exhaustion you're making us all endure. After reading the pages where you're an activist, I humbly ask you to stop editing in areas of those articles where we strongly feel you have a Conflict of Interest; and, until then, we hereby ask you to now explain in detail your association with Occupy Wall Street protest and how you have or do not have any conflict of interests, yourself. 완젬스 (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow! He's even added this stuff to Lawrence Lessig's site. As usual the references are not adequate, especially for a living person - someone needs to take a look at it. BTW, I said the Protest movement above, I meant to say the Occupy movement. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We'll give Dualus a couple days to respond, but then I think we should diligently prepare for a case made against Dualus at WP:ANI before his fanaticism spreads and pervades across more OWS articles. He already has created a 99% article which is likely to result in no concensus. Unless Dualus changes his editing behavior and begins normal adherence to Wikipedia policy, then he'll likely be blocked, and we can do a second attempt of deleting the other article, currently in deletion discussion. I can volunteer the necessary time, and take a look through stuff tomorrow, if you and Amadscientist can do a fair amount of the work. He has single-handedly thrown so much red tape everywhere, getting us to waste time on the stuff he wants to distract us with (e.g. here), while he violates the rules right under our own noses. He is able to create discussions, invent articles, violate WP:UNDUE while we're simply unable to keep up. He does this by sarcasm and gamesmanship very effectively. This behavior alone is sufficient for precluding him from editing all OWS articles--highly manipulative, and caught lying. I read through the whole thing but don't want to create an rfc until we hear his answer, but I have been planning this for the last 4-5 hours. His repeated style of misbehavior here on these OWS pages is so hard to build a case because it is so voluminous. Not to mention, he's really convincing & knows how to dig himself outta holes when he's in a jam. I'm so tired and I know it will drain all my energy defending an rfc or ani against him. He's eloquent, forceful, and intimidating--just the fear of all the work it will take to prevent him from pervading the Lawrence Lessig stuff (and the 99% declaration) is daunting, and I don't think any of us are as strong as him at statesmanship (which probably affords him considerable influence off-wiki with the OWS also). When there is a bully, we either all stand up to Dualus, or we can only blame ourselves for allowing Dualus to abuse our policies which are specifically designed to facilitate consensus in shaping this principal OWS article, which has yet to fully happen. 완젬스 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

About half way through this I started to have some concerns that this was inappropriate....but where else can this be discussed among the actual contributing editors but on the talk page and it is discussing how to improve the article....as well as being suggested per MOS.

Requesting a third opinion doesn't seem to be an option as it is for disputes and those between two editors. Education and warning [15] has been tried numerous times. I myself atempted to warn this editor of his behavior and accusations and ended up asking him to stop further contact on my talk page. I have suggested community sanction and got no response, so editors feel that route is not something they wish to take. However now we see the results of not attempting some form of "intervention". We may have little left to do but request a block at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents or administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Blocks by admin are not punitive [16]. They exist exclusively to protect the encyclopedia...and I believe that would now be the case. Disrupting the article and the site in this manner is creating a "backing away" effect from contributors while at the same time..as we see from above...others are clearly seeing what he is able to get away with and are now coming to this page for their own agendas as well. The following are the three reasons for blocking a user (Dualus is not a new user. He should and does know better)

1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and,
3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's give him a chance to deal with me for a couple days. Maybe I will be able to get through to him (especially if he's Asian, like me) so we'll pursue a block only as a last resort, because none of us want that, and if he successfully outmaneuvers us at the WP:ANI, then he'll simply become empowered by it, and feel more invincible. 완젬스 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just saw that he replied to us so that's a great start and something we should all be positive about. Let's stay optimistic guys, 완젬스 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am very optimistic. How do you feel about Waikiki? Not that it has anything to do with improving the article, but I think it's civil to try to get to know people better. Dualus (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I spend half of my editing time attempting to fix his edits. He had long-argued for including info re the Demands group but we had no acceptable sources for it. When one did turn up I added the info, but that wasn't good enough for him and he needed to re-do the Goals and demands section so that it opened with the info re the Demand group, putting everything out of sequence. In another instance he twice deleted information that used the Huff Post as the source, saying Huff Post was not reliable. This stems from the fact that the group decided that Kingkade, a freelance HP blogger, was not acceptable for info he wanted to include. So in spite, he decided that established journalists that work for HP are not acceptable as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I say use any Huffington Post blog from Kinkade you wish. They are being used on the new 99 Percent Declaration article. Go for it. I won't argue against it.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I certainly will. I noticed that Dualus has no problem using blogger Kingkade in the article he created and yet deletes their financial section (if I remember correctly) journalist from this article - seems to me that he called that copy "gossip" or something of the sort. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I try to avoid primary sources such as unedited Huffington Post bloggers unless they are associated with breaking news. Dualus (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Resource BusinessWeek and the Charlie Rose (talk show)

• Charlie Rose Talks to Paul Volcker; The former Fed chief discusses the banking regulation that bears his name, Republican attacks on the Federal Reserve, and the coherence of Occupy Wall Street October 27, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT, also see the Volker Rule.
• http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/qt/podcasts/charlierose/111027_CROSE.mp3

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The extent to which the protesters have been discussing the Volcker rule is not entirely clear to me but this Business Week source seems very appropriate per WP:NPOV. I wonder if others have opinions on it. Dualus (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource Occupy Wall Street: The Right Focus

"Occupy Wall Street protesters are wise to focus on unequal income distribution-such as the outsize gains reaped by financial-industry companies. Pro or con?" Read the debate by guest columnists John Schmitt and Tim Cavanaugh and watch the video with Bloomberg.com’s Suzanne Woolley

• Pro: A Growing Disparity by John Schmitt, Center for Economic & Policy Research
• Con: An Unrealistic Goal by Tim Cavanaugh, Reason.com

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is completely consistent with [17] forming two independent reliable secondary sources with very substantial, significant coverage. Include with [18]. Dualus (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Title of the Dualus's provided link is Equality and Efficiency on Finance & Development section of IMF.org, September 2011, Vol. 48, No. 3 by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry. 99.35.14.164 (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

resource The Million App March

Mobile apps and websites created by software developers sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street October 27, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Karen Weise BusinessWeek 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What section do you think this would work in? Dualus (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the Internet is international, how about in Occupy movement? 99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What?

Nothing about the obvious left leaning of this movement? How all of its major funders (Tides Foundations Soros) are democratic organisations as well as the Communist Party USA. Also why is there no mention at all of the thousands of arrests that have taken place and the incessant amount of trash being left all over the place, or the many laws being broken? Not mention of the anti-capitalist signs, there is not a single American flag in the crowd, their turning away of homeless people wanting food, their self-proclaimed misuse and neglection of funds or anything controversial at all? Basically, why is there absolutely nothing controversial about this movement in the article? There is clearly a bias.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. Get some verifiable sources and we'll see what we can do. No doubt there are groups that are claiming their is trash, but there are also sources claiming the activists are keeping the area well cleaned. How high are these heaps? Why should we mention the absence of American flags? Is that notable? I believe I've seen a few, so how many flags would be enough? Should we do a count of every anarcho-syndicalist flag and anti-consumerist Adbuster's flag represented to? Rachel Maddow tweeted that she saw a Gadsden Flag, so that should get a mention. As for the Communists, can we get their tax records to see how many of the OWS shadow communards are bankrolled by the surviving KGB sleeper cells still sneaking fluoride into New York's drinking water? --Cast (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does say that we are supposed to summarize controversies in the article's introduction. I have been told I am antisocial for violating consensus on this article for trying to make sure many reliable secondary source perspectives are included. It's an art deciding what to look for, sometimes. Do you have a source about funders? Dualus (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NO...it says "we" are supposed to summarize "prominent controversies". It is upon you (or what ever editor wishes to include the information) to meet that standard.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources are included in links in these articles: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47009

http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/occupy-wall-street-organization-and-tactics/

http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/meet-the-ows-economists-a-nobel-laureate-a-marxist-a-debt-monger-a-tax-grabber-a-larouche-democrat-a-former-fed-advisor/

http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/lew-rockwells-the-evil-1-2/

I can also show you pictures of trash and mattresses and many other things left on the streets, sidewalks and everywhere. I am also wondering why there are no mention of the thousands of arrests that have taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are quotes and sources in this article describing the misuse and neglect of Occupy funding: http://constitutionclub.org/2011/10/25/occupiers-suffer-deadly-attack-by-money/ --174.49.24.190 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but constitutionclub.org and rogueoperator's wordpress (coincidentally (probably not) edited by the same people) do not constitute a reliable source of information. That is a right-wing self-created content with no verifibility. An article/blog called "Court Jester says Lord Obama will Continue to Rule by Edict" proves how unreliable this source is. If you try and put this crap on the article, I'll remove it myself. A short mention is already in the article George Soros supporting the movement is in the article in the business and banking section, we don't need a reference who refers him to as the "Radical anti-American billionaire." — Moe ε 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Moe, you might need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I said the sources are IN the articles, not the sources are the articles. Obviously I did not intend for these articles (Which were written by people with PHD's in political science and other things) to be my primary source of content, if you'll notice there are certain words in the articles that are hyperlinked in the same manor as wikipedia to more respectable and reliable sources. I simply didn't want to spend the time picking out each link and putting it on here individually because I have homework to do, among other things. If you will take the time to click on the links and read the sources, I'm sure you will find them reliable.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you include "right-wing" in your list of things that are unreliable as if the fact that it is right-wing makes it unreliable? I want to point out that the article title you referenced was an obvious use of satire, which also does not constitute being called unreliable. That coupled with the credintials of the authors, in my opinion, makes the articles themselves reliable sources, but like I said, I did not intend for them to be, so please check the internal citation on the articles for more reliable sources.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Link provided in rogueoperater are links to e-mails and YouTube, which are not reliable. However at the end of every rougeoperator article, it says the articles were taken from http://www.politicalcrush.com/ which is a blog. See WP:BLOGS: Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Try an actual news organization. Costitutional Club provides the following links:

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mo-money-mo-problems-ows-has-500k-in-the-bank/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/class-warfare-breaks-out-within-the-occupy-movement-2011-10
• http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/they_want_lice_of_the_occu_pie_9xKCxcI4aectFYkafMb8UJ

— Moe ε 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I love the story about creating a credit union. Include! Dualus (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Typo

"Let me draw a distinction. Virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually very American has a reason to be worried." I think "very" is supposed to be "every". It's bothering my OCD. I'd fix it myself if the article wasn't locked. XCygnus (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It looks like an obvious typo. The problem is that it seems to be the Huff Post's, not ours. I've replaced 'very' with '[every]' for now, which I think is the appropriate way to deal with this. We shouldn't edit quotes without acknowledging such edits, as I understand policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we should delete information from the Huffington Post outright because, as moe said, "self-published blog"s are not reliable sources.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But HuffPo's liberal, so it is a reliable source, right? At least on controversial pages like this. Lolinder (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article has a neutrality tag, but how would one know what the issues are - you can't expect an editor to read the entire talk page. Could those with neutrality issues post them here and we'll see if we can correct any problems. Obviously, one would need to be specific and not merely say "the article seems biased to me...".Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The intenational reactions section is the only ludicrously imbalanced part that I see. Some of the rest of this has WP:NOTSOAPBOX issues that are more problems of presentation and organization and tone. There's a lot of primary source info, and honestly I think we should be very careful that we don't take sides within the protest itself by endorsing one view over another (e.g. the Liberty Square thing). Our "one demand", as it were, for the article is that Wikipedia must actively resist influencing the outcome of the protests. SDY (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

People have been attempting to remove controversies from both the introduction and the text. The interaction of Lawrence Lessig and other proponents of constitutional amendments and OWS has been repeatedly removed citing false claims of overwhelming consensus, when the same material has remained in other articles with only minor quibbles from other editors which were easy to address. Some people think this article should include reports of people defecating, the endorsement of the American Nazi Party (I can not make this stuff up) and other reports of antisemitism. Please do not remove the neutrality tag until these disagreements are resolved. Dualus (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are numerous cases of people defecating as well as leaving trash all over the streets. Nothing has been said of its connections with the communist and nazi parties, sourced here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-is-the-comprehensive-list-of-those-supporting-occupy-wall-st/ . In fact, this article lacks anything that shows a dim light on the protest, almost as if it is intentionally so. Fact is, it is a messy, crime ridden protest with thousands of arrests pending and numerous suspicious connections. As well as their claim that their are "grassroots" and "leaderless" which are blatant lies. Their obvious leaders and major funders are known liberals making it ludicrous to state that the movement has no political leanings.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality tag is asking editors to check the article and I made a thread showing the two ANI discussions that refer to this. Yes...we do expect people to check the threads, but any content on the page is a matter of consensus, so whether it stays or not is not a requirement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As the nominating editor who placed the tag and started the discussions, I have removed it. Silent consensus exists that neutrality check is not needed at this time. The article is far from neutral but the ANI entries produced no discussion on the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to show you in the archives and diffs how you and others removed the {{POV}} tag I placed long before you placed the neutrality check tag? Why do you think the disputes referred to above are resolved? Dualus (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

How is it not both OR and POV-pushing for WP editors to keep plastering user-generated photographs together with enthusiastic, unsourced captions all over the article? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:OI isn't a blank check to include any relevant image. It does gloss over the whole WP:OR issue, but it does not change our unflinching demand for WP:NPOV. The captions can in some cases be sourced or should not contain content that is likely to be challenged. SDY (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OI:Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which specific images are at issue here? Dualus (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies in introduction?

WP:LEAD says that the article introduction, "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

Currently the intro says, "In late October the General Assembly of registered for tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3)" citing only Huffington Post as a source. According to the comments about this article on WP:RSN, Huffington Post is a blog without substantial editorial discretion and is therefore not reliable.

What are the controversies surrounding Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement, and are any of them more notable for the purposes of this article than the alleged 401(k) 501(c)3 application? I would suggest that the controversy surrounding the 99 Percent Declaration has the most coverage in reliable published sources at present. Are there any reasons to the contrary? Dualus (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say there are no reasons other than the college kids who do damage control 24/7 on this article. I would also agree that Huffington Post is not a reliable source, especially if we are going to call some of my (blog) sources unreliable only because they are "self-published blogs"; would that same principle not apply to the Huffington Post?

First, I had that info in the Funding section where I think it belongs and an editor moved it to the lede. As for Huff Post, please review the lengthy discussion we had about their reliability. We decided that a freelance blogger was not acceptable but that a regular Huff Post journalist is. Review their site for more information. I'm going to move the funding info from the lede back to the Funding section for now. Gandydancer (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How is a Huff post journalist more acceptable than a "freelance blogger"? And btw, Rogue Operator isn't a freelance blogger, he gets payed to write articles for many sites. He is a political analyst and opinion-editorialist, with articles published at AmericanThinker. He holds a Master’s degree in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies and is a PhD. student in Political Science, with specializations in International Relations and Comparative Politics. He speaks fluent Russian and worked in Moscow as a copy editor for the economic news agency Prime-Tass (prime-tass.com) and was International Programs Manager for Russia’s first liberal arts college. Please tell me how this guy isn't reliable. And give me a reason why you are removing the funding information to the funding section when it is clearly an important part of the movement. Give me a reason before you do move it, or else I will move it back.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, give me a reason why Rogue Operator is not a reliable source given his credentials which I have named above. Also, your argument that Huff post is reliable simply because it has regular journalists is an 'Appeal to Force' fallacy and is not good enough for me to include Huff Post as a reliable source. If you can't give a good reason why Rogue is not a reliable source, then I will begin adding information to the article cited to his website.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You will need group consensus to add the 501 info to the lede. I found that it has been in the funding section where I put it and apparently someone moved it to the lede as well. Who is "Rouge Operator"? What is his connection to this article? Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rogue Operator is the one you are calling a "freelance-blogger". He is, in fact, not that, although he does publish his thoughts and findings in his own personal blog as well as many other sites and blogs. And I believe that he can be considered a reliable source despite that his findings are published in a blog and he sometimes uses satire. His personal blog can be found here: http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/ If we are going to call Huffington Post a reliable source, then you must certainly consider him a reliable source.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not my idea that the ref is acceptable, it is and this was settled once already. I have never heard of Rough Operator - I was speaking of HP blogger Kingkade. Gandydancer (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If we wanted satirical works as a reference for reliable information on this article, we'd use The Daily Show or The Onion as a reference, and you can probably see the problem with that as well. — Moe ε 04:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The 99 percent Declaration has not yet become a controversy in relative terms to the sources that mention it...yet. Maybe it will become one and maybe it will just blow over with events. Who knows. Right now this is almost exclusively an internal dispute and has not reached the eyes and ears of the media to claim it's a true controversy and many editors resist "controversy" as a description for many of the disputes from within the OWS movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ACORN

Now someone added that "ACORN is participating...." How is that even a controversy? That's just like the American Nazi's endorsement: an attempt to smear. ACORN doesn't even deserve to be independently controversial. Dualus (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? How is that a controversy? Do you not watch the news? It is a controversy because ACORN was revealed on national media to be a corrupt company that defrauds it's donators and sets up undercover prostitution and human trafficking channels across america as well as many other things. This got SO much attention that the government pulled ACORN funding because the evidence was so condemning and it was too embarrassing for the government.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of view of the editor, possible POV pushing to include the information under the rationale you provided.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your sentence no verb. To whom are you referring by "the editor" and "you"? Dualus (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor and I find the news that ACORN is behind the protests very important. I knew it would be removed almost immediately, but I put it there just to test how far the cheerleaders of OWS are willing to go. Criticism and REAL motives behind the protests is always immediately decried as blasphemous. It doesn't surprise me and I won't add it again, but just know the real editors are watching this freak show. S51438 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowing it would be removed immediately looks like you are trying to prove a point rather than constructively edit. — Moe ε 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like User:Dualus as well. Perhaps one of his "Off wiki" communications is getting a tag team together. He attempted to ask me to contact him off wiki as well even though I have asked him to stop contact on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Organizational Support

I created a section under System Support called "Organizations". There I listed groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the movement. Each with multiple very reliable sources and it was deleted. The reason given was "not notable". What? It's not notable which organizations and people support the movement? That statement doesn't even seem credible to me. I ask for consensus on whether or not to put a list of organizations, individuals, etc. that support the Occupy movement.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a reaction section that has some of this information already and the way it was written was un-encyclopedic in tone.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to start your dicussion with dishonest postings about why it was deleted, you may not gain much support. The reason given was " Weight, not notable, POV".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not notable to this article to reference whatever fringe groups decide to support it. Are there reliable sources that indicate that this organization has sought this 'support' from this fringe organizations? In any case, this(or one of the fringe groups) has been discussed in once of the articles concerning these protest, and there is little to no support for adding them, per fringe and undue weight, among other reasons. Dave Dial (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jacksoncw, you might wish to create a list article called Supporters of Occupy Wall Street, listing people and organizations. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that if a Supporters of Occupy Wall Street article was created with the same reason (to list "groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement", several names would also have to be included, such as Mitt Romney. — Moe ε 04:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not conflate the "I understand where some of them are coming from, but..." of those such as Mitt Romney with the truly expressed support and active participation in the protests by numerous organizations such as Communist Party USA. And just because it's embarrassing to you OWSers and OWS sympathizers personally (and you editors know who you are as you read this), doesn't mean it's not notable. Don't use the same "hide the truth for the Cause's sake" reasoning certain folks did recently when they attempted to cover up rape.

As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges. [19]

Given polling and other data from Gallup et al, OWSers are fringe themselves. -- Glynth (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, if he was doing it for the reason "groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement", the current article reads "Romney later expressed sympathy for the movement, saying, "I look at what's happening on Wall Street and my view is, boy, I understand how those people feel." Now, I would love to add references of support and endorsement for who is actually supporting them, but consider the source for who is supporting them. I wouldn't add the Nazi, Communist, or Blank Panther group of supports for anything on Wikipedia, because fringe groups are just that. If, for some wild reason, Herman Cain started to suddenly receive support from the same group of individuals, and Herman Cain denied that he was affiliated with them (as he probably would), we wouldn't be having this issue, would we? You are just as biased. — Moe ε 09:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, I would like to say that the groups and people I added were VERY WELL sourced by multiple sites each including each group's official website with it's official self-declared support of OWS. I can also add people like Obama and Nancy P. as well as other people and government, but it was just a start as I did not have time to include every group and person at the time. But claiming that it is not notable is just ridiculous. It most certainly is notable which organizations and people support OWS and you have given no real reason as to why it shouldn't which is why I am re-adding it when I get home.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Moe, you assume that "we wouldn't be having this issue,".If these undeniably hateful and discriminatory groups started to support Herman Cain, I would be VERY suspicious, so no, I am not biased, I am truthful. And according to legitimate, reliable sources, the groups I listed, including Communist party USA, American Nazi Party, Hugo Chavez, Student Marxist Union, Black Panthers, etc. all express support for the Occupy movement and it is ludicrous for anyone to claim that that is not notable.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you go 174, here's a full list for you. [20]. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point with the blog. Of course the "official" websites of fringe groups will say it, and that doesn't make it notable nor does it make them any less of a fringe group. My point with the Herman Cain comment, was that even if this was a staunch Republican who was getting these kinds of unwanted supports, then I still wouldn't be adding this to their article, or even discussing it, unless the people/person they are supporting is actually accepting of this endorsement. I also recommend you read our policy on giving such inclusions to articles undue weight. — Moe ε 23:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point makes no sense. If you wouldn't add that to Herman Cain's profile that's your problem. If someone is supported by multiple "fringe" groups like this, that is definitely something with enough "weight" to be included in the article. I have read the policy on undue weight and this definitely does not meet the description. And your claim of fringe is arguable on groups like the Communist Party USA. People like Obama and Nancy Pelosi can be added as well, or any other organizations that support it.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't my problem, and it isn't Wikipedia's problem to try and prove some kind of conspiracy. — Moe ε 00:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The list of supporters as supplied by Jacksoncw is extreme POV. The list seeks out the most unpalatable-to-the-mainstream groups as sympathizers (communists, socialists, Black Panthers, Islamists, Klan members) while largely ignoring the popular and mainstream sympathizers. As it stands, the list violates WP:NPOV. I recommend that the list be made into its own article where there will be ample room to list all of the popular supporters and sympathizers along with the extremists. Such an article will also have ample room to describe whether the stated support/sympathy is an empty press release or is it backed up by money or man-hours. A truly neutral list would be huge and cannot be supported within this summary article. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a separate article would be the proper avenue for that. a Criticism of Occupy Wall Street may reflect the alleged support/sympathy and the criticism of such as well. — Moe ε 05:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Organizations or individuals who do nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support" should not be mentioned at all. Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable. The only reason to mention despised fringe groups like the ANP or hostile foreign governements with little or no moral legitimacy like Iran or North Korea is to smear the movement for purely propagandistic purposes. 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) 02:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing number

This recent article says 555 arrested in New York, which is somewhat lower than our numbers. Does the number in the article reflect all of the occupation forces, not just New York? SDY (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen reports of the total OWS arrests around America to be above 2,500. I don't have that sourced right now but I can find the correct references for that claim.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picked list of "international" comments

Strange how 100% of them are supportive on a controversial issue like this. Certainly wouldn't want to include one critic, who I found with a search that took me less than five seconds. The claim that there must be active discussion to have such a blatantly biased section of the article tagged is really quite troublesome. SDY (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

When this section was first created by an editor it was to include the only countries that had given statements about it: China, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Since that time I have sought to balance it out by being comprehensive. There has not been one foreign leader who I have not looked for and not included. If you find one foreign leader then please do add it, but they are all there (I included Blair moments before you wrote this) The section is NPOV because of its comprehensiveness. --David Shankbone 05:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I read that, but there it is. One speaker from twelve or so out of the 200ish nations on this planet, in many cases not a current part of the government, is a "comprehensive list." Speaking of lists, I'm taking this page off my watchlist, it's just too ridiculous. SDY (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire list twice, the first time when you brought it up a few days ago and again just now since you still feel that it is a "cheer leading" session of the movement. I did remove a section that had lost its ref and expanded a little in one case, however other than that I did not find any problems. Blair's criticism is mentioned already. You must realize that we can't manufacture references out of thin air. If you can find more critcism, by all means please let me know and I will include it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

repeated broken cite situation

If you delete something stranding a cite ref, will you please look at the page to see what you've done? I've fixed one of these for the second time. Lycurgus (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Simply put, it is the formatting of this page that is the problem and not the editing of it. If you want that to stop, change the formatting. While it would be nice to see each editor clean up the red linked error messages left, it is not a requirement, as many people making edits do not know how to make such corrections and by requiring them to do so, may make them stop editing on that account alone. There are editors who understand how to make these corrections and task groups specifically formed for clean up of major pages such as these. If you know how to do it but don't wish to I understand, but if you know how to, do so and then berate others...that is not editing in good faith. All edits done in good faith, regardless of mistakes are welcome...like bad spelling, we collaborate to improve the encyclopedia. You have been helpful, thank you. Please continue to help.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not my impression that Lycurgus was berating other editors, but that s/he was just posting a reminder. Actually he made this post after I had screwed a reference up - someone had added funding copy to the lede and I moved it to the funding section, but they kept putting it back in the lede, I think perhaps they did not realize that it had not been deleted but merely moved. On the other hand, I really appreciate Amadscientist speaking up for those of us who don't know how to manage doing references properly. I learned to type on an old-fashioned black manual typewriter, so you know it's been awhile!, and what I've learned about using a computer I had to learn on my own. So I really am grateful for editors that fix mistakes I may have made. Gandydancer (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're a very gracious editor Gandydancer. I just wanted to be sure and mention that anyone has the right to edit, even if they don't know how to correct the mistakes that the formatting causes. The choice of formatting was never discussed and agreed upon by consensus. I checked. It took a very long time but I saw that it was simply done and no one either noticed or cared at the time. Since then I have seen this excuse used by some editors to suggest others refrain from editing if they cannot fix the errors they create. I am just as guilty of "assuming bad faith" as the accusation I made against User talk:Lycurgus. Thanks for the reality check, and my apologies to Lycurgus! =)--Amadscientist (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the little gnomes that work behind the scenes should be appreciated by all. Gandydancer (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I had to check to see if you'd said "brigades" but it was "task groups" :) As my talk page indicates I'm a gnome/dragon hybrid, maybe a fire breathing gnome.On the matter at hand, it is better/easier/more efficient for the person that introduces a breakage to fix it by taking the common sense measure of looking at the whole page after their edits. It's not too much to ask and groups tasked with such clean-ups could be better employed. The fixes I applied might have been better done if I'd understood their original cause, i.e. had I caused them. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that gnomes would be so crabby and say that others were lacking in common sense. In my defense, it was the third time that that particular edit had been reverted. The second time, when I did it, I put it in the funding section and when it again appeared in the lede it did not occur to me that just removing it was problematic since I knew that it was in the funding section...blah....blah...blah.... Anyway, I do usually try to click my refs to see if they are OK, but did not that time because I did not see a reason to. Anyway, I'm sick of arguments and am done talking about this. Gandydancer (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

Would like to add citations for information already found in this wikipedia article. Example - The first protest was on September 17, 2011.

Let me know if I can be a registered user to make citations such as this throughout the article. Thank you.

Controlgovernment (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You are a registered user, but not yet auto-confirmed. After 4 days from the creation of your account, and after having made a minimum of 10 edits, you will attain auto-confirmed status and then be able to edit semi-protected pages such as this one.--JayJasper (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced POV tag

I replaced the POV tag and deleted sections, added sources, etc. Compare to the current version. Dualus (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Care to discuss why, or were you just letting everyone know? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

This is a request for corrections to the following section:

---

Week 6 (October 22–28)

On October 25, Scott Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and a member of Veterans for Peace, suffered a skull fracture caused by a tear-gas projectile or smoke canister fired by San Francisco Bay Area law enforcement officers acting in Oakland.[263] Police officers in riot gear were attempting to clear the Occupy Oakland encampment early before dawn.[264][265] The raid was described as "violent and chaotic"[266] and resulted in over 102 arrests.[267]

---

This section is inaccurate because:

(1) it erroneously conflates two different events, occurring more than twelve hours apart: the early morning removal of the Occupy Oakland encampment from Frank Ogawa Plaza, and a subsequent protest march beginning at approximately 5:00 p.m. which ultimately led to a crowd of several hundred protesters unsuccessfully attempting to "retake" the encampment, and being rebuffed by the law enforcement personnel with tear gas, etc. Mr. Olsen was injured during this second event, not during the early morning clearing of the encampment;

(2) it states, in definitive fashion, that Olsen's injury was caused by an object fired by law enforcement, when in fact this is only an allegation made by some of the protesters;

(3) the source material's unattributed, apparently editorial, description of the early morning raid as "violent and chaotic at times" has been truncated to "violent and chaotic," which exaggerates and distorts the description.

I would propose that the section be replaced by the following:

---

Week 6 (October 22–28)

In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared and closed two Occupy Oakland encampments in Oakland, California.[263,264] The raid on the encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza, outside Oakland City Hall, was described as "violent and chaotic at times," but resulted in no injuries to the public or to law enforcement officers.[266] A street march later that afternoon protesting the closure of the encampments culminated in a confrontation between police and protesters, who sought to re-establish the Ogawa Plaza encampment. During this confrontation, protester Scott Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and a member of Veterans for Peace, suffered a skull fracture which Occupy protesters allege was caused by a tear-gas projectile or smoke canister fired by police.[263, 265] A total of 102 people were arrested on October 25, the majority before dawn.[267]

---

(Citations are all to the existing sources in the article, which, at the time of this writing, are as follows: 263 ^ Gabbatt, Adam (2011-10-26). "Scott Olsen injuries prompt review as Occupy Oakland protests continue". United Kingdom: The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-10-29. 264 ^ Bulwa, Demian (25 October 2011). "Police clear Occupy Oakland camps, arrest dozens". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 October 2011. 265 ^ JESSE, McKINLEY (27 October 2011). "Some Cities Begin Cracking Down on ‘Occupy’ Protests.". Retrieved 27 October 2011. 266 ^ Farooq, Sajid (25 October 2011). "Occupy Oakland Gets Shut Down". Retrieved 25 October 2011. 267 ^ Bender, Kristen (25 October 2011). "Early morning police raid ousts Occupy Oakland". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 25 October 2011.)

Thank you.

208.127.245.137 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I have used your copy (with minor changes) to edit the article. However, I thought that it was found that the police did indeed throw the projectile that wounded the vet - I will do a search and see what I find and add that as well if need be. Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the references but I am curious as to why there is no mention of the grenade thrown into the crowd that had attempted to aid the Marine by the officer backing away from the police line against procedure and training. Is that not mentioned? My own prose here is not worthy of inclusion and is simply a question. The point being that the actions we see and hear in the media and the references do not always match and sometimes we write from a view less neutral that we may think. If it's in the references it should be added for neutrality...not balance.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is as good a time as any to ask if inclusion of the time line is undue weight to this article...as we do have an article on the overall protests and I assumed this was about the New York protest. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I watched a video that shows the projectile which hit Scott Olsen came from crowd of bystanders. The vid was taken down on youtube, but here is pic: http://www.copblock.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/scott-olsen-oakland.jpg Everyone has a camera phone nowadays, and I agree that this article has a big problem of neutrality. Anyone have the link to the vid anymore? (showing the projectile coming from a crowd of about 10-15 people about 5 feet from scott olsen's face?) 완젬스 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree the timeline can be taken out of the article, because it's grown too much weight, just by adding more weeks. It already has a timeline article, so I say link at bottom of article, and link at top of article, so no one will miss it (or be unaware we have a timeline). 완젬스 (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re the photo 완젬스|완젬스 included, as far as I know that copy is total BS. Seems to be human nature to manufacture details such as that to prove their POV. Re the Timeline, in the first few days of the article, who was to know that it would grow like it has? A lot of editors were solidly against even starting a separate Timeline article. We were making sections re the pepper spray incident, etc., and they ended up being included in the timeline, but in my opinion, even though they really do not carry the weight that they did at the time, they are early milestones in the movement. Same for the bridge incident, and for this incident as well. Clearly we will need to make some sort of decision re the timeline - it can't go on forever - but milestone incidents do, IMO, need to be included in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we keep the milestones then, but incorporate them into the body of the article? (sorta the way we used to have to rework the trivia sections into the bodies of articles without breaking the cohesiveness of the article) Even the title "chronology of events" is misleading, because OWS is one continuous event, rather than an accumulation of events. In fact, if we renamed that section "critical events" we can simply cherry-pick the most notable elements of our timeline, and still keep the setup of "Main article: Timeline of Occupy wall street" the same? I like it, what do you think? Because even now, the current setup is "week X" then we just list 1-2 notable days during the "week X" and there's no other reason why "weekly" makes sense, other than the initial convenience when there were just a few weeks. This movement is expected to last right up through the Nov 6th 2012 election which means there will be over 60 weeks! :-O So talk about a very long article if we don't cherry pick the top 5 or top 10 most encyclopedia-worthy elements from the timeline, and leave the rest of them on the timeline page, rather than the main page. 완젬스 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

While I really want to try to get back to other articles I have been neglecting, I just have to add that I concur that the Timeline could simply be removed and the major milestones kept in some form. It could be in the body of the article or even in a small section, but yes....the length of the section will eventually overtake the rest of this article and seems to be undue weight now and it's just going to get "heavier".--Amadscientist (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

specific sub-discussion on #2 from original poster

• (2) it states, in definitive fashion, that Olsen's injury was caused by an object fired by law enforcement, when in fact this is only an allegation made by some of the protesters;

Does anyone have that video anymore? 완젬스 (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is available at some of the sources used. But that will not do much good as the scene is chaotic. I have seen it several times and it appears to show the police throwing "something", and the vet standing next to the vet that was injured has been interviewed and states it was thrown by police. A quick google found several recent reports from reputable sources that state matter-of-factly that it was tossed into the crowd by the police. Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've spent an hour, and the best article I could find to answer this OP's question is this article. I still can't find the video I was looking for, I watched it and it was a throw from the crowd. If I can't find the video, there's nothing we can do until OPD releases its report (which says they raised it to level 1 priority) so it will take a few weeks. Also, I was surprised too because eye witnesses said it was thrown too, just like what you've read. To me, the only thing which could crack his skull is something like this but in the video it was a black/brown object that was about the size of a softball thrown from right side of screen to left side. It was a cell phone video which was about 20-30 seconds long. Oh, and here is a video claiming it was a tear gas canister and interviews his roommate. 완젬스 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, we'll have to wait months per this source which says A source at the review board said the investigation will begin in the next few days, and is expected to last "several months". I can't find the video I was looking for, sorry *208.127 but we have to take the eyewitness accounts as reported by reliable sources. If it's important enough to you, then you should wait until the investigation is over & a few news outlets pick up on it. Then you can try again. 완젬스 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The events in question here must be handled and written with some care. I read through the first reference and just have to dispute the neutrality of the writing. As I said, it is sometimes difficult to see or own perceptions creep in. Especially with matters as emotionally charged as this. To write about these things in a respectful way while still attempting to be encyclopedic can be a challenge. What we have now is this:

In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared and closed two Occupy Oakland encampments in Oakland, California.[266][267] The raid on the encampment was described as "violent and chaotic at times," and resulted in over 102 arrests but there were no injuries to the public or law enforcement officers.[268][269] A street march that afternoon protesting the closure of the encampments culminated in a confrontation between police and protesters, who sought to re-establish the Ogawa Plaza encampment. During this confrontation, protester Scott Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and a member of Veterans for Peace, suffered a skull fracture which Occupy protesters allege was caused by a tear-gas projectile or smoke canister fired by police.[270][271]

What I think might be more neutral, accurate and encyclopedic, is this:

In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared two protest encampments in Oakland, California. An on going demonstration at Frank Ogawa Plaza and another encampment near by were closed.[266][267] The raid was described as "violent and chaotic at times," resulting in over 102 arrests. There were no injuries to the public or peace officers.[268][269] A street march that afternoon, protesting the closure of the encampments, culminated in a confrontation between police and protesters, who sought to re-establish the plaza encampment. During this confrontation, former Marine veteran and protester, Scott Olsen suffered a skull fracture allegedly caused by a police projectile.[270][271]

--Amadscientist (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, some of the changes were made simply to be a little more encyclopedic in tone. I removed some redundancies and the overly descripted and unnecessary reference to Veterans for Peace. While accurate, it's just to much weight for the section and comes across as a glittering generality. Also, the alleged portion was written in a fashion that went further than the reference in order to be more original, but was also unnecessary.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes - see what you think. I did add that some of the protesters were using violence as well. Of course, as always, others may improve it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar?

"The introduction to the draft document has read"? Is the sentence implying that the intro to draft changed since then? I know the answer now from edit summary, but it will confuse a reader and give them a "comprehension hiccup" as they're reading. How can we re-word it? (and if there is a source, why was it changed? when? what date? by whom? the NYC GA?) 완젬스 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

er...I wrote that (blush)... Yes, it does sound odd. Here's the link [21]. What I meant was that it's a wiki so it keeps changing. Maybe you could write something completely different? Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll try to figure it out myself and search google news and educate myself today, then write about it tomorrow. I'm so glad the page is peaceful and we can work on the article, lol. I've fixed two instances of a sentence or section title ending on the word "and" 완젬스 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Finally a few hours of peace in which to actually look at the article rather than battle about Batra or Lessig or the Demand group and so on. Did Dualus finally just pass out or did he get banned? I started reading the article from start to finish this morning - don't remember how far I got. I found some little, but glaring, mistakes as well. But yes, this is more like Wikipedia editing is supposed to be like, not endless bickering. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Temp block for edit warring along with another editor for 31hrs. Be back tomorrow I assume.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

USA Today resource, relating to Occupy Oakland

Oakland protesters condemn violent clashes; excerpt ...

Occupy Wall Street supporters who staged rallies that shut down the fifth-busiest U.S. port on Thursday condemned the demonstrators who clashed with police in the latest flare-up of violence.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

99% economic statistics section

This is a very controversial section, or rather one which attracts partisan attention. As with all statistics it's easy to find, or calculate, a statistic which seems to show what you want it to say. I don't want to OWN this section, but I find myself reverting a lot of changes which don't meet the careful sourcing necessary for the section or have other problems. I would appreciate it if other people watched this section and tried to make sure any information added isn't simply partisan manipulation of statistics or OR or whatever. B^e——C_ritical 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

But I certainly cannot be the only person trying to keep people from doing their own math or whatever and trying to decide that their OR has enough WEIGHT for the OWS article. I try to only use sources which are either talking about OWS itself, or sources which are 1) cited by sources which describe OWS and 2) used merely for clarification of points in the sources that talk about OWS. B^e——C_ritical 21:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out. You are referring to Occupy_Wall_Street#We_are_the_99.25, correct?--Nowa (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit and asked it be discussed first. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Right Nowa, that's the one, thanks (: and thanks to Gandydancer. Hey, is huffingtonpost considered a good source? I know it's used all over Wikipedia, but I'm not sure exactly what degree of reliability it's considered to have here. What I've read of it seems pretty good so I haven't questioned it where I've seen it used. B^e——C_ritical 22:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are we trying to say in this section? Right now we have 16 references that basically say "We are the 99%" is a slogan for OWS and this slogan refers to the growing income/wealth inequality in the US. Would it make sense to start weeding duplicate references and just keep the best ones?--Nowa (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

[EDIT CONCFLIT] In this case, no I do not believe that the Huff Post ref is acceptable. He is not an expert in the field nor is he a journalist employed by Huff Post. You could say, "xxxx, filmmaker (or whatever), says....", but that would hardly do. BTW, I believe that it was a good idea for you to bring this to the talk page. This article has been so disruptive that there has hardly been time to check edits, refs, grammar, etc., to improve the existing article, let alone add new stuff. I think from now on any drastic edits should be reverted and the editor be asked to bring their thoughts to the talk page for discussion by other editors. This article can NOT continue to be so chaotic and simply MUST be brought under some kind of reasonable control Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of drastic edits myself... I think we at least need to bring it to the talk page if there is an impending edit war. I agree about the Huff post, having researched it on the RS noticeboard. But some sources like Mother Jones, while partisan, seem acceptable. The thing is, we aren't going to get anything that is NON-partisan. I think we need to notice what articles are themselves well-sourced, as well as go with major news outlets. B^e——C_ritical 23:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently no one had a problem with your drastic edits since your name is not plastered all over this talk page. I for one am sick to death with spending all of my time in never ending argument. I'm not a newbie and I've seen my share of controversy, but this article has been a nightmare. As for Ma Jones, yes I believe she is OK. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I was in a bit of controversy here as well... Don't give up, maybe when needed we can pull in other editors, go to the noticeboards and such. Nowa, culling the refs would be good, as long as no one is going to challenge things because of it. B^e——C_ritical 00:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an RS, can you comment? B^e——C_ritical 01:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if we swap out the current graph, which has been nominated for deletion, with this one from Wealth inequality in the United States. It presents the same data. And when I say "swap", I mean put the other graph here in case others find use for the references presented in it's comments section.--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before the economic crises.

We can find non-partisan sources for this information...the IRS figures. I edited this article last night to reflect the information the IRS just released a few days ago. Of course, because it was non-partisan and contradicted the partisan references already quoted in the article, it was removed. More importantly, the tax information I posted was from 2010. The 2010 information was removed and replaced with the erronenous 2009 information. Why can't we have the actual facts about the IRS being described? Why are we turning this page into the pet project for a bunch of left-wing radicals? Occupy Wall Street is about truth, not bashing Republicans.

Please include the current 2010 information, the 2009 information is outdated and irrelevant.FreddyPickle (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the outdated information. I hadn't noticed that. I left a note for the original author to see if he can upload an updated graph. I'll also asked him to make the font bigger.--Nowa (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like if we're going to do the average incomes bit, it should be averaged over many years. Certainly, including the income for a year when the markets were down or just crashed is misleading. We might just take the specific figures out and do only percentages of growth; but these also should be averaged over time, not just from point a to point b. If not averaged over time, then the market crash gives a misleading result. What I mean is something like "from 1980 to 2010, the average yearly income of X was $Y and increased Z" instead of "between 1980 and 2010, yearly income of X went up from $Y to $Z." That's basically what you have with "The average income of the 1% was $280,185 in 2010" [22] if I understand things right. B^e——C_ritical 02:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the references to see which ones use a figure like this to illustrate what is meant by “the 99%”. New York Times, October 25, 2011 comes the closest to making a clear connection between this graph and what Occupy Wall Streeters mean. So one can certainly argue whether or not this is the “correct” presentation of the data, but the real issue is what graph, if any, reflects what the Occupy Wall Street view is. --Nowa (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Owen Muza: a dubious source

The source for the lead line saying OWS is preoccupied (no pun intended) with income growth is not usuable. It is from a certain Owen Muza writing, the short description at the bottom of the opinion piece he is a " a banker and managing director of TFC Capital (Zimbabwe)". Besides the general aversion of WP to use opinion columnists for establishing facts - and in this case Muza of Zimbabwe is the only source used - he is not an author of note; his opinions can not carry weight. He has not published a book, is living in Zimbabwe and merely has the opinion “We are the 99%” alluding to the fact that the share of income growth gains going to the top 1% of income earners is at its highest since the 1920s". He makes no mention of what he used to arrive at this view, and can not have done any reporting himself. Unless Muza's lack of notability is not so, or an actual RS shows the income growth is a main concern of OWS, the mention of income growth can not stay in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And the second source? I'm sure that doesn't measure up to an obvious statement either. B^e——C_ritical 05:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, since no defense of Muza is forthcoming, I'll presume we agree that he's a crummy source. What relation does the Economist ref have income-growth-is-a-big-deal-to-OWS-meme that we gotta keep it in the lead? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't agree. You've been asking for sources for the obvious, for information that many of our sources discuss in relation to the meaning of "we are the 99%." The sources are explicating what that statement means, what it refers to, and many of them mention as significant the income growth inequality. There is in fact no need to source the statement as it's already sourced in the "We are the 99%" section. In other words, what the protestors mean by the statement is not important, but rather what our reliable sources say the statement means. And they make it abundantly clear that income growth inequality is a major factor/statistic. So please stop misinterpreting how sourcing on Wikipedia really works. B^e——C_ritical 05:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No defense or validation of Muza was attempted. And whether he is a RS is the issue. Be has yet to deal with that, and until then, there is no reason to play whack a mole with tertiary arguments of avoidance. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seek agreement from other editors before editing based on your POV about what needs sourcing. You may take out the Muza source so far as I am concerned, but the information it's sourcing is appropriate for this article. B^e——C_ritical 20:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Timeline

The scope of the article is New York Occupy Wall Street. Why are events for Oakland in the timeline for weeks 6 and 7? Shouldn't that go to the "Occupy Movement" article?--Jeff (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good time to discuss the timeline, since I proposed yesterday having just a few "milestones" and cherrypicking a "best 10" select highlights, in paragraph format (per WP:MOS and just linking to the timeline) which I mentioned yesterday. I'll formalize my proposal in a few minutes. 완젬스 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree we need separate timeline article(s). For both the original and the movement? Dualus (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this article or in addition to the main one? 완젬스 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need the battle box here?

Seems awfully pointless when it's not a battle. ScienceApe (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox obviously derives from the discredited analogy some people attempted to draw in the start between the "Occupy" things and the Arab revolutions. —Filippusson (t.) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparent Synthesis of Economist article and OWS Income Growth Meme

The Economist source has been used for synthesis to foist on the lead an assumed fact. The following lead line states "We are the 99%", refers to the difference in wealth and income growthin the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population". Yet the Economist ref (the only ref used, and one without a signed author) does no more than state that income growth disparities have occurred. The body of the text says nothing of how this relates to OWS. The subheading, which apparently is the only thing the editor relied on, says a recent study of income difference has provided a "boost" to OWS. But how the report or the facts behind it resulting in OWS forming its "We are the 99%", the Economist is mute. Though the editor's assumption is certainly a plausible and reasonable intuition, we need a secondary RS actually making the connection. If there are better and actually relevant sources, great, but the current ref is woefully inadequate and will not allow the income growth meme to stay in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I already explained this above, where I said "You've been asking for sources for the obvious, for information that many of our sources discuss in relation to the meaning of "we are the 99%." The sources are explicating what that statement means, what it refers to, and many of them mention as significant the income growth inequality. There is in fact no need to source the statement as it's already sourced in the "We are the 99%" section. In other words, what the protestors mean by the statement is not important, but rather what our reliable sources say the statement means. And they make it abundantly clear that income growth inequality is a major factor/statistic. So please stop misinterpreting how sourcing on Wikipedia really works." B^e——C_ritical 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Though all of that did strike my curiosity in it's first presentation, it was too tangential to the strangely prolonged matter of getting rid of the shoddy Muza ref. Please, let's approach one thing at a time. Since there is no defense of the Economist ref forthcoming, is there any reason it should stay in the lead? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I already said above "You may take out the Muza source so far as I am concerned, but the information it's sourcing is appropriate for this article." There were no good reasons for those sources to begin with, as the information is a summary of a section already well-sourced. I was only trying to placate you. B^e——C_ritical 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you threw the apparently crummy Muza source under the bus is not my affair, I only mentioned it to explain why it has taken so long to get to other issues. Now, and again, please let's try focus here, why should the Economist ref stay after I detailed have shown that's it useless in the lead? Anything showing my apprehensions to be in error would have to compel me to agree with you. Of course that will require specificity. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained how your arguments are in error. I'm not one of those editors who writes volumes re-explaining things. I see you've continued to edit war this valuable information out of the lead. This is something which can only be decided by other editors. Some of them already reverted you in the past before your block for edit warring over the same thing. B^e——C_ritical 01:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now why you wanna hurt me like that? Unless you address the Economist ref directly, something no one has done yet, you have no way of objecting to its removal. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I already said above, "There were no good reasons for those sources to begin with, as the information is a summary of a section already well-sourced. I was only trying to placate you." B^e——C_ritical 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good and very reasonable. Forgive my over cautious. I certainly hope we have heard the last of the Economist source. Time to move on to the other suspicious refs. There are many. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There may be. But your interpretations of sourcing policy are in error, and I'm not willing to argue with your singlehandedly. If other editors like your edits or don't object, they will stay in the article. B^e——C_ritical 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice (:-}>. If you could point out my errors in "interpretations of sourcing policy", I would be grateful and may benefit. Of course, I feel no entitlement to being favored with such an edification. 02:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself here to be a dick. But you don't seem to be internalizing what I do say, and the alternative is to restate in different words which is a waste of time. So, "The sources are explicating what that statement means, what it refers to, and many of them mention as significant the income growth inequality. There is in fact no need to source the statement as it's already sourced in the "We are the 99%" section. In other words, what the protestors mean by the statement is not important, but rather what our reliable sources say the statement means. And they make it abundantly clear that income growth inequality is a major factor/statistic." B^e——C_ritical 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could say something like: "In October 2011 a Congressional Budget Office report was published that points out that income inequality between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population in US has risen over the preceding 20 year. We are the 99% Occupy Wall Street protests got boost from that CBO report." based on Economist. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We could. Here is a quote from an RS:

The Occupy Wall Street movement has, for the most part, been formed around the idea that wealth distribution in America is unfair, and that the economic system is skewed to reward the already wealthy with the highest gains. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office appears to have confirmed that. Specifically, it has confirmed that the rich really are getting richer.

[23] We could paraphrase that. B^e——C_ritical 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Colbert!

Not a fan of elephant vandalism, but this is certainly another piece of the puzzle concerning how they raised a half million dollars. (Pt. 2 of two parts; part 1) Dualus (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this straighforward enoough to be included

From 1992-2007 the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. saw their tax burden reduced to 37% in 2009. During the same period the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes saw their income increase by 392%. How is capital gains figured in this? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced POV tag

I replaced the {{POV}} tag on the article due to unresolved issues about inclusion being discussed at Talk:99 Percent Declaration. Dualus (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)