Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Jacksonville

Since I no longer use my main Wikipedia account and this is semi-protected, I guess this is the only place I can put this. There is now a Occupy Jacksonville event that will be occurring. See a local news article, of which this is probably only one of the many there are. Jacksonville, Florida should be added to the beginning intro with the other cities that have other events. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If the introduction is about protests that have already occurred or started, then the word is October 8 is when the Jacksonville Occupation will begin, so you can wait until tomorrow or the next to have some reliable sources on the event going to start at Hemming Plaza. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the information. My roommate was in charge of the UStreak for Jacksonville, and a link will be added when it is made available. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As the list has changed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_%22Occupy%22_protest_locations, I have gone ahead and updated the information there as well. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Other cities

It's getting too big for the lead. I live in a town of 1500 people, and we had an Occupy rally yesterday. I imagine Oregon will probably end up with 10-50 cities having rallies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion above for a '2011 Occupy Protests' type of article is a good way forward now, as there are LOTS of occupations now taking place, many of which don't necessarily warrant individual articles - some will of course, if not straight away - and this article now faces becoming overburdened and unwieldy.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support the above suggestion, with notable individual protests (for example, Occupy Wall Street) being selected for individual articles. Perhaps it would also make sense to handle different countries and regions differently.--Yalens (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a sample to start filling in... we can move to new article soon... Peace MPS (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not have the sources in the footnotes instead of having a "reliable sources" column? AGreenEarth (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

City	Country	wiki article	date of first protest	reliable sources	number of people participating	number of people arrested	number of people killed number of dollars spent	insert other sample headers here
Peoria	United States	Occupy Peoria	October 4	Peoria newspaper
San Jose	United States	Occupy San Jose	July 4, 1492	NBC news
Seattle	United States	Occupy Seattle	etc	etc
Portland	United States	Occupy Portland	etc	etc

Hey, student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee and there have been significant protests here across West End Ave. at Centennial Park. The music industry, which is Nashville's biggest economical factor, has taken a huge hit and people are getting uneasy about it. Please add Nashville to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.1 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok people, Occupy DC is getting speedy deleted... the time has come for a decision... do you want to create an 2011 Occupy protests article, or not... I will toss out a first "vote to see if there is consensus or if there are other ideas. Just noticed somone created this: List of Occupy Wall Street locations MPS (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Create New Article 2011 Occupy Protests -- because the press has, as of today, talked about hundreds protests across the country which remain to be enumerated in detail by wikipedia. I suggest a chart as above.MPS (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• A new article has been created at List of "Occupy" protest locations, which should resolve this line of inquiry. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street at fort worth

currently there is a planned protest at Fort worth, Texas Here i the Facebook Link:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Fort-Worth Set for Oct 10.--Nrpf22pr (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is problematic as a source. News sources, radio or TV reports or even their associated blogs would be better. --Lexein (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is one link:Occupy Fort Worth: Protests are Coming to Cowtown schedueled to begin tomorrow at 10:30CT--Nrpf22pr (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A chart would be the easiest way to display all of the locations. The only annoying part will be continuisly updating the chart because the movement is spreading to so many cities accross the nation, not to mention there may be so many cities on the list it might be easier to mention the bigger cities instead of all of them.AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons to Tea Party

The "Tea Party" started on December 17, 2007, with Ron Paul's "Tea Party Moneybomb", which generated 6.08 million dollars for his 2008 campaign. Showing this graph with the arbitrary start of the "Tea Party" to show a correlation of media attention is at best disingenuous. Not that any of you would ever post disingenuous material. If you showed the real graph, it would show that the media largely ignored the "tea party" for 1.5 years. http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/005 The start of "Tea Party" protesting was in January of 2009, four months before this graph starts for the "Tea Party", and yet it is attempting to show somehow that the media favors the "Tea Party". But don't mind me, keep on discrediting yourselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

This image is now used in FiveThirtyEight as media commentary. It is public domain in the US because it is compiled from public data and elements which could be claimed as indicative of original authorship have been removed.

Unlinked image. Can't show non-free images on talk pages. Dragons flight (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Dualus (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Relinked, because a graph compiled from public data contains no more original authorship than a telephone directory. Dualus (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we upload an adaptation of this image from this 538 blog post? It shows how the Tea Party was funded up front (with astroturf?) in contrast to the natural growth curve of OWS. And it shows that OWS is quickly overtaking the Tea Party. My understanding of copyright laws for graphs is that the data and axis lines can be copied by points and lines including color, but the captions, axis labels, titles and legends have to be re-done. Are there any graphic artists who can do that? Dualus (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your various statements of what the graph shows are not the same as Nate Silver who created it. If the graph is included in the article it should be captioned appropriately. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen in reliable sources that the Koch brothers funded the Tea Party Movement. It's unreasonable to extrapolate first order variations, but the cumulative statistics are shown. Dualus (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just meant, but I am admittedly a bit slow, so I'll assume it's a failure of my intellect. Fortunately Nate Silver is always deliberate and concise when dealing with this geeky stuff, and makes it crystal clear, even to me. The graph with its labels is self-explanatory. In the article he explains his methodology. And his analysis is not that it is "quickly overtaking the Tea Party". His actual quote is "Coverage of the Wall Street protests continues to increase, however, and could surpass that given to the Tea Party rallies in April and May 2009 if it remains at its current levels for several more days." (he wrote it on Oct 7). "Could" and "if" are two big qualifiers, Nate is a professional, quote him accurately as to any prognostication he makes.

You've used the word "funded" twice. The graph has nothing to do with that. And its completely missing the point of the article, which is the correlation between OWS news coverage and police use of force (see article title). Whatever "natural growth curve" you see, I don't, and Nate didn't either. The whole point of the article is showing the correlation between police use of force and spikes in coverage: "Still, the volume of news coverage has tended to grow in a punctuated way rather than a smooth and linear fashion, having increased after each confrontation with the police. The other graph shows that clearly. The article itself is a tremendous resource for this article. I just didn't see anything you wrote as being related to what I had just read. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See Political activities of the Koch family. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? For the purposes of improving this article by using that graph, the other graph, or the article content from which they came, the Koch Brothers do not exist. Any attempt to make a connection is WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just clarification as to why the previous Koch brothers comments' relevance. Just attempting to be helpful. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the effort to help out, and don't ever feel the need to apologize for trying no matter how cranky people like me are (nor expect any thanks either!). Cheers! 05:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite tone. Sadly it can be in short supply in wp Talk. WP:TEA. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you were familiar with the history of the jumping IP's edits, you would come to the conclusion that its goal is not to improve Wikipedia, but to create links to its favorite articles, one of which is Koch brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed the caption of the image to read "Comparison of news coverage of Occupy Wall Street protests and the Tea Party Movement." Before, as I feared, the caption said that it was measuring the "growth" of each movement, which is just so wrong. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

While this protest is obviously important, it seems to me like this whole article is written from the point of view of the protesters and their views and is most certainly not NPOV. I don't have any vested interest in the article, but I just figured I'd point it out. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for rewriting history or correcting injustices. Articles shouldn't be written with an agenda beyond objectively. That's all very fine and good, but then what perspective should an article take? Indeed, a neutral perspective is not the same as an equal one. For example, it is not neutral to present a movie that is objectively Nazi propaganda as rather being a discourse on atheism, just because a vocal resource insists that all Nazism is truthfully founded in atheism. That is a fringe perspective. An article has to present an accurate perspective on reality. Attempts to mold a biased reality to a prejudiced opinion, will only disfigure the fact that sometimes -- to paraphrase Stephen Colbert -- reality has a liberal bias... or a conservative bias, or an anarchist bias, or a fascist bias, etc. If a majority of resources on the subject of this event are prejudiced and do not reflect reality, it would be irresponsible of us to use them as resources. Anti-Occupation resources can be used, if they were accurate in their commentary. Recent accusations that the protest is becoming unsanitary and filthy at Zuccotti Park are damning because they seem objectively backed by photographic evidence. Those accusations are included in this article now, free of pro-occupation bias. It isn't our fault that, since the initial arrest and pepper-spray incidents took place, media sources have been taking a closer look at the protesters, giving us more accurate sources to use, even as large swaths of the media remains biased in its reporting of events. Frankly, it's not our fault that reality on-the-ground gives us an article "written from the point of view of the protesters and their views". As soon as the media turns its spotlight on the police and Wall Street traders, we can get an article that considers their perspective as well. --Cast (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's very specifically not how Wikipedia works. We don't present "an accurate perspective on reality" that would be original research on our part. We present what was said or written by other notable people and organizations on the subject of the article, in this particular case those sources would be mainstream media, political analysts, politicians, academicians studying political science, etc... We don't get to exclude sources based on "prejudice" or "lack of accuracy" if the sources are generally held to be reliable and important by the majority.

If you think "a majority of resources on the subject of this event are prejudiced and do not reflect reality" that is not a valid reason not to use them, nor is the fact that "large swaths of the media remains biased in its reporting of events". If the article doesn't reflect the way the majority of sources report the events that's an obvious NPOV issue.

Please also keep in mind that people involved directly in the movement editing the article to insert TRUTH(tm) is a conflict of interest and the bulk of the editing should be left to supporters, opponents and random people who aren't directly involved. Especially having the OWS media teams editing here in an organized way would be highly inappropriate. Helixdq (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but lets take what you've advised to it's logical conclusion and see how it pans out. So, we don't present accurate details based in reality? Consider then the history of Henry Ford, who was accused of being an anarchist.^{HENRY FORD FILES $1,000,000 LIBEL SUIT; Resents Chicago Tribune's Charge of Anarchy in Connection with Enlistment of His Employes.} So perhaps if I'm not to utilize my own discretion, which you characterize as original research, I should promptly use this as justification to alter the article in question and categorize Ford under Category:American anarchists, and further alter the infobox of that article to note the important contributions Ford made to the anarchist movement? Of course, that is an extremist view, but my point was that we must reject extremist views when they are presented as a minority opinion. But what if they are presented as a majority opinion? Well that would be notable, but only for the controversy of a majority opinion being wrong, and we could report on that controversy. Or perhaps we should dispense with that, and just merge the articles on Barack Obama with the separate articles we have on the largely reported rumors of his Kenyan origin and Muslim faith?^{[crackpotreference][nutcaseblog][outofcontextquote]} No, we isolate and expand our coverage on the controversy, but we do not present the perspective as being based in fact. This is my perspective, grounded in Wikipedia:Coatrack, that "articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." This is an article on Occupy Wall Street. As the article expands, we can expand the reaction to it and eventually form an article on Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. By the time such an article is necessary due to size constraints on this article, it will surely include more perspectives from non-OWS participants. Then we can focus large swaths of that article on all views and opinions from a wide range of perspectives -- and that will require a great deal of discretionary balance on our part. Until then, this article should remain focused on Occupy Wall Street in general, its background, development, participants, and social impact -- all easily fact based, rather than opinion oriented. NPOV is easily attained here. We just filter for facts. I hope that minor act of filtration isn't too much like original research for your tastes. --Cast (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Good discussion guys, thanks. I would agree with a lot of Cast's comments above, especially in a situation like this, where sourcing is dominated (exclusively?) by news articles, generating in the immediacy of the news cycle. A certain amount of editor discretion based on common-sense reasoning is required. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gordon is correct, this article is written from the POV of protesters. It is heavily biased. It glosses over the leadership role of the General Assembly (it does have leaders and is quite organized) and the "Second Pepperspray Incident" is 1) titled in a way that is sympathetic to the protestors and 2) glosses over the violence that cause the police to respond. This is a very important event and it is a shame that wikipedia is letting people sympathetic to the protests control both the tone and the release of information. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the article has a serious neutrality problem at this point. Is there any pertinent information that is being ommitted? Are there any specific changes that need to be made that either haven't been done or are being thwarted somehow? I agree that the article, taken as a whole, is sympathetic to the protests but what's needed are specific suggestions to address that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Negative news coverage of the event was deleted from the page. The leadership of this movement has been ignored on this page. The violence of the protesters has been ignored. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you site diffs of the problematic edits? If there is a problem, it can and should be hashed out here, or it can go to dispute resolution. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: go to the bottom of this page, where it will get more attention and be in better chronological order, and enumerate with diffs the text that needs to be added to make this more neutral. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess that until these protests have been over for at least a month, there will continue to be NPOV problems here—and in general, suggestions that there are in fact NPOV problems will be energetically rejected on Talk. There are just too many sympathetic editors descending on WP to edit this article for the normal editorial processes to play out as they're supposed to. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Much the same as if edits of the bio of a government official were coming from their office, if several editors to this article are doing so from the I.P.s of a wireless router in Zuccotti Park, I feel it's a WP:COI that is almost impossible to overcome. should be disclosed, as such a disclosure is a benefit to both Wikipedia's credibility, as well as the editors who are active participants in OWS. I said if, because I have no idea, however the concern is legitimate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation, though I have no idea how anyone but an admin could make the investigation that would be necessary to reveal such a COI. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the entire Corruption section needs a rewrite in order to fit under WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:WORDS. For example, this sentence: "For Obama's re-election efforts, 244 elites are directing at least $34,950,000 -- money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee." While this might be sourced, the way that it is written (the inclusion of coffers, for example) invokes a negative mental image and seems to be editorial in nature rather than encyclopedic, and comes close to violating WP:SOAP if it is not a direct violation thereof. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street, a racist movement

There are many reports of anti-semitism (on video) and I cant confirm nor deny but it is said that white people may not speak unless someone else lets them speak. This needs to be covered. I noticed that the Tea Party page has a million words of negatives so for neutrality this needs to match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of what would be considered reliable sources that discuss this? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In the least, the "endorsement" list should include overseas endorsements, like the one by Iran's top leader, who claims that "Ultimately, it will grow so that it will bring down the capitalist system and the West." I don't think Iran is very pro-Jewish, and certainly this feeds into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Provide sources or we're only going to assume you're making stuff up. The Tea Party article has sources for its statements. Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight but giving due weight to the sources. If most of the sources about the Tea Party portray things that you find "negative," most of the article will summarize sources which portray events that could be seen as negative. Calling editors bigots is not an acceptable or mature way to handle it. If your accusation of anti-semitism and racial restrictions has no sources, we should not cover it because we don't even consider a single person's made up claim on a talk page to be a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There was one lone loon who goes around New York being videotaped getting into confrontations with people by egging them on over race, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. He was at OWS one day, egged on a Jewish man, and then it went viral in the conservative blogosphere. It's my understanding he was kicked out of the park since he was only there for self-promotion. Here's one earlier video of him if you want to get the flavor of this, uh, "performance artist"[1]. NPOV requires us to keep fringe attention seekers who look for media out of the article --David Shankbone 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also a video of a different anti-jewish protester. As well as mentions of pro-palestinian anti-israeli signs being carried by some protestors that jewish organizations might view as antisemitism. So there might be something worth mentioning here, at least as much as racism is in the tea party article. But we can't draw our own conclusions it has to be an outside source making the allegations before they're included (preferably not some blog). Helixdq (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agent provocateurs are present in most protests, and their goal is to disrupt and discredit the movement from within. The fact is, the protesters are demonstrating against social and ecomomic racism, so his concerns are ridiculous. The Tea Party, OTOH, has a verifiable racist element that is woven into the fabric of their arguments, so there is no comparison. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A person who allows participants to openly give their views on a subject is not an "agent provocateur" -- he's a journalist. An effort to hide the views of these protestors is the problematic issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

An effort to include views of actors hired to discredit the movement (agent provocateurs) is also an issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP is not being given any credence (and rightfully so), but should we actually consider something about antisemitism, let's be precise in our terms. Being "pro-palestinian" or "anti-Israel", are not the same thing as antisemitism. One can oppose the actions of a state without bearing ill will to a broader ethnic group. If I decry the lack of Somali government intervention in piracy, it doesn't mean I'm racist. It means I have an issue with actions or inactions of the state. If a protester is specifically calling out jews in general, then it's antisemitism. That's not necessarily so for calling out Israel, the state.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe the hype. The agent provocateurs have been unmasked: [2] Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You surely must be joking, this is nothing worth to mention and much more importantly: a partisan website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.21.48 (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Condoms, free love, and all that good stuff

I thought the addition of Organizational processes and infrastructure > Free condoms subsection was unnecessary, however editor Mk2z0h feels it should be included, so I brought it up in here. My problem is the source, The Daily Mail Online, is kinds tabloidy in it's tone, and quite frankly, disappointing in delivery (the girl in the sleeping bag has her clothes on, what's the outrage here?). It's also kinda embarrassing (to Wikipedia) to have the fact that $1.9 million in overtime has been spent followed by young people might be shagging in the park (*yawn*). Thoughts? LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Remove. Comments on my remove : Garbage journalism, easy (unverifiable) claim and irrelevant claim which the author aim generalized to the entire movement. => remove.

The source as a whole is heavily biases, by example, a box full of various medical stuff (tooth brushes, etc) is claimed to be "full of condoms" while we can't clearly identify one there are simply also condoms in it. Yug (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the condoms can be identified. In both pictures of the box of supplies (it's the same box in both pictures) , a bunch of white condoms be clearly be seen in the lower right of each picture. In addition, the other items with the letters "NYC" are also condoms. New York City gives them away for free, and Apple even has this app which tells you where the nearest free condom handout location is. I also consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source. However, I won't get into an edit war. Mk2z0h (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"However, I won't get into an edit war." ...which is to your credit, and if other editors see it your way I'm sure they'll back you up here and put it back in. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On, I indeed see the NYC and white condoms. The article stay a collection of garbage journalism. I'm quite sure that if you send reporters, you may catch people having sex at the at the republican nomination's toilets, a lot of garbages, or people urinating upon walls. Does this means that republicans encourage this, no, of course. The guy defecating upon the police car is very simply a stupid guy. Yug (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reservations about this being added. It seems sensationalist, the source is iffy, and it doesn't seem to have a purpose in the article.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it being removed. It might be possible to merge the information with another section, but I do question the need to include the latter part about sex. It seems out of place, sensational, and does not warrant entry (especially with the only source being a disputed one). As per the Apple app, it is important to note that it extends outside of OWS, and as such the information does not support any claims presented. The only way that I see any information for this staying is if there is a merger between sanitation to become health and sanitation, as there is no real purpose to include this information on its own (due to lack of backing evidence). Ampersandestet (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Free condoms is irrelevant to the movement and should not be included. They have free condoms at Planned Parenthood and in college dorms, its not a big deal.AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Background section is not a background section (yet)

Talks over developping this section

The background section is actually about the first organization of the OWS event and merely go back to June 2011. We need some short contents about the middle class evolution in the past 50 years, taxes evolution, financial sector evolution, and the influence of money upon politicians. Yug (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, I would definitely hold off on that for now. The problems I see is that what is relevant is highly dependent on individual editor's perspectives. The only way to do it right is when you see in WP:RS commentary and analysis of the precursors to OWS. If you don't wait for those, and do it yourself, its just WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Core claims of OWS are know and sourced: income inequality / taxes inequality, financial influence on law makers, etc. There is already sources for these phenomena. We don't have to hold on 4 weeks. I luckily came across a source about he last 50 years US taxes trends, so I added content about that. But the financial sector trends, and lobbying sector trends are actually more welcome. (But I haven't source for that). Yug (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Jane D'Arista (2009), "The Evolution of U.S. Finance"
  This may be a good source, she was heard by the congress: D'Arista, Jane (October 29). "Systemic Regulation, Prudential Matters, Resolution Authority and Securitization". Hearing at the US Congress. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help), and her short video say a lot: D'Arista, Jane. "Anatomy of casino capitalism". TheRealNews.com. Yug (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What I want are sources that analyze the sources you give. Source in article X says "as Jane D'Arista wrote in Y (NOT video Z on Youtube), causes for Occupy Walls Street are AA, BB, CC. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, I'm going to revert I'd really prefer other editor's comment on this because I think it's just too much what you think is important, rather than what WP:RS have said so in some overall analysis. I'm looking for a sources that says "Reasons for OWS", not just what you determine are reasons. I'm copying you proposed background below. I'm not criticizing you putting it up, WP:BOLD is actually a great policy. I just feel it's too controversial and we need to collectively decide what is best. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy [lobbying], address a growing disparity in wealth [inequality of incomes/taxes], and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis [Financial sector + lobbying].<ref name="Fleming"/>"

It is clear that OWS's background and complains are about inequality of income and taxes burden in the US, lobbying in the US, and the financial sector in the US. And we have sources on these issues. Period. Afterwhat, I also feel inconfortable to push the taxe issue first/forward, but I got this source on taxes in the US this last 60 years, no other (short) source on financial sector trends or lobbying trends. Help welcome. Yug (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Cheers, the section below is editable, we need a solid section background. Yug (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, and I'm fine if no one else cares we will just leave it your way. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The background should be about the begining of the movement. If you try to include historical information as reasons for the protest, such as teh shrinking of the middle class, money on politics, it would make the article more of a discussion page and not encyclopedic in nature. Especially since the movement claims to be 'leaderless,' therefore historical reasons for the movement may become convaluted. AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed editable Background section: Long term

Background section to developp

Long term background The movement have complained about various issues, with core issues being the regulation of Wall Street speculation, the limitation of the lobbies influence on law makers and law making, to reduce inequalities and implement or restore a fairer taxe system. US Financial sector and corporates In 1933, following the Great recession, Sen. Carter Glass (D—Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D—Ala.-3) co-sponsored the Glass–Steagall Act. This law was signed in by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. It make compulsory the separation between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. In 1999, the Republican sponsored Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and signed into law by the US President effectively removed these limitations. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Some economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. However, regulating or reforming the financial sector have proven difficult or impossible. Only 38 out of 400 Dodd-Frank regulations have been written by the Congress in a year. Lobbying and perceived corruption in the US Corporate greed and the United States’ corrupt political system were Adbuster's initial reasons to call for the Occupy Wall Street protests. Adbusters' Kalle Lasn describes it as "there is something about the financial speculators on Wall Street that brought us this mess, that not a single one has said, ‘I’m sorry for what I’ve done,’ and that they all got away with it while we the people are suffering." Political activist Lawrence Lessig argues that the problems on Wall Street have been caused by corruption in Washington that has been perpetuated by a deep conflict of interests. He further states that because both parties depend on Wall Street's money to fund their campaigns, they will not dare to cross the interests of Wall Street.. As the protest grew, conversations on the specific size and nature of corruption grew and various reports were often cited. The Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence, found that from 1989 to 2010, campaign funding from Wall Street totalled $1,188,664,055 and $823,559,224 was spent on lobbying efforts. Reports also indicate that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1989. In addition, The Center for Responsive Politics reported that among Obama’s biggest contributors in 2008 included Goldman Sachs ($1,013,091); JP Morgan Chase & Co. ($808,799); and Citigroup Inc. ($736,771). For Obama's re-election efforts, 244 elites are directing at least $34,950,000 -- money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee. Bundlers include Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey governor; Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JP Morgan; and Charles Myers, an executive with the investment bank Evercore Partners. Thus, [Importance and questions over US lobbies and democracy. $500 millions for 2010, multiple bailouts from Obama and Bush] [Conflict of interest found in the partial audit in 2008 during the times of the crash and bailouts] The Federal Reserve has been another point of discussion and protest among many Occupy Wall Street activists. After years of advocacy on the part of Congressman Ron Paul, the first ever partial audit of the Federal Reserve was released in July 2011. The report uncovered that in just one year, $16 trillion in total financial assistance were provided to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world, including banks that were owned by members of the Federal Board Reserve such as the CEO of JP Morgan Chase. The Federal Reserve also paid $659.4 million to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis to help the Fed manage all of emergency loans. Some of the other findings include $3 trillion bailouts to foreign banks, a $500 million interest free loan to a large hamburger company, and millions to a company that owns one of the television networks. Senator Sanders said in a statement, “this is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.” The Fed’s general counsel, Scott Alvarez, said in a letter responding to the audit that officials will “strongly consider” the recommendations. Based on these findings, many Occupy Wall Street protestors have been attempting to raise awareness and advocating for a full audit or the end of the federal reserve. Wealth and taxes inequalities Gini-coefficient of national income distribution around the world (using 2009 info). The USA were already the western country with the highest inequality for national income distribution, coming close to China and Argentina. The top 1 percent control 34% of the nation's wealth, the top 10 percent control about 65% of the nation's wealth. An unprecedented grab by the most powerful on the national wealth's pie since 1928. In late 40's, for every dollar raised in taxes on individuals, Washington raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. Today, for every dollar from taxes on individuals, Washington raises $0.25 in taxes on business. In the late 2000's, the federal taxation burden have massively moved from both corporate and individuals onto American individuals and families. The federal income tax rate on the richest individuals fell from 91% to the current 35%. Following the late-2000s recession that left many countries on the edge of bankruptcy, with weakened economies and unemployment at very high levels, the government looked for both reducing costs, and increases incomes. However, it is proven very difficult to move back and raise up corporate taxes by 5%. The Occupy Wall Street movement started with the believed that the much needed financial reforms and taxes reforms were staled mainly due to corporate lobbying. [Recent unemployment] Sources

Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam by Dr. Mohammad Malkawi

http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.aspx?bookid=75395 This is all original research. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The OWS movement made clear that their background and complains are about the financial sector in the US, lobbying in the US, and inequality of income and taxes burden in the US. And we have sources on these issues. Period. Yug (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Complains: "PROPOSED LIST OF DEMANDS". OccupyWallSt.org Forum. September 28, 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-06.

Comment from another editor

If you mention all those things, then here are some other things that I'd like to suggest as well:

1) Despite the huge rise in income inequality in the U.S., a "poor" person of today is far, far better off than a "middle class" person of the past.

2) The OECD states: "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States."

3) As the top income tax rate has fallen, rich people are less likely to put their money into tax shelters, and a result, their share of income taxes has gone up. According to Table 6 here, the richest 1% pays 38.02% of all federal income taxes.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm so uncomfortable speculating about this stuff, I'll just recuse myself and let you guys decide. Enjoy! LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all OR and shouldn't be added under any circumstances. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's not enough to source pieces of an argument, and then combine them on your own. You need to provide a reference that states the realtionship and implication of those facts are what you're drawing from them.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the protesters are concerned and motivated by certain key issues such as inequality, the influence of money in politics and the behaviour of "Wall Street"/investment banks. In my view these issues should therefore be addressed in more detail in the Background section, as proposed above. The crucial thing however is (1) that the article should not actually take a stance either way as to whether the concerns of the protesters are in fact valid, and (2) that information is presented in a balanced manner. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the draft text above doesn't for me satisfy the need for neutrality, I support the idea of the section and the headings, but not the draft text.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not god, I'm not perfect, nor neutral, that why I welcome others'/your contributions ; ) Yug (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} External link

http://occupy.evokerecords.com/ Live streaming videos.

Kevin (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Request declined, in accord with WP:EL  Chzz  ►  00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

foreign section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Foreign_responses

Seems approriate to ahve and expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I love this section, foreign comments are so biased and funny to read. Yug (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Although many people who lean socialist may not like North Korea because many have referred to them as an example for why socialism doesn't work,... I think the bottom line is if a government responds and in this case North Korea in the same way as China has, then you keep them there. MJJ509 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's woefully biased. With the exception of Canada, Greece and Poland they're all states that would take any opportunity to stick a knife into the US. The Canadian comment is vague, the Greek comment is from someone that has brought their country to its knees and is anxious to pin the blame on anyone else and the Polish one is from a proud trade unionist who is not involved in the running of the country and as such is just a personal comment rather than a national opinion. It's hardly rousing international support and yet it is presented as such. danno 23:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Commentary section should go away

There is no hard fast rule that because it is reliable sourced it has to stay forever no matter what. The rule says that if it is reliably sourced a reason has to be given before deletion. The reason the section should go away and some of the people or groups named deleted and others moved to different sections is undue weight. That Alec Baldwin or Radiohead said something in support and Jimmy Kimmel made a few jokes is pure trivia. There are several reasons a persons comment should be noted. They are a noted political figure or activist and preferably an activist tied to economic causes.Micheal Moore even though he is a "celebrity" the fits the bill he is notable activist and who made a noted film related to the subject of the protest. If a "pure" celebrity for lack of a better word did something palatable in support of the movement like giving a lot of money, speaking to them they should have a place in the article. There are several "media personalities" comments listed. If they are notable enough we have a media section for them. I am not going to go personality by personality to argue who belongs. It would be pointless unless we come to a consensus on general guidelines here. Edkollin (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree.

First of all, it's not that big a section.

Second, we're talking about notable people appearing at an event that depends a lot on public awareness. That makes them a part of it.

Third, some of these people will say something that they may regret in another time, or they may regret having attended at all. Much like those of similar ideology who joined the "anti-war" movement in the early days of WWII, only to change their minds because Hitler invaded the USSR, such things should never be forgotten.

Every notable person who supports this movement should be remembered.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL BALL. We don't go adding things from the future unless there is reliable sourced certainty that it is very very likely to happen like Presidential Elections or the Olympics. We certainly don't do it because editors think it might be important someday. Edkollin (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(r to op) I'm one of those guys who thinks that the timeline of commentary is important, as the events unfolded, and as the coverage of the events evolved from nothing, to prurience, to hey-wait-a-minute. That's why I added Bill Maher's commentary, as an example of commentary on the early media mis-coverage. In the same episode, Van Jones expressed extreme pride in the young people making a stand. I was, however, overridden by a variety of agenda-driven whitewashers - an unlikely cabal of OWB fanbois, and gay and hetero prudes. Your analysis plays right into the sterile deletionist agenda of removal of all sense of place or context, from a plurality of viewpoints outside of a narrowly defined, arbitrarily restricted group of permitted sources. --Lexein (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

Bill Maher is a political/social commentator, Van Jones is a political figure so they are arguably notable to the topic or another words more then just a celebratory. Their comments could be put in another section. Alec Baldwin's opinions would be article worthy if he was talking about movies or the entertainment business but how is he notable for this topic? If that makes me a deletion happy maniac so be it. Edkollin (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree about the arguable appropriateness of commentary by Maher and Van Jones - those were my only two ponies in this corral. Baldwins (any of them) are marginal, to be sure. --Lexein (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal. Stick to the topic, and that includes using relevant sources/commentators. It may be sufficient to have a sentence or two, or maybe three or four about the celebrity presence, but that's it. We certainly don't need a section on it, that's for sure. There's this thing called Wikiquote; please use it. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support A stand alone sub-section of Celebrity responses was a bad idea inherently, and the presentation, an embedded list rather than 2 to 3 sentences of prose is another mistake. No surprise this sub-section becomes a battleground of editors trying to push POV by favoring certain voices for inclusion over than others. That's because we don't a lot's of deep analysis, scholarly, and other good secondary sources generated yet to tell us what is considered notable support. So it's just what individual editors think are insight comments by "Celebrities". Which, by in large, are trivial. As for being in list format, that is appropriate for the leading politicians reactions section above it, as their opinions are notable, and I think the division by party affiliation was smart. That sub-section was well done. But you do understand that just because this event is notable, and the celebrities themselves are notable, that doesn't make any public comments they say necessarily notable? That's basic common sense. Just because they were quoted in a reliable source doesn't mean it's notable, or should be given much weight. Merge all the most important entries in this list into the timeline section. For instance, when Michael Moore (filmmaker) visited and publicly gave his support. Then come up with a few succinct lines of prose, like the Union support section above, and source it to an article where they, not you, mention celebrities X,Y,Z. Every editor who feels justified in including a celebrity's comment becasue it "really hits it on the head", and "helps the reader understand what OWS is all about" is wrong, no matter if you are pushing a Rapper or Hank Williams, Jr. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC) "Rapper Lupe Fiasco (...) also wrote a poem to help inspire the protesters.[168]" You are killing me peeps :( LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal - misleading, trivial and WP:UNDUE. I also support the removal of the vanity photo of Naomi Klein for the same reasons.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment IMO LoveUxoxo really makes a good argument for removal, but I'm not yet ready to say delete it. However I don't like the list and would prefer a few sentences of prose. I do agree that "movie stars" and such should not be included just because they are well known. I would like to see kept West, Moore, Klein, the Slovenian philosopher, and perhaps Barr as the first one to speak. But if support tends to go with removing it, I wouldn't object. Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I should tweak my support !vote to "do something!", not necessarily delete. If it could be made into something remotely resembling an encylopedic entry (the Union support sub-section did a nice job), that is fine by me too. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh ffs, now Russell Simmons and Kanye were just added. Ladies! Stop, take a deep breath, step back, look at the whole forest and think: "should we give as much weight to the fact that a hip hop mogul stopped by in the afternoon as we give to Michael Bloomberg? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, I never did like the term "Celebrity" and even had to look it up to be sure that it meant more than "movie star" etc. Perhaps at the very least we could come up with something better that did not invite inclusion of people not well known for their political commentary/activism? Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another option is to create a reaction sub article. That could be a lot more inclusive because the articles topic is the reaction to the event not the event itself. With a sub article the main article could be limited to a paragraph or two highlighting what is in the sub article. Edkollin (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I support this option, as it would then be grouping by support/oppose/neutral and not lend special credence to amount of notability/noteriety/celebrity.Ampersandestet (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}} Add to celebrity commentary: Zach Braff: On 10/10/11 Zach Braff posted the following on Facebook: "The media is being so dismissive of "Occupy Wall Street". Stop saying they don't have a clear message. Whether you side with them or against them, they do have a clear message and deserve to be treated with respect."

The prosecution rests, your honor. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The involvement of celebrities in the protests is notable. Alec Baldwin btw is well-known as a political activist. It could be trimmed however by just noting which celebrities have become associated with the protests, rather than lengthy quotes. Maybe re-name it "celebrity involvement". TFD (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}} Add to celebrity commentary: Jeffrey Sachs: On October 7th, Columbia economist, Professor Jeffrey Sachs spoke to the protestors and expressed his support, saying "The American public has wanted a different policy for years and years, but the politicians are absolutely deaf to what the American people are saying. The American people have said by large majorities ‘tax the rich, end the wars, protect the social safety net.’ And the opposite is happening. So the breakdown is not with the public, the breakdown is between the public and Washington.”

In general celebrity quotes should not be included into this section unless they are also an authority on the issue (not sure about Alec Baldwin, cold be a credible source?). Otherwise you have a section with a bunch of stupid people stating opinions and not info.AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs is not a "celebrity". He is an academic source with expertise in the subjects related to what people are protesting about. Alec Baldwin and Radiohead are celebrities. They are not credible sources for this topic they have no demonstrated expertise in politics or economics. Edkollin (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Edit semi-protected}} as it is obviously not a simple uncontroversial request; please re-request if you can establish consensus, thanks.  Chzz  ►  01:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Change sub-section 4.2.1 title: September 24 – Street marches, mesh nets, and first pepper-spraying incident

To something where it is actually representative of the content, like "September 24 – Street marches, pepper-spraying incident, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray". We have one paragraph/three lines concerning the marches and mesh nets, and then six paragraphs about the pepper-spraying. What I'd like is the first paragraph to be expanded. A lot happened that day other than when that quarter-can of capsaicin spray was expended. The titles of the sub-section should actually be "September 24 – Street marches, arrests and the pepper-spraying incident" where we give better coverage below to the marches, arrests and street closures. Apparently no one here really gave a flying ferret to them the first pass around, because every was so hot for a piece of Bologna, however the 80 arrests that day were a big jump and important (however severely dwarfed they were by the next days events).

Then the hard part. The six paragraphs on the pepper-spraying there now are a mess. They have all the warning signs of a contentious topic that results in stilted prose and takes up a lot of space, but doesn't deliver much. Something like this is always a clue: "The police officer who used the pepper spray was identified[118] as Anthony V. Bologna, a Deputy Inspector of the New York Police Department,[119][120][121][122][123] who was appointed C.O. of New York's First Precinct in 2005.[124]" Five inline citations in the middle of a sentence to establish a guy's job? That isn't a sign of careful sourcing, it's indicative of dysfunctional editing.

What is needed I suggest is four(?), nice, tight, very impersonal paragraphs that get across the events of the day, as well as the effects in the days that followed. Quit quoting everybody. Bologna's union rep said the officer wasn't at fault? NOT surprising/interesting/notable. This addition without context does not help the reader at all: "The use of pepper spray is primarily limited to use against those resisting arrest or for protection, but is allowed to officers with special training for use in "disorder control".[126]" Between the claims he was aiming at the males allegedly putting other officers at risk, or the fact he might have had that "special training", allowing him to, I guess, use it like Silly String, it doesn't help me understand what justification, or lack thereof, there was for the use of pepper-spray that day by Bologna.

Here are our marching orders as I see it for Bologna, in this sub-section: four paragraphs, written in prose that will be recognized in 200 years as English. Tight, uncontroversial, sourced-well and getting across as much info as possible. Easy, right? LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

At most that sentence should have 2 citations: 1 after "Department," and one after "2005.". Anything more than that is excessive and confusing as to what exactly the citation is being used to source, and actually goes against policy. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Change

Stick this in, since it says everything, except the useless stuff, in about 15% as much space:

Videos, widely disseminated, showing several penned-in women demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official sparked controversy.Videos which showed several penned-in female demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official were widely disseminated, sparking controversy. That police official, later identified as Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, was shown in other videos hitting a photographer with a burst of spray. In following days an allegation against Bologna of false arrest during the Republican National Convention in 2004 surfaced, and the activist group Anonymous posted details about his family online.

Initially Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and and a representative for Bologna defended his actions, while decrying the disclosure of his personal information. However, after growing public furor, Kelly announced that Internal Affairs and the Civilian Complaint Review Board were opening investigations. Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. started his own inquiry.

Public attention to the pepper-sprayings resulted in a spike of news media coverage, a pattern that was to be repeated in the coming weeks. Clyde Haberman, writing in The New York Times, said that "If the Occupy Wall Street protesters ever choose to recognize a person who gave their cause its biggest boost, they may want to pay tribute to Anthony Bologna", calling the event "vital" for the still-growing movement.

All that space you saved? Use this 538 column and this CityRoom analysis to flesh out two paragraphs why we should give a flying ferret over, as one editor said, "a pepper-sprayed hippie". A story that goes something like this: this incident resulted in a spike in news coverage, attention to, and subsequently growth to, OWS. It's all in those two sources. Yes, I know that was Gray Lady-centric, screw it, they live there. Plus, the incident is controversial, pick the MOST boring source. I think editors before, who "felt" this incident was important (it is), were mistaken in thinking that just by giving it the biggest footprint, as in the article now, does the best to get a point across. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I like what you've done, except for the first sentence. I had to read it several times to understand its meaning. I propose instead: "Videos which showed several penned-in female demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official were widely disseminated, sparking controversy." Otherwise I think your suggestions help complete the work of merging the pepper-spray incident article here.~TPW 10:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pffft, that's like 5 times better. I put your version in.LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

When I said 4 paragraphs I still had beer. It's three short ones really (see above). It tells the whole story, no theatrics. LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else? At some point I'll probably WP:BOLD and put it up there myself + expand the 1st paragraph about arrests. The way I feel right now is the only parts of the article that have any chance of being encyclopedic quality are the timeline/chronology sections since we can CALMLY reflect back on historic events a write them up cleanly. The rest is just what happens when you have 100 political opinions and throw them into a blender...that's the sludge you get. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I say you go ahead and make the change. I support it. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I did it, I think its so much better. We don't get paid by the word, keep it succnct ladies. LoveUxoxo (talk)

...FactChecker made a couple of edits that made it much better IMO. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Now I'm going to feel obliged to compliment you on your edits, which sounds like a lot of work >.< (haha, just kidding) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete entire Public discussion, development and commentary section

The first two paragraphs are completely unencyclopedic in tone, sourced mainly to occupywallst.org,; deleting them both isn't a hard decision. Move the New York Magazine polls results down into the demographics section, and park the rest in Response and Reactions. Agreed? LoveUxoxo (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it just needs renaming... This section is, in my opinion, suppsed to be discussing the organization's goals/demands. The "Public discussion, development and commentary section" is just saying that at some point there was very public discussion of the fact that thy didn't have concrete goals. Perhaps a better name for this section is "Public discussion of goals, goal development and commentary on the organization's lack of goals" ... obvi that section name can be improved as well. MPS (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I defer to you. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting source

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-goldberg-occupy-wall-street-20111011,0,1468226.story

Note the quote by NYC General Assembly exec Brian Phillips:

"My political goal," Phillips says, "is to overthrow the government."

Thoughts? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting - as do the sources linking some specific labour unions to the group. More and more the group sounds like the "anarchists" of a century or so ago. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a highly one-sided opinion/attack piece rather than a news article and I think that we need more sources before using it to add overthrow of the government as a 'goal' of the protests. A reference to this article in terms of media reaction to the protests seems appropriate though.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a goal of the protests; a goal of a chief organizer of the protests. And it is apparently a direct quote from an NPR source. This ought to be all we need viz. sourcing, and IMO it's quite worthy of inclusion. At any rate, if we were to disqualify sources based on them being "highly one-sided", what would we be left with at this article? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the protests have an 'organiser' or 'leader', they are very organic. Currently this article also covers all of the Occupy protests (1,300 worldwide and growing fast) and they certainly do not have any organiser or leader or single spokesman. The Goldberg article looks to me like a smear piece, worthy of inclusion in some way but not as a reliable source for the goals of these protests.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call the head of communications for the "NYC General Assembly". It's clear he has some kind of organizational role, which is presumably why NPR singled him out to interview [3], regardless of whether one really thinks that this movement was so spontaneous as not to require leadership. I'd say it's quite relevant and notable to note that his goal is to "overthrow the government". Centrify (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has done a pretty good job citing reliable sources establishing that this protest may be formally "leaderless" but has key leader-ish people that organize its activities. The NYCGA (and its moderators) is the vehicle by which info is shared on the ground, and the on-site OWS media center update the "unofficial" website, disseminates info via twitter/social media, and communicates regularly with other protest sites via skype. The views of these key leaderish people is surely relveant to where they are steering the group that they influence, IMHO. MPS (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so that we're clear, "the 'anarchists' of a century or so ago" or still here, and we have certain standards by which someone can be considered an anarchist. They have to positively self-identity as one, and any movement or project they take part in has to also identify as one. The concern over whether the whole Occupy project should be labeled as anti-statist should be geared to whether the project as a whole espouses that view; not an organizational functionary, or "leader", as some seem to want to put it. The opinions of this author seem to be a minority; a majority of media reports that the whole of the project has a message control problem, and WP:WEIGHT would insist that we not pin objectives and goals on the whole due to the outspoken opinions of a single person, leader or not, anarchist or not. --Cast (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you object to attributing the statement to Phillips and identifying his role in the protest? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." Since Jonah Goldberg's opinions are fringe, even for U.S. conservatism, WP:WEIGHT would exclude reporting them. TFD (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how you could identify the statement as Goldberg's opinion, but suppose for the sake of argument that we source that direct quote to NPR instead of the Goldberg article; does that address your objection satisfactorily? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[4] appears to be RS for the quote AFAICT

PHILLIPS: My political goal is to overthrow the government. We want to get rid of the corrupt(ph) - get rid of the Federal Reserve, and you know, get rid of all the too-big-to-fail companies and just reconstruct the entire government, so...

For his role as communications chef:

PHILLIPS: So the media group, we went and did a little meeting, and I introduced myself and, you know, I said I have this to offer with my skills. And everyone said yes. Everyone agreed and voted that I can do that.

Does this answer any issues raised? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So you had some random guy walk up to the media group in New York, say "I've got skillz" and everyone else said, "Ok why not?" and you now think it is encyclopedic to associate his personal opinions/objectives/whatever with a broader movement that is in 70 cities because a random group of people in a park didn't thoroughly vet his resume/background? I disagree. --David Shankbone 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much it sounds like the OWS groups are not particularly oriented to management systems found in corporations. That does not, however, negate the RS nature of the NPR interview (and a number of other sources which interviewed the person). [5] Macleans from Canada. [6] The Guardian. [7] CBS News. [8] NZ television. [9] Albany Times-Union. [10] BBC News. [11] Columbia Journalism Review. [12] Sacramento Bee. [13] including foreign press where he is identified as a "Google consultant." Does not quite sound like a "random guy" in the first place, and it appears he is generally regarded by the press as the "communications director". Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Weight negates it. "Appears to be" something isn't our standard. Brian Phillips and his personal opinions are not relevant to a broad national movement that hasn't endorsed him as a leader nor endorsed his personal beliefs. --David Shankbone 22:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Weight instructs us to reflect the weight that material is given in reliable sources, not the weight that WP editors think should be given. This exact statement by Phillips has been printed by NPR, the Houston Chronicle, The Boston Globe, Vermont Public Radio, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel, the Columbus Dispatch, the NY Post, etc., and that's only including a cursory search of 2 pages of search results wherein I ignore any source that doesn't have either government funding or a print edition and a US city name in its title. Whether or not the leaderless movement wants an unofficial spokesman, it has one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it belongs on an article about Mr. Phillips. Quoting wp:Undue: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." You need to provide a source that indicates Mr. Phillips's views are representative of the movement, and that he holds some official capacity and not just some team leader of a group of people living in a park who volunteered to help handle the media. Lastly, it's possible that this one-off, singular statement is not reflective of Mr. Phillips' views, or that he didn't mean it to be taken as hyperbole. --David Shankbone 00:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Who has "official capacity" in a leaderless protest movement? If it's not the people who are there and have apparently been voted into certain positions that result in them being discussed on news and radio, then who is it? Only AdBusters? Does being Michael Moore or Anonymous somehow count as leadership purely by virtue of far-left/anarchist street cred?

Further, how do we as WP editors gauge prevalence of views if not by looking at what's in mainstream media reports? I'm not persuaded that this is in fact a fringe view. A sociology professor featured on ABC news described the movement as "massive resistance to capitalism". A month before the protest, AdBusters itself apparently felt compelled to urge prospective protestors not to rally around the "overthrow of capitalism", and as the protest kicked off, the editor-in-chief of AdBusters, speculating as to what "one demand" the protestors would formulate, suggested it "could be some stupid lefty thing like 'overthrow capitalism'". I see a minority view that is obviously significant enough for the only truly official organizers I'm aware of, AdBusters, to feel like they had to privately warn against it and publicly distance themselves from it... prior to it actually being reported pretty widely in the news.

Our current article describes a purported list of demands posted by a single anonymous online user; it then goes on to say that this list was disavowed by an admin user of occupywallst.org (perhaps that's our leadership council, somehow?) and that it was not "proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly". Are there other "officials" of this NYC General Assembly, besides Mr. Phillips, that do speak on behalf of the movement? And if so, how do we know who those people are? Again, we don't go by what's in the media? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This all sounds like WP:SYNTH to me. Regardless of your intention, pairing an entire movement with one person's off-hand, singular remark effectively pairs that movement with "overthrowing the government", and that's not accurate nor encyclopedic. We need a source that says OWS is about overthrowing the government, or overthrowing capitalism, before it's appropriate to start implying those views belong to the entire movement. We are here to present facts relative to the movement, not relative to Brian Phillips. --David Shankbone 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, the way I understand policy, it's OR/SYNTH to second-guess the weight given something by reliable sources. If you disagree with this, I'm not sure I see why. And if you instead agree, I don't see your rationale for suppressing this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here: 1) Brian Phillips and his role with OWS; and 2) "My political goal," Phillips says, "is to overthrow the government." I don't necessarily have an objection about mentioning some of the people who have appeared to take "leadership" roles, I have an objection to including their personal philosophies and issues, many of which aren't relevant to the movement as a whole. If you feel Phillips is an obvious choice for inclusion, and you feel a quote should be used, then it should be one where he is not speaking for himself, but for the movement (which is a tenuous proposition). Your CBS source has this: "Our mission is to change the system," said Brian Phillips, an ex-Marine. "Mainly get the corporations out of the government," Phillips said, "and the fact that they have financial influence in all the decisions in lawmaking. It's a corrupt system." That quote is more worthy of discussion than the one at the top of this thread. --David Shankbone 22:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You still don't seem to have put forth a compelling policy reason why the Phillips quote should not be included, even if attributed. Everything you have said boils down to your judgment that the statement is not representative enough of the movement as a whole. But it's not WP policy for us to vet material in this way. We say what reliable sources say. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Where one person is identified as a spokesperson by dozens of reliable sources, it is inane to deny that such sources view the person as a spokesperson. And it is absolutely not SYNTH to use what the reliable sources say. Lastly, as long as the words are attributed to the proper individual, WP:BLP is fully complied with. Cheers - but trying to keep out information which is fully sourced, relevant to a topic, and not of undue weight is contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals. Collect (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of discussion section

Factchecker / Muboshgu, could you, please, explain why you deleted this discussion section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=455108683#After_blockage_by_Paypal.2C_raising_funds_by_donations_in_bitcoin

It is true that it contains links. But that does not imply that it is linkspam. I do not suggest to include it in this form into the article. I suggest to discuss a inclusion of the topic. --84.135.77.148 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither the article space nor the talk page is a place to promote a product or service, even one with a tangential relationship to the article subject, and even if the advertising can be dressed up as an utterly inappropriate and bad-OR-laden content suggestion.

A google news search for Occupy Wall Street and bitcoin yields one result, an NPR article. It says they have a bitcoin address to accept donations. I'll include that in the article, but we can't use the article space to explain to everyone the virtues of bitcoin; instead, we bluelink it, showing readers the article on bitcoin. On second thought, not even ordinary methods of soliciting donations have been mentioned, and I'm inclined to think that is for the better. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The deleted section discusses also how control about money supply affects economical transactions and that because this medium has not central control, this looks attractive to some people. Maybe mentioning it in the article is not yet appropiate, but the support of Anonymous is mentioned. Also, the supportive impact the internet media on the Arab spring movements has been mentioned numerous times, and mentioning it does not means an advertising of facebook or the like.--84.135.58.242 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Next time try adding information to the Talk Page that doesn't appear like such a blatant advertisement for something other that what we are discussing. If WP:COI makes you unable to be neutral when doing so, then let someone else do it. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that news coverage which is given as an argument above gives necessarily a sufficient picture for the level of support and the political importance. Google for the bitcoin address 1Q7DQVTubbUqr5by2YoZJRKCEzj9D3LQ9w , for example.--84.135.57.234 (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The deleted discussions section refers to the support of "Occupy Wall Street" by donating bitcoins. It may be not in itself neutral but I do not see why this suggestion refers to "something other that what we are discussing", as this is the discussion page for "Occupy Wall Street". Please explain. --84.135.57.234 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All your questions are answered at WP:NOTAFORUM. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There is currently no section devoted to the means in which any of the OWS groups are fund gathering. As such, it does appear to be tangential in nature. However, if there were enough sources to warrant a section where the fundraising efforts were discussed, then it might warrant placement within the context of such a section. If such an organisation makes demands for transparency, then it would stand to reason that there will be documentation in regard to how they are funded, if there is any external funding provided outside of participating members. Until then, this might be best put under the To Be Done section if deemed necessary-- that is the only way I can see any inclusion for the bitcoin donation information. Perhaps this is something you might be interested in researching and working on. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource on Left-right politics of the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party; and more

• Democrats' Populist Puzzle; Obama Endorses New Tax on Wealthy Earners as Spreading Protests Divide Party by JONATHAN WEISMAN And LAURA MECKLER OCTOBER 7, 2011.
• Boston Protesters Arrested; Manhattan Millionaires Targeted OCTOBER 11, 2011, 7:30 P.M. ET
• SEIU and 'Occupy Wall Street' Folks Miss a Few Points OCTOBER 12, 2011.
• Occupy Tokyo? Hmm, Maybe… October 12, 2011, 12:03 AM JST
• Debate to Put GOP Policy Stances Front and Center OCTOBER 11, 2011, 7:47 P.M. ET by JONATHAN WEISMAN
• (video) Wall St. Protesters March Against N.Y.'s Richest 10/11/2011 12:00:00 PM ... The Occupy Wall Street movement stages a "millionaires march," smartphones replace the checkout register at the grocery store, a conversation with Rolling Stones keyboardist Chuck Leavell and the stress of predicting the weather.
• (video) Scene from Occupy Wall Street on 5th Ave 10/11/2011 6:21:15 PM ... Occupy Wall Street protestors march up Park Avenue in New York City to express their anger in front of the homes of bankers and billionaires including Jaime Dimon, John Paulson and David H. Koch.
• Billionaire Tells Occupy Wall Street to Get Off His Lawn October 11, 2011, 2:43 PM ET.

99.56.123.210 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Tokyo is a blog by Yoree Koh. 97.87.29.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Facebook Attendence

The section "Protest Spread Worldwide" has information on how many people say they are attending protests on Facebook. That is not really solid or notable information and I think the section should be rewritten. Thoughts? XantheTerra (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but am divided on this one... counting Facebook RSVPs smacks of Original Research... plus, those aren't actual attendance figures ... although I think it is notable that Ashton Kutcher has like a kajollion twitter followers ... I am leaning towards the notion that it is not good for these numbers to be under the heading, "Protests Spread Worldwide" since placed under this rubric it makes them sound like worldwide attendance figures. MPS (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my edit. I don't see any problem with it in that I copied the figures from my source, The Daily Telegraph. Gandydancer (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have issue with the figures from the source, which I did read. I just do not think that what people say they will do on Facebook is important enough to merit inclusion in the article.XantheTerra (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the facebook information as those were figures from one week ago. That information is neither current or important. In my mind, the online attendance means nothing. But if someone feels differently, you can change it, I guess. XantheTerra (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Greece? There is no occupy wall street movement there.

In location section, Reference for athens links to newspaper article for Athens, GEORGIA. Not Greece. Please take off Greek flag, its incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.83.46 (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I fixed that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Free Tea Party Movement comparison graph needed

Resolved

Someone please do a free version of the File:Occupy-wall-st-vs-tea-party.png image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Protest_comparison_graph_SVG_and_nonfree_clearance or it will likely be deleted after Friday, 14 October 2011 because of the evil fair use death panels.

It was actually public domain and is now used in FiveThirtyEight as media coverage. Thanks to whomever remembered that removing original elements from a graph created from public data gives it less authorship originality than a phone book. Dualus (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

USA Today resources

• Occupy Wall Street protests have a spiritual side by Cathy Lynn Grossman, Oct 10, 2011
• Olympics' famous protester helps Occupy Wall Street ... Tommie Smith and John Carlos staged their famous protest at the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympics, Oct 11, 2011 by Tom Weir
• 'Occupy Wall Street' protests test left's determination by Rick Hampson
• Tom Morello to sing at Occupy Wall Street protest by Ann Oldenburg Oct 12, 2011 regarding The Rage Against The Machine guitarist

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Claim that "Tea Party has been co-opted by the Republicans

I deleted this phrase "with the key difference being that the Occupy protest has not been co-opted by a political party." with the rationale that "this phrase asserts unsourced assumption that tea party has been coopted" ... (my diff ) ... and then User:Ian.thomson reverted my edit, saying "All the Tea Party's speakers and funders are Republican, the majority of Tea Party protesters identify themselves as Republican, and they typically support and are supported by Republican candidates when possible" (Ian.thomson's diff) ... HE DID NOT CITE ANY SOURCES... which was my original reason for deleting... I would like to put this out there for the wikipedians to discuss and resolve so we do not get into an edit war over this... My claim is that there are plenty of fiscally conservative independents who are part of the Tea Party but who do not view view themselves as Republicans. a randomly googled source ... [14] perhaps thie claim should be sources and bracketed? MPS (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Tea Party Supporters Overlap Republican Base: Eight out of 10 Tea Party supporters are Republicans" by Frank Newport, Gallup.com and "Tea Party = Republican party?" by Chris Cillizza, Washington Post's The Fix both show that Tea Partiers are pretty much Republican. A Teabagger Timeline: Koch, Coors, Newt, Dick Armey There From The Start by Jane Hamsher, Huffington Post shows they were started by and funded by Republicans.

I suppose that the idea they were coopted could be argued against on the grounds that they were a platform for the Republican party to begin with. Part of their advertising power comes from pretending they're a grassroots movement when they are astroturf. Also, the "randomly selected source" presented is only one group that admits that they're less than 500 members of this much larger movement. That's like randomly selecting a Michigan Christian Scientist church website as representative of American Protestantism. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article? Shouldn't this argument take place on the Tea Party pageAcuteAccusation (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to prove or disprove theories. If there is a controversial issue, Wikipedia NPOV policy suggests that we attribute opinions to their adherents. So if you want to say "according to Gallup, many Tea Party activists are also Republicans" you are fine. But your sources above don't say anything about co-opting. They literally say the opposite... "nearly 80 percent of tea party supporters describe themselves as Republicans, while 15 percent say they are Democrats and just six percent are, in their own minds, 'pure independents.'" as well as "As victories by Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada show, the tea party crowd doesn't take its marching orders from the national Republican leadership." Unquote. If you want to 'dis' the Tea Party on the OWS page, you are going to need to find a reliable source to attribute an opinion to, or else delete the unsourced assertions. MPS (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There's matters of fact here that should be able to make it into the article: 1) the tea party and OWS are both grass roots movements, albeit from opposite ends of the political spectrum, and both actively resist establishment efforts to dominate or speak for their movements; 2) the tea party, as follows from their end of said spectrum, are given to be, their resistance to the GOP notwithstanding, Republicans who will ultimately and did in 2010 vote republican; this is well established. 3) OWS on the other hand, and again as follows from the nature of left, while it may have large numbers of those voting democrat, is not by any means associated with or likely to be co-opted by the democratic party, largish numbers of it probably being already outside the two party system, i.e. non-voting. This essential difference has already been made clear in the 2010 midterm election but it remains to be seen what will be the case for the OWS in relation to the 2012 cycle. It doesn't seem likely that Obama's party will be able to absorb them anywhere near as readily as Romney will absorb the TP. What can be said now is what follows from the basic facts (left vs. right, known composition of OWS, and the 2010 elections). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:72.228.177.92, you make some good points.... I have two responses...

(1) One could, if one wanted, make an argument that the fiscal conservatives / Tea Party peeps have a co-opted the Republicans rather than vice versa.

(2) one's arguments are pretty much irrelevant on wikipedia. If one does not have sources other than one's own opinions then one should not insinuate them into the OWS article, as I have complained about above.

I am not sure whether much should be said about the Tea Party in this article. What I do know, is that we should not be using weasel words like "co-opt" unless we attribute them. If y'all want to do a movement comparison as a separate section, I am ok with that, but you would still have to use reliable sources so as to avoid allegations of original reserach, which is looked down on within wikipedia. Peace, MPS (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken in conflating co-optation with WP:Weasel, they're unrelated and the subject matter of this thread is substantive and germane to the article. I'm well aware of the site policy, just not using my named account. I'm not suggesting argumentation, just making clear what the basic, copiously sourceable, facts are. The tea party and OWS are both elements of a (probable final) crisis of the superannuated Fifth Party System. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to avoid an edit war with Ian.thomson. If the cooptation of the Tea Party is copiously sourceable as you say, then Ian.thomson or someone else should be able to source and bracket that belief. IF being "co-opted" is not somewhat pejorative, then why are the OWS protestors trying so hard to avoid being co-opted [15] [16] [17] ? Just stating that "references abound" regarding who is or is not already co-opted does not satisfy the reliable sourcing requirement. I am from missouri. Show me. MPS (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the phrase "with the key difference being that the Occupy protest has not been co-opted by a political party." is not proper, it is not WP:NPOV and of course is pejorative. It's using this article, about OWS, to get in a dig at the Tea Party. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more Canadian cities joined in

Halifax, http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fottawa.openfile.ca%2Fblog%2Fcurator-blog%2Fcurated-news%2F2011%2Fwhat-will-occupy-ottawa-look&rct=j&q=occupy%20Ottawa&ei=xwOWTv7WCobV0QH04OGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHP1tOvZhRLOx_DM1lylPZVpV5u8g&sig2=IsRCTDvPyjskxhtjOZOddQ&cad=rja Hamilton Saint John http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winnipegfreepress.com%2Fbreakingnews%2Foccupy-wall-street-movement-headed-to-bay-street-other-canadian-centres-131549468.html&rct=j&q=occupy%20winnipeg&ei=uwSWTrnnMcLh0QHP77zoBw&usg=AFQjCNGdFWOjZRsFG9wjCkzyVLSPbYAS5Q&sig2=NGqdHhM_tNbNZm97ZoWpyQ&cad=rja New Brunswick, Newfoundland, PEI and Nova Scotia are having occupations as well, but as of date 10/12/2011 nearly 1400 cities are occupying, there are several in Ontario starting up if we do list them all I believe it should warrant its own article. Canadianwikiuser (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that's the problem the editors of this article are going to have to figure out a solution to. We can't have a list of 1,400 city names. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A list of locations can be edited at List of "Occupy" protest locations. If you take the discussion over there, that would be more appropriate. Ampersandestet (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's Support , add companies reaction?

I came acrosss an article over Ben & Jerry's Support of the occupy wall Street movement. chances are high that there are going to be more corporations that will to react to the cituation at new york, so should there be a company reaction? Some Protesters Find Ben & Jerry's Support Hard to Swallow Ben & Jerry's Backs Occupy Wall Street Protesters Ben & Jerry's declares a taste for Wall Street protest --Nrpf22pr (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If more corporations come out with responses to the OWS protest, then it could warrant such a section. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively if they come out with a new ice cream flavor "1001 opinions in a swirl" (with nuts), I'd be in favor of inclusion. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LoveUxoxo, especially if the new flavor is called "Occupy Wal Nut" and includes flavors such as bologna and pepper. But seriously, I think we need to rethink our approach to farming "support" and "opposition" links that don't add much encyclopedic value. MPS (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, yes we need to stop/trim/convert to prose all these sub-sub-sections which, basically I submit are meaningless (like Ben & Jerry's giving their support). The funny thing is, in a year, I wouldn't be surprised if a new B & J flavor IS (appropriately) mentioned in the article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I only support it if they call the flavour Occupy Rocky Road. Ampersandestet (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Society Naturally All Fudged Up?  :) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove responses section or create a subarticle

The responses section should either go or have its own subarticle. Not only is the who-said-what overwhelming the article; most of the "celebrity responses" and "foreign responses" and "political responses" do little to illuminate the topic outside of platitudes from wikified names. The growing bullet points of blather make us look like amateurs. --David Shankbone 04:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that idea with a resounding "yes", it's not illuminating and it is amateurish. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is poorly structured... what are we trying to convey here? I would also say some of this is an artifact of when people were trying to prove that it was notable (see version from September 20 Roseanne! Lupe Fiasco! ) as well as a political and POV-balancing arms race. I would support a side article if someone can tell me why we need (for record) 100 different people telling us "I like it" or "it's dumb" MPS (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This article, about a current event, attracts a lot of new editors (and that's a good thing), and an easy addition to make to an article is just adding someone's or some place's) name to a list. So once the list starts, you can play whack-a-mole all day trying to keep the thing somewhat relevant and it will always grow out of control. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I do not feel that it is presently out of hand. As for new editors adding less relevant personalities, a more experienced editor can keep that problem in check. This is a People's Movement, let's keep People in our article! Gandydancer (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If a particular celebrity's response becomes relevant to the event, that will become evident in time. Reliable secondary sources aren't created overnight. I suggest that any particular response that shapes the event will find a home in an appropriate section, but having a section or article simply to count them is pointless. Did they do that for Pearl Harbor, 9/11, or the election of Barack Obama?--~TPW 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nature and Size of Corruption

People are encouraged to fix this section. The intent of this section is to give a better description to the size of the underlying problem or problems to which Occupy Wall Street is trying to address. The reason why demands and goals are scattered is because the problem needs to be defined in detail. For example, if Adbusters were against corruption in Wall Street's influence in politics, then we need to explain that more to the average reader. How much money were politicians funded by Wall Street.

In other words, what is the problem, the mechanism of how the problem is producing the undesired effect or has, the severity and size of the problem.. and then we can propose goals and demands in order to fix it. A good doctor diagnoses the problem and would communicate it well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to bias, most of those statements are facts directly from the primary sources and although it focuses on Obama, truth is truth and you can add other politicians as well. The truth is that both parties have been bought by Wall Street and Coporations. MJJ509 (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is much better suited as a topic to be expounded on in a school paper, your blog, or some other place where it wouldn't be a problem in terms of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and all that other good stuff. You need good scholarly sources and meta-analyses, which don't exist yet, for it to be done in an encyclopedic manner. The sources that are currently being used are not WP:RS. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the current section is at risk of being WP:SOAP, so rather than focusing on expansion and the solutions, the current section needs vast improvement on how what is being said is exactly said. I agree with LoveUxoxo on this matter. However valid the points you raise are, this is not a research proposal nor thesis. Truth might be truth, but truth is all that currently exists. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just encouraging a giant fight among editors as to the "true" causes of OWS, a fight they shouldn't be having to begin with. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that we shouldn't try to prove corruption using our own research/synthesis. OWS wasn't the first to discover the problems of Big Business. Besides, if different people in this movement have different reasons for protesting, it is going to be hard to say that "corruption" is their reason. Some people might even say periodic long recessions are a natural, if unfortuniate, part of the Business cycle... perhaps related to the Credit cycle... I really am not an economist... thus I rely on reliable sources from people who are already published economists to assert claims on wikipedia. MPS (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as agreeing does not mean we are now fighting. That would really cut into my sitting around time. Ampersandestet (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As an extremely liberal-minded person, I feel that this information is very important, however it does not seem to me to be appropriate for this article. Since I am not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and regs, I can only look to other articles I have worked on extensively for comparison. Thinking back (for instance) to the Gulf oil spill, an accident that was just waiting to happen and will happen again given the fact that corporate power has worked hand in hand (and often hand-in pocketbook as well) with the very government agencies that are supposed to be working to protect the people, a similar addition could have been added to that article. But it wasn't because it would not have been appropriate for Wikipedia to have included it. Never the less, it is good information and I'd like to see it in a separate article. Gandydancer (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I see that the editor that thinks he's above all this discussion nonsense has deleted the section, as usual without even an edit summary. What a jerk. Gandydancer (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting back. Who is this guy that keeps deleting stuff? Make edits so that it's more enclopedic, but though I referred to primary sources, these sites were cited from online news articles, Occupy Wall Street forums, and even on the ground people talking about this. This isn't a thesis, but when people refer to corruption... it usually does refer to money and so it is only right that readers understand the scope of the corruption. Time to wake up and realize Obama's not fighting for us. Half of funds go to Republicans and half go to Democrats dating back to 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lobbying influences both parties. This article is not a hit piece on Obama. See wikipedia WP:NPOV. And no, a facebook page is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. And the federal reserve is not one of the main complaints of most participants. There are some people who have that view and that is already stated in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Defining what are the "underlying problem or problems to which Occupy Wall Street is trying to address" depends on your POV. It's opinion, which isn't suited to this article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be support to keep the section and I suggest it be removed by a person that has taken the time and effort to join in this discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I thank somedifferentstuff for now engaging into the discussion. So, my question is, as people are protesting that they know something's wrong on Wall street and Congress. If the nature of that corruption won't be described in the mainstream media, but only on small occupy forums here and facebook pages there, then where else can it? Why not make edits to make the piece more concise, suitable, less biased, in order to give some substance behind the issues- Corruption, lack of transparency. When Adbusters say corruption, what is that? Occupy Protestors have been discussing these things both online and on the streets and a minority yes of protestors have been mobilized based on the findings of the partial audit of the Federal Reserve that highlighted connections the Federal Reserve and WallStreet bailouts. The protest can be seen as a process of learning just as well including wikipedia articles.

I say increase transparency to highlight some of these numbers, rather than just deleting sections. MJJ509 (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a group project. You do not have support for this section. I'd suggest you remember that you are a new editor and that you accept advice by editors that have been around the block a few times. Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@Gandydancer, I respect your input and I agree whole heartedly. I will delete as advised by senior editors (you guys are part of the protests right)? However, all I want to do is to highlight some of these numbers that are being discussed when corruption and lobbying is the topic for protesters. I'm not saying this is THE CAUSE, but to just define corruption and lobbying when people use these words as how several forums, news articles and the protestors on the ground do talk about. The basis of corruption and influence from Wall Street on Congress seem to be about the loads of campaign funding from Wall Street and for some protestors it is about the findings of the partial audit that was not extensively covered by mainstream media, nor do they talk much about the lobbying efforts either. Is there not reason to put at least a few numbers in order to just give substance behind the words corruption or Wall Street influence. MJJ509 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at this section has given me the impression that everything except the first two sentences is OR. Also, I changed "Corruption" in the section heading to "Potential Corruption" to avoid one seemingly obvious NPOV problem.

The section actually says almost nothing about what protestors think about the noted subjects, contrary to the section title, but rather just an editor's own analysis of issues he thinks are relevant to the protests. I think that a sound justification for not deleting all or most this section needs to be provided ASAP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

MJJ, my problem is that you have added such a huge chunk of information that is going off in a direction of its own. I see that you provided numerous references so it is obvious that you took a good amount of time to put this all together. But please try to imagine my effort to read it all, including the references, and try to come up with an opinion! Furthermore, I note that you edit just this one article while most of us have several or many other articles on our watch list that take up our time as well. I strongly feel that you should consider a sister article for this information. Also, please read again my comments re the Gulf oil spill. And lastly, whatever you do, don't get mad and just give up! Gandydancer (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

MJJ, please realize that as I understand it, all of this needs to be removed unless you can provide some plausible explanation of why it's not OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR because these sources have been cited from occupy wall street forums, news articles when referring to occupy wall street, and from the talks on the ground.

1. E.g. regarding the partial audit... many of those protesting for a full audit can be found on the ground. E.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0cp_DyfiRU or go to even the facebook page, "Occupy the Fed" where much discussion has been upon the findings of the partial audit among other things as the basis for their protest. 2. www.rootstrikers.org and their founders and members are a select group of Occupy protestors on the ground who refer to many of these same sources. E.g. look at some of their banners when you go onto their site. 3. Just go to the various Occupy the Fed online forums and these topics have been raised and discussed, some who cite these sources. 4. Even Adbusters points out in many of their sites about the "corrupting" influence of wall street on politics. For example, here's one news article that cites the Sunlight Foundation: http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-bashes-but-accepts-big-bucks-from-wall-street-57726/ which quotes one protester, "“With the people [Obama] put in (the administration), Goldman Sachs basically occupies the White House,” one of the protesters, Bill Brunot, 60, a mechanical engineer from Winchester, Va. told The New York Times." ""Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that aims to keep the government transparent, has revealed that President Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years. He received approximately $3, 700,000 more than the second largest Wall Street recipient, George W. Bush."" 5. And because this is a leaderless movement that I consider myself a part of..been on the ground and talk to those who attended the ones in NY, what's wrong with original research from my part that simply supports Adbusters' aims and goals and what they see as the problem? Eg. Wallstreet influences Congress says Adbuster. Why can't I add, here's an analysis by Sunlight Fondation that shows the amount of money Wallstreet has funded Congress in order to influence them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to restrict yourself to using only sources that draw a connection between OWS and the phenomena you want to discuss. It's not acceptable to start off with a sourced statement showing that "OWS protestors are motivated by problem X" and then follow that up with your own analysis of X, based on sources that only discuss X, and not the connection to OWS.

There's nothing "evil" or "wrong" about original research; it just can't be used on Wikipedia.

I am not going to revert you again, but that's not because I don't think you should be reverted again. Those edits need to be removed. However, I have committed myself to only making one revert per day, so I will rely on another user to do it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OWS protestors are motivated by problem x. E.g. Root striker protestors says that campaign funding from Wallstreet influences politicans.

OR Here's one article that does it: http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-bashes-but-accepts-big-bucks-from-wall-street-57726/. So you're saying this is a bad article cuz she went to a primary source.

All I'm saying is: Protestors have said this. Forums, news articles, and discussions have cited sources to provide evidence. Here is the support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. What I am saying is this: it must be reliable sources that discuss these issues in connection with OWS. You can't simply use the fact that one source has drawn a connection as a reason for expanding the section with your own analysis based on sources that don't discuss OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

LET ME TRY AGAIN TO EXPLAIN WHY IT's NOT OR AND THE SOURCES YOU CAN GO CHECK: First topic is the FEDERAL RESERVE ISSUE: A) Problem with the federal reserve seen by protestors: Protesters shouting, “fuck the fed," as seen in this you tube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fV0YjQQzYk B) One protestor does all the analysis during his speech. Go to 2:09 when he makes the wall street and Federal Reserve connection. If you listen at around 2:09, he’s citing what they found in the partial audit of this year. E.g bailing out banks overseas and JP Morgan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmPWcLQ1Mk C) Same protester again stating how the federal reserve has given out trillions of dollars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE (Just realized how he also says that the problem is also with corporations lobbying millions of dollars to politicians at 0:33) D) More discussion reflective of his sentiments and argument can be found on their Occupy wall street facebook page or online Occupy Wall Street forums: http://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheFederalReserve E) My main point is that: some protestors based on the findings of the partial audit (which revealed the trillions spent, JP morgan, which the guy in the clip already said) this year are now protesting in the Occupy wall street. Here are now the primary sources what it contains as what the protestor said and you can go check it out yourself and others who break down this problem: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3 http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/ron-paul-and-the-occupy-wall-street-protest

... give me now some time to put together the bit on lobbying and how it's not my analysis but from protestors on the ground.

You're mining YouTube videos for random chatter to support the inferences you're adding to the article, which you then flesh out with material that is utterly unrelated to OWS, and don't see why this is OR? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you listen to the guy in the clip? All the information we know about trillions going out is based on the recent and only audit we did. He's just one example of an OWS protester citing that one source. BASICALLY: Protesters know that the partial Audit revealed trillions were given out- that and thus some say to fully audit the fed. How is it OR when most of the Occupy Wall Street people who are focusing their attention on the federal reserve know this.

Ok, moving on about lobbying influences. Again even Adbusters subscribess to this basic problem that politicians are getting bought out. 2. Lobbying influence A) Problem as seen by some protesters:

---

Based on the website, rootstrikers.org who are actively taking part in the protest is saying that lots of Wall street $$ has been put into campaign funding of politicians. Look at the first banner of their website which states that “700 million on lobbying over the past decade.”

---

Here’s another protester who says the same thing: “With the people [Obama] put in (the administration), Goldman Sachs basically occupies the White House,” one of the protesters, Bill Brunot, 60, a mechanical engineer from Winchester, Va. told TheNew York Times.

“We got sold out; the banks got bailed out.” -- http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-bashes-but-accepts-big-bucks-from-wall-street-57726/

---

Same guy from above says the same thing.

-- Political activist Lawrence Lessig makes the same analysis as well of connecting wall street money influencing politicians. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/occupywallst-then-occupyk_b_995547.html ---you can find many more youtube clips of protesters saying the exact same thing.

B) Now, where are they getting their numbers from? - Source cited by OWS participants in online forums include: the Center for Responsible politics:“ForTheWinnebago 2 points 5 days ago Observe why this is not an issue of Dem v Rep http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ Follow the money” - A post from the occupy Wall street forum again also cites opensecrets: http://occupywallst.org/forum/march-on-the-white-house/ - Youtube clip of protesters and the news channel does the analysis of wall street numbers to Obama as revealed by the sunlight foundation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAnrCJy4n3U - These two article although the author may not be a protestor also cites opensecrtes and also Sunlight Foundation and specific figures http://politisite.com/2011/10/10/occupy-wall-street-fact-check-which-president-received-more-wall-street-money-bush-or-obama/ and http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/#ixzz1abTNuYmm

So what part of my summary of these things are OR? Yes, I cite the primary resources where people can get the numbers themselves, but the source itself and these numbers have been what protestors have already been stating.

It's not that complicated. Just talk to any protester about these two in specific: 1. Audit or end the fed. All we know about it is from this partial audit which showed that trillions were spent. 2. Wall Street has influence over politicians via granting them campaign funds as roostrikers said, as that one protester aboves says, as many have said. The source of this information are all the same which is the Center for responsbile politcs, Opensecrets.org and Sunlight — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also not origial research when in the background section Adbusters say the exact same thing: Adbusters stated that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America. ---All I did was provide the primary sources where they got their numbers from. And also notice how I just stated things as descriptive statements, not analysis statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not even responding to my comments. Have you actually read WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:No original research? I'm guessing not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing any good reason to keep any of the information. You either gathered the information from youtube protest videos, from activists (who are not NPOV), from protestors (your information from Christian Post cites a protestor), or from individuals who are directly involved with the protests. The only real source that has any form of verifiability is from opensecrets, and even then that is iffy as they do not transparently release their financial documentation. This is WP:OR and a direct violation of WP:NPOV. This information does not belong on here as it is WP:SYN and does not follow the standards of WP:RELIABLE. Facebook is an WP:SPS, and none of the information appears to be peer reviewed. Even in your analysis, you utilise WP:WEASEL Words: "BASICALLY: Protesters know that the partial Audit revealed trillions were given out- that and thus some say to fully audit the fed." Your argument is not concise, and none of the information is fully verifiable. Until such a time that the information matches the resources, I will be reverting this edit-- you did contribute a significant amount of work, however almost none of it is reliable, and sources that are do not back up the points being made. Ampersandestet (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Excessive list of locations in infobox

Would it not be better to just list the countries the protests are taking place in? I think at least all the US cities should be replaced simply by United States. It serves to nothing but to disrupt the article with an unreadable list of every single town there has been a protest. For those interested, there already is a separate article with the list of locaions. —Filippusson (t.) 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's going to have to be done sooner or later fellas... LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See: List of "Occupy" protest locations and its talk page. MPS pointed out the problem on the talk page there. I personally checked all of the infobox cities and references and made sure they were incorporated into the list. I then removed all of the cities and references from the infobox to avoid duplication problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Racial issues

there seems to be an anti-semitic streak among the protesters. i would like to add a new section titled racial issues to cover this part of the story. any objections? [18] Darkstar1st (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One nutball doesn't equal an "anti-semitic streak among the protesters". It didn't either when there was this guy. All you've done now is elicit another discourse about agent provocateurs. Have you no decency sir? LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And before it gets said, TWO nutballs isn't a streak either. Have you ever been on a college campus? LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many objections to that being given undue weight. 67.142.161.30 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on this, and the same consensus was attained. There is no merit to this. OpposeAmpersandestet (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OccupyWiki.org

Only up today, I believe, but in a few days this site may want to be reevaluated for inclusion in External Links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.129.51.253 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge "We are the 99%" article in to "Occupy Wall Street" article???

Should the article We are the 99% be merged with this article??? I already suggested that it be on the articles own page. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• No. A part of the "We are the 99%" is a significant online movement which to cover in full would have content extraneous to this article. JORGENEV 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what content could you possibly put into the We are the 99% article that would be extraneous to this one? Turkey trots to water...the whole world wonders. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The extensive debate about the accuracy of the slogan and its status as a meme on the internet maybe? JORGENEV 05:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I see about discussing "the extensive debate" is that in practice that gets represented in content in Wikipedia by giving three (or six, or whatever) quotes on one side and an equal amount on the other (or not). "WARThree quotes on each side. What is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. Give the reader one line that the accuracy of the slogan is debated. We can fit that in here, no problem. As for encyclopedic content regarding internet memes, I'll admit, that's not my forte. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• No. This article is large enough as it is; I don't see the value of merging other articles into this. Moreover, "We are the 99%" is common to all Occupy movements, and could be linked to from articles about any of the protests to explain the meaning, so it makes sense to put it in its own article. Bennetto (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo of "Writer and 2006 New York gubernatorial candidate Malachy McCourt at Zucotti Park"

This guy hardly seems notable and isn't even mentioned in the article. Does this image add anything to the encyclopedic content we've got? There are already numerous images. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur and do find that a replacement image should be found and attributed accordingly, if an image is necessary at all. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have been generously uploading images they have taken (and good quality too). I'm sure there is something illuminating that could be put in its place. No more boobies though, we've discussed that to death. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the internet powered off of [expletive deleted] or GTFO ? Agreed, there should be a better picture, hopefully of someone listed in the article. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Internet might be, but Wikipedia isn't. I'm a little torn on the photo, too. On one hand, Malachy McCourt is not a nobody by any stretch; on the other hand, it's a stretch to call him a politician since he ran for office only once. I think for a section devoid of photos, it works; but if someone were to remove it I wouldn't object. --David Shankbone 04:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed it as there is no real objection to the matter. If there are any further objections, I guess they can be discussed here. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Protests spread worldwide"

The last sentence in this paragraph (actually, now it's the second-to-last) is followed by no fewer than eight footnotes. If all those footnotes are really there to substantiate a single sentence, it would seem several of them are unnecessary. And if, instead, some of those footnotes are actually there to substantiate claims appearing earlier in the paragraph, then those notes are misplaced. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked through all of those footnotes and most of them are just general links to occupy related sites that do not directly support any of the sections statements. For example, one footnote merely links to a e-mail directory of occupy sites. I could get a reputation for being one who wants to remove everything, but I only saw one site that look worthy of keeping. As I have posted above I don't think Facebook and Meetup pages belong here. XantheTerra (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite WP:HUMAN I can't add the protest in Dublin, Ireland - verified here and here and the organisers' website.86.42.195.97 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of Events

Please add the following in the chronology of events. 9/29/2011: The American People’s New Economic Charter initiated.

Thank you.JenYouWin (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Jen

Changes to the Demand Section

Under the Demans and Goals section, can you please add this as the third paragraph under "Public Discussion over focus":

Although there is not yet an official declaration that encompasses all demands of the entire Occupy Movement, one group is building on the wisdom of many to address the unifying concern: the economy. The “American People’s New Economic Charter” is a crowd-sourced document that is deliberately inclusive and is paving the way for an action plan.

thank you. JenYouWin (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Many suggestions have come in as for us to list the "demands" or whatever for OWS. However the problem is in determining who really speaks for all those people? We need to rely on WP:RS saying this or that document is representative. In this case what started as a "A Crowd-sourced Expression of Popular Will - Created by & for the 99%" changed to "DUE TO REPEATED SABOTAGE OF THIS TEXT AT APPROX. 8:00 AM EDT (Eastern US), TUESDAY, 10/4, FREE EDITING ACCESS HAS BEEN CLOSED. Only members of the Charter Collaborative can edit and comment." Is that what democracy looks like? LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Occupation

I'm quite surprised that there is so much attention on the wikipedia page relating to ambiguity on what the occupation is demanding. On September 30, the New York General Assembly published this concise statement. It should definitely be mentioned on this page, probably in full:

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage. They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses. They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization. They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices. They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions. They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right. They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay. They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility. They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance. They have sold our privacy as a commodity. They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit. They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit. They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit. They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media. They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt. They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world, We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power. Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone. To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Join us and make your voices heard!

• These grievances are not all-inclusive.

--Lskil09 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's tough claiming to represent the voice of the people, when the people have declared they have no one voice. Any any case, we are not a Samizdat publishing house. Love the "These grievances are not all-inclusive" part though, I'll have to use that line myself. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree - for sure, it's only a statement from people in NY. But while they can only speak for themselves, they were the first and biggest group to speak. Since none other group (to my knowledge) have, I think it still warrants a prominent mention on the wikipedia page - even with the "non-representative" provisos. You may also like to see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ju_N9wreGI&feature=player_embedded#! --Lskil09 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski got The New York Times and Washington Post to publish his manifesto in full. Even with that degree of coverage we don't include the manifesto verbatim in that article. When NYCGA's declaration gets significant coverage in reliable sources, a couple of sentences in the article, and an external link should be considered. By the way, regarding its tone, Sean Penn called and asked if you could turn it down a notch. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The sheer fact that there is the provisio of "These grievances are not all-inclusive" means that we can not make an objective statement in regard to the demands being made, and would be forced to rely upon ambiguous language: "The grievances include, but are not limited to, _____".While that is a delight for legal briefs and legislation, it does not make a good addition to an encyclopedia. Additionally, your request that the entirety of the text be posted in full is a bit too far. Yet again, if more sources pick up on this information to make it meet the requirements for WP:SPS then an appropriate summary might be made available. If the Magna Carta is given a summary version (with links to the full version appropriated), then it would stand to reason that a self-published list of demands would not be posted in full. Ampersandestet (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A google news search for "Declaration of Occupation" does return hits, but unfortunately most of the are Bay Area Indymedia and the like. Articles like this and this are really mocking in tone a bit paternalistic in tone, but sympathetic. A NYT search returned hits for several opinion pieces, and I looked at one CityRoom story. I guess my point is, "its not been taken seriously". LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was one prominent reporting of the declaration I'm aware of. Keith Olbermann read the declaration in full on his show and then later interviewed its author's on air.

• Keith Olbermann reads the first collective statement of Occupy Wall Street
• Keith Olbermann speaks with ‘Declaration of the Occupation of New York City’ co-authors Ryan Hoffman and Lex Rendon
• Ryan Hoffman and Lex Rendon on the making of the Occupy Wall Street Declaration

--Cast (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann is a commentator, and only one individual. I still doubt its notability. Ampersandestet (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, well if there's one person who I would guess would have done that it's Olbermann. I wouldn't say that's enough yet, but getting closer. So if mention of it was to be in the article, where? 3.3.1 Organizational processes and infrastructure > New York City General Assembly? Problem is it is conflicting with the whole "Public discussion over focus and lack of "official list of demands"" section which is about public commentary about the, uh, lack of demands. I can only imagine the fun we would be having in 1936 editing the demands Republicans side in Spanish Civil War article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no list of demands. . . here is our list of demands ! It would require a lot of editing in order to incorporate the fact that a formal demandless organisation grew to be an organisation that wrote down demands that only some of them might agree to. Ah, there is a definite lack of objectivity and I fear that any direct statement will just be wrought with WP:WEASEL. But, I digress. I feel that inclusion of that information needs to be carefully written when it is appropriate and notable to do so in a format that does not contradict any other information nor invoke any manual of style errors. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same declaration? This declaration lists no demands. It lists grievances. Anyway, I think this should go under the demands and goals, in a separate sub-section on grievances. --Cast (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that is more a fault of the section title. I would prefer the title change to "Grievances, demands and goals" and maybe parse all three out below in sub-sections(?).— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveUxoxo (talk • contribs) 2011-10-13T18:49:44‎

Apologies, I meant grievances. In any case, I question the inclusion of grievances, simply due to the fact that they are not complete and there is no indication that the entirety of the protesters claim them as their own. It will need to be drafted very carefully once it is notable in order to avoid "some protesters" without making it a universal claim. I really do not feel as if that would be possible, unless the organisation that published the list of grievances is the sole representation of the protesters named. . . but that is a rather dangerous precedent. How do you propose to include this information ? Ampersandestet (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree; 'grievances' would be an appropriate sub-heading. Hmm but i don't think the universality difficulty is too problematic. At the start of the subsection we could put that individual protesters "can only speak for themselves", and the general assemblies only reflect the temporary majority consensus in that one area, at that one time (?) --Lskil09 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I were handling this alone... I would quote it at an extreme minimum, or wouldn't quote the declaration at all. I would quote the interview on how it was drafted as an example of the consensus decision making process in the section on the General Assembly. Then, in the section on grievances, I would also quote the interview on why they decided to draft this list of grievances. That way the article remains consistent on the point that the GA only speaks for a given moment. And if Keith Olbermann made any pointed comments about why it is a list of grievances, and not a list of demands, I would quote that too—and he has. Observe 1:40—2:27 of Olbermann's recitation, which begins with this preamble: "That the document that I will read in full in a moment is not a list of laws to be repealed, nor politicians to be elected, may only confuse the precocious 9th graders now passing for TV anchor news men these days; but the absence of the kind of painted footsteps with which they used to mark the floors of dance instruction studios is, in a way, breathtaking. The two-by-four that Errol Louis described. [In an earlier interview, Errol Louis described the occupation as being like the city of New York has been hit by a two-by-four.] It implies that there is so much to change—that such a tipping point has been reached—that some easy-to-apply Band-Aids are just not going to be enough. And it implies that the commentators and politicians and moneyed-interests that do not come to understand the scope of what must change will be without influence and without power before they realize that the change has happened." --Cast (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Very clever Cast, an interesting approach. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this approach. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable way to get consensus on beginning a sub-section for this topic. Is someone with editing privileges able to have a go drafting/publishing something now?--Lskil09 (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of quoting reliable third party sources (e.g. not blogs/forums/homebrewjournalism) who have reported on the document and who rightly attribute the document to the "protestors" who wrote it and approved it but not necc. everyone there. Agree that we don't need to quote it ... we can find a summary of the document and attribute the summary to a journalist/analyst. MPS (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation updates needed

Despite some great work being done, the article is still very heavy on references to forums, blogs, social media, etc. I recommend the removal of those sources as soon as possible, to avoid having sections of the article get removed. Let's take a look at WP:Reliable and freshen things up. Tgeairn (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a general consensus around these lines, and it is a definite "to be done" on my list, however time-exhausting it might prove. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Boston and Tarek Mehanna

I removed this which was in the "Week 4 (October 8 – October 14)" section under the premise that this article is OWS, not the specifics of other occupy movements other than mentioning they exist. Another editor feels differently. Along with the fact that it is Boston, not Wall Street, it doesn't concern the (basically) economic message of the protest, and manages to call Tarek Mehanna an "accused terrorist" (who?). Anyone else have an opinion? LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the rmv-- any other information can go on the "Occupy" Protest wikipage. Ampersandestet (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a section on protest around the world and a picture of one in Portland, Oregon. It is pretty much safe to say that the protest is not just about economics and he has been arrested on aiding a terrorist attack. Truthsort (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not shutdown -- encampment still there

• Defended by 3000 NYCers, Bloomberg faces first defeat, and, perhaps for the first time in 2500 years, democracy wins!
• This needs to be put at the head of the article, and there needs to be Wiki News reporting--John Bessa (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This POV-pushing and OR-laden edit needs to be removed from the article or edited drastically. I won't do it myself, because I already made a reversion at this article today; I'll rely on another editor to do it. But what you added is utterly inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just made a "drive by" edit... Not sure if it was already solved, but I just moved the part about "current situation: Bloomberg rebuffed! first time ever!" to the timeline section and molded language to be a little more NPOV. my edit diff here Could someone check the refs to see if there is any information to be added. Thanks, MPS (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the drive-by MPS, is much better, LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Further edited and moved to the "Sanitation" section. Comments? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"As of October 11, the City had not received one complaint about sanitation at the park"

Some problems with this. What the supporting source actually says is that when called for comment, an unidentified city worker said there had not been a single complaint registered at the Sanitation Department's dedicated 311 line regarding sanitary conditions in the park. This is very different from saying there have been no complaints about sanitation, a claim which seems to be refuted by the fact that Bloomberg actually ordered the park to be vacated so it could be cleaned, as well as other sources discussing complaints about "unsanitary conditions and offensive odors" which have "reached a fever pitch". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This claim has been repeated in other sources, and this section could be far more expanded with other material I am aware of that disputes the city/Brookfield statements about the condition of the park. And both the City and Brookfield have as clear a bias as a protester quoted saying the park is sparkling clean. If reliable sources print stories that dispute the condition of the park as a filthy trash hole we are going to use them. --David Shankbone 01:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But you certainly aren't implying we should have let the inaccurate factual claim stand. I edited it to reflect the cited source and prevent the article from contradicting itself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama administration has just approved a $168.9 million loan guarantee to the owner of Zuccotti Park

Source

I think this should be mentioned in the article.

What do other editors think?

Mk2z0h (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of a fringe claim. Has anyone else picked up the story? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether true or not, I think it's irrelevant. It immediately leads to a "So what does that have to do with OWS?" --David Shankbone 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My vote is that this story sounds speculative and i don't even understand what their claim is--it sounds too similar to the "Soros-funded" mis-[in my opinion]-connected story-line) -

though it is 100% "1%" of an article (to use the adj)

How has no one on this page or the article mentioned (I searched) either word: TARP / tarp

Sorry for the mis-posting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.179.205 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the note. Regarding Tarp, it's a good question, and the only answer that I have is that we are trying to keep from defining the movement's issues until the movement defines itself. That seems to be happening more. Could you provide some mainstream sources that identify Tarp as a principle cause of the protests. I know it is, but if you could help us out with some links to newspaper/magazine stories that would be awesome. --David Shankbone 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

i think i'm literally the first person that thought of it. Or some news editor would have used it and it would spread. Er, "spread the tarp" is actually a good slogan. So i think i got it first (or it's not as catchy as i think :) For the record, doesn't the symbolism provide a perfectly good legal argument why the tarps should be allowed?

--Jon Stone 67.84.179.205 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (whatever those do)

Why are some tarps legal and others not? --David Shankbone 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the movement is defining itself as slowly as it needs to, to stay as inclusive as possible. And I don't think there is a 1% - 99% division, as this logical proof provides: there is support in the top 2% etc, therefore there is support in the 1% too...

The movement succeeded. There is majority support, so only care must be taken, and discourse, and bravery. It may not be 99% by head count, but it will be!

Yes yours is better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.179.205 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, everyone. Since the consensus is against inclusion, I will not add it to the article. Mk2z0h (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

resource related to Anna Hazare

• Occupy Wall Street: What Businesses Need to Know ... The demonstrators are asserting their stake in American business posted on Harvard Business Review October 14, 2011 8:27 AM via Bloomberg Businessweek; excerpt ...

  The anti-corruption sentiment had been smoldering for decades until it burst into flame with the jailing last August of Anna Hazare, widely regarded as a trustworthy, honest, and humble social activist. Despite longstanding complaints about bribery and cronyism, the vehemence of the subsequent demonstrations took government officials and others by surprise. In some respects, there are parallels with Occupy Wall Street: The U.S. movement draws its greatest media attention when protesters are arrested, and despite longstanding complaints about the financial industry’s role in the recession and worldwide downturn, industry leaders were blindsided by the tenacity of the demonstrators in lower Manhattan.

99.190.85.250 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reuters says a police officer on a scooter ran over a protestor.

Reuters states: "One police officer ran over a man's leg with his scooter."

However, this video of the incident shows that the police officer on the scooter was going well below walking speed, and that the protestor deliberately lied down on the ground, and placed his leg in harm's way.

If this incident gets reported in the wikipedia article, we have to explain this, because it was actually the protestor, not the police officer, who instigated this incident. The Reuters article is worded in such a way as to put the blame on the wrong person.

Mk2z0h (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In the rush of the news cycle initial stories are often incorrect. However, you can't write in the article "...but as can been seen in this video" and then explanation of what the video shows because that is WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

US constitutional convention

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

How to make a graphics lab request?

I noticed that all of the graphs in Income inequality in the United States end before 2008. So I asked about it and was told that this site had more recent data, and to ask to improve them on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Would someone who needs less sleep than I do please do the needful? Thank you. Dualus (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict - request for opinion

I would like opinions regarding this wording from the Celebrity section:

NYT best-selling author and SMU economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement.[137][138] Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the USA. Ravi Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions, in his best selling books in the 1980s. In 2007, he wrote a book titled "The Golden New Age: the coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[139]

I had edited this editors previous (similar) entry to read:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that the tax and benefit legislation in the USA since the Reagan Presidency has contributed greatly to the inequalities and economic problems. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[137]

His section is currently about twice as long as the other personalities - the average is about four or less lines. It does not need to include the SMU or the "best-selling" wording. His books and further opinions, etc., may be found at his article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoo hoo...still looking for feedback. Look at this guy's article and I'm not even sure he should be in the article - we certainly can't list every Tom, Dick, and Harry with their views on the protest. How many people have ever heard of this guy? Furthermore, I am not happy that the editor that wants this info included believes that s/he is above commenting on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First, you made extensive changes to the article without discussing with anybody. Second, it seems you need to keep up with the edits. For instance, I reverted before you posted here.

13:03, 15 October 2011‎ Plankto (talk | contribs)‎ (97,002 bytes) (→Celebrity commentary: Agree with Gandydancer and revert own changes, fix) (undo)

Length is a function of relevance and secondary sources. Batra has plenty of notability concerning OWS as is now brought out more clearly in the text - thanks to your prompting.Plankto (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First, if we are going to split hairs, you made an extensive change when you decided that a (presently) little-known author deserved twice the length of article space as any other "celebrity" in the list. Second, you made your edit while I was making my talk page edit, and to say that I was not keeping up with edits is absurd. As for your statement, "Length is a function of relevance", can't disagree with you there! And that is exactly why I trimmed your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability, Batra's books were #1. on New York Times Best Seller list for months on end in late 1987. He has been featured in Time and Newsweek magazines, been on all the major networks, etc.. He was awarded a medal by the Italian Senate in 1991 for accurately predicting the downfall of Soviet Communism in 1978. At the same time, he predicted the downfall of Capitalism within 25 and 50 years. For what its worth, it's all playing out as predicted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gandydancer here, when I saw the long-version I thought it was giving far to much weight to one person's opinion over others.LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please suggest what text you think is irrelevant and warrants being omitted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the word "best-selling" twice in the first paragraph is appalling. With that and putting in a plug for one of his books those edits are using this article as a coatrack to talk about Batra. I don't want to ask why you think Batra's opinion carries so much wore weight than others, I'm sure you have your reasons. Other people have their reasons why someone else deserves mention in this section, which is rapidly becoming WP:TRIVIA. But it is somewhat arrogant of you to think that your opinion as to notability decrees that it should be given twice as much content as others. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Having a a NYT bestseller in 1987 does not satisfy WP:NOTE. If there is significant coverage of Batra's opinion from verifiable third party sources, then perhaps it might merit inclusion. The length and tone of the section borders on violation of both WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. My vote is for immediate deletion. Bowmerang (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 October 2011

Please add the following link, this link contains current images from the New York Occupy Wall Street movement and will be updated on a regular basis: http://paulhodara.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street.html Phodara (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:EL --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

"In an editorial titled "The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street," Celebrity Net Worth wrote, "Occupy Wall Street's slogan 'We are the 99%' is derived from the idea that they represent the difference in wealth that separates the top 1% and every other American citizen... So why are multi-millionaire celebrities showing up to offer their support and grab attention? And why is Occupy Wall Street taking them seriously?""

There is absolutely no evidence that OWS is taking these people seriously as is impleid. There is also no reason why rich celebrity person shouldn't support policies for the benefit of low income earners and cohesion within society. --Rebestein (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Net Worth appears to meet the standards for reliable sources. A better idea would be to find a source which presents a counter idea, or suggest a rephrasing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: demands and goals: Healthcare and more

The "demands and goals" section of the article does not include any reference to the issues people bring to the front in http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

People on this site talk about problems of not having healthcare insurance, high healthcare costs, no jobs or low paying jobs and/or jobs below education level, high loans, insufficient 401k pension funds, loss of jobs / property value / ... due to the financial crisis. These people obviously are protesting to do something about these problems. It should at least be mentioned in goals.

And yes, health-care is a human right according to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the United Nations and many many others.--Myodus (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Is twitter down?

No. Use [19] in the future--Львівське (говорити) 23:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nowa, please put content within the section Talk and include four tilde signature, please. 99.19.46.253 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Global financial system wikilink?

The global financial system is mentioned often in association with OWS, shouldn't there be a wikilink to the wp article? 99.35.13.16 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See also list

The "See also" list should NOT be alphabetized. Specific protests should be sorted in chronological or anti-chronological order, and the few non-time-specific articles should be listed separately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that time-specific articles have been moved a different section, which ordered alphabetically. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)