Talk:Occupy Wall Street

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

Is this straighforward enoough to be included

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

Could you please edit things better before inserting them on the main article? Two typos in half a line -as with the heading above- are fine for the talk page, but not for the article. And sometimes your wording doesn't make sense. B^e——C_ritical 04:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Two typos - which I fixed _ over the worst writing possible. Not a bad trade off. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced POV tag

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

Noting user above currently has an indefinite block due to disruption. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Noting the irrelevance of 72's note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that Dualus has been blocked for disruptive editing, such as replacing the POV tag against consensus? I have trouble understanding your logic. Bowmerang (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bowmerang, logic/reason is not the way of 174.49.47.34, note eir comments in Criticism thread below. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of this image in the "Media" section

What is the point of this image?

[[:File:Nytimes occupywallstreet.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The New York Times had changed its media coverage of the event on October 6th

---

This file may be deleted after Monday, 31 October 2011.

]]

Realize that online newspapers change their headlines, sub-headers, and article content very often. It happens hundreds of times per day every day in the United States. There are several main reasons - initial sloppy copy-editing in the push to publish first, evolving stories, a victim's family was then notified and so they then posted the name, etc. Very rarely are any of the reasons due to self-censorship, and rarer still are the reasons sinister. So the NYT simply changing their headline is entirely non-notable (WP:NN).

Also, I think their first header is more POV than the second. The first headline seems written by an OWS supporter while the second is bland, boring, but balanced -- how a newspaper should be.

What is the point of the image? Make a statement which can then be argued on its merits. No more weasel images!

Ufwuct (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldlike to know what authority you have to state that newspapers change their headlines etc. very often. I find that it is less often an update when pertaining to the New York Times than it is their failure to get correct facts among other things. Also NYT is a very liberal paper so I garuntee that anything that have to say about Occupy won't be anything bad.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The image is POV and UNDUE and should be deleted. Bowmerang (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Seems to have no context to the prose and the content is based on general updates that most news services make daily. No controversy in this and non notable.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the image. There appears to be consensus to support its removal. Bowmerang (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox civil conflict

I think the Template:Infobox civil conflict is perfectly appropriate for this article. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems to fit the parameters of the template. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Free Network Foundation

This appears to be a relaible source. [1] and has some good information about free communication towers being supllied and some fund raising. Also is more sourcing for the communications section.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Support System>Library

Could you change the line: In addition to the physical collection, the library maintains a web site and an online catalog that is updated as materials are received, and posts updates on Twitter, , and Tumblr.[220]

to: In addition to the physical collection, the library maintains a web site and an online catalog that is updated as materials are received, and posts updates on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and Tumblr.[220]

Could you add a link to the following articles: A Library Occupies the Heart of the Occupy Movement Christian Zabriskie, American Libraries, October 18, 2011 http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/news/10182011/library-occupies-heart-occupy-movement?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=amlibraries

Occupy Wall Street's Library Keeps Growing Shelley M. Diaz, School Library Journal, October 20, 2011 http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/home/892496-312/occupy_wall_streets_library_keeps.html.csp Ali3r4K (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever nominated it gave no reason why to delete it, so there is nothing to discuss.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Why even bother mentioning what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have to say in this article? I suggest getting rid of that, they have no relevance to this movement. --Caute AF (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's to help build solidarity, so the page could grow some momentum. Now that we're past the critical "hump" of needed momentum, it's fine if you remove it. We initially put it there to make them look bad, but we don't have to let their comments litter our article. Kinda like the "recycled watering of plants" which was a good idea early on, but outlived its usefulness and relevance. 완젬스 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reread it again. It's not even valid criticism, so I removed it. 완젬스 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I will not argue the point, however I have felt all along that critics such as Limbaugh and Beck are as important to the article as the supporters are. Keep in mind that they have the support of millions of Americans. As for being outdated, isn't that what we basically do - document the past? Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was cherry-picked and does not honestly reflect them. It's just like if you used this abortion comment by Obama which some right-wingers also cherry-picked to try and sum up Obama's view on abortion. It's flatly dishonest to aggrandize people who do not agree with us on OWS, and it undermines our integrity to this article if we overlook these subtle points and hold a double standard for certain points of view. 완젬스 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It astounds me and you people ave the audacity to admit your blatantly deceitful tactics in this discussion page.So you added useless infromation that your admittedly cherry-picked just to make Beck and Limbaugh look bad? And now that it has served your purpose it is OK to delete it? The editors of this article should be ashamed of everything they have done. This has passed the point of ridiculousness. It is amazing how this extremely controversial movement that, according to gallop polling, has less than 20% support from the overall American population has next to nomention of any criticism at all. And the criticism it does have is half-baked, not real criticism about irrelevant things from irrelevant authorities just so you editors can say "look, we are NPOV". Then when anyone brings this forward you get all your friends to log on and give opposing "consensus" and the same 10 editors are the only ones giving consensus.I am appalled.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I undid this edit before reading the comment here. (When the edit was made, the editor should have writtten "see discussion page"). I agree and I put Beck and Limbaugh's criticism back in there. It is relevant since it is both of their initial comments made about the movement. They said little or nothing about the movement when it started and when they TOOK the opportunity to make a statement (the movement was growing and they couldn't ignore it, apparently) this is what they came up with. They do speak for millions and here's their opening sally. Gandydancer is right on both accounts. They represent millions and wikipedia does "document the past". Christian Roess (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Media section information removed

I question the removal of this information from the media section. The edit summary suggested it was too much weight and dated. However I believe that since it is from a media theorist it is certainly not too much weight, and I do not see it to be dated as well.

Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized the mainstream media for dismissing the protesters. "Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher." Rushkoff says that Occupy Wall Street is the first true Internet-era movement, and as such, it does not have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint. Unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus.

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I read his Wiki page and this sentence pretty much erased his qualifications to be used.

• He is currently a PhD candidate at Utrecht University's New Media Program, writing a dissertation on new media literacies.[11]

We could pull anybody's opinion from the entire movement, and nobody is more qualified than another. I expected Douglas Rushkoff to be a harvard professor or someone who is especially qualified to be the only unique opinion used here. It's just a matter of whether this whole paragraph really justifies special inclusion, when it doesn't add anything insightful, unusually interesting, or broadly encyclopedic. What is it specifically you're trying to add to the article, which is found in this deleted paragraph? We can simply add whatever information you think the article is now lacking? Even his comment is outdated, since now there is plenty of news coverage every single hour on all news networks. Also it's an opinion piece, but please don't make me cite specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines unless you're really, really wanting a thorough/robust response. It's also a little bit soapboxy, even if we agree with him. 완젬스 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, his calling a "media theorist" falls short of empirical social sciences. It's not even a "historic viewpoint" yet. 완젬스 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well no need to worry about "specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines", since I am the last person to know much about that! It sounds to me like you've made a good case for the removal. When I have time I will get back to it and post again if I still do not agree. BTW, I usually don't even look at your edits because I feel that they are always good - it just happens that I was using that information in another article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also truthfully, I get kinda paranoid about looking for Lawrence Lessig type of stuff, ever since we had that nightmare editor Dualus still around. Every time I see "self-promotion" now, I always get very analytical and read into it critically to make sure it's not another type of soapboxing. Every time I see a paragraph which seems superfluous, I get highly cautious about how to deal with it. I read his wiki-page and I learned so much about what's worthy of inclusion, when we fought against Dualus trying to pervade all the OWS pages with plugs to Lawrence Lessig, so forgive me if you were the one who originally added it, since I trust you too. Feel free to add it back if you want it since I definitely want you sticking around as an editor on this article! I'll bend over backwards to keep you here, now that Dualus is gone. :-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have had time to again read Rushkoff's article here and the CNN article and I find that we are in complete disagreement. Actually I did not make this edit, however I remember that when I read it some time ago my reaction was, "What a great find by a person so well-able to know what they are talking about!". Firstly, I can't follow your thinking when you say, "Yeah, I read his Wiki page and this sentence pretty much erased his qualifications to be used. He is currently a PhD candidate at Utrecht University's New Media Program, writing a dissertation on new media literacies." When I read his page I was very impressed with his accomplishments and felt that they were unusually well-related to the issues. I find his take on "the first true Internet-era movement" and "Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus" to be very important to the article. As I said, I only realized that his info disappeared from the article while I was in the process of working on some additional copy to the "Occupy movement" article, which suggests, I guess, that I really do find it important! Well anyway, our trust is mutual and you seem to have no objection to putting it back...OK? Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no objections, and if I knew it was remotely significant to you in the first place, I would have never taken it out to begin with. :-) Happy editing, 완젬스 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

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

Should the fact that antisemitism has also been widely reported be reflected in the article.513 hit on G news The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazism discussion

• No, not until the Nazi Party supports OWS with money or man hours, and the fact is widely reported. A simple endorsement without concrete support is an empty endorsement. It is WP:Undue weight to list empty endorsements. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, the sources above are widespread, but I wish you'd point out the best ones per WP:RS. Even those I looked up thinking they were the best like the Boston Herald turned out to be crap [2]. Is there anything good in that list? B^e——C_ritical 01:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had the same experience - I picked three I thought must be the "best" and they were total crap. Then I quit looking... Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - The Nazi Party and Communist Party are fringe - but the coverage of their support is not. This is widely spread, and there is no reason to keep it off. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No: The ANP has done nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support". Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable, and should not be mentioned at all. It serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. We don't mention Hitler in the article on vegetarianism, do we? Same rule applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. This is little more than a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Wikipedia should have no part in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I see that TLAM is still citing 'Media Matters' on this, in spite of the headline in the linked article: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not yet It may yet become evident that those in the movement share those views, but simply being supported by them would be a guilt by association. Also, I fail to see this as a "smear campaign" as ATG would say since the media has by and large not reported on any of the transgressions committed by OWS participants. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - Seems like an obvious case of guilt by association. Hundreds of "groups/parties" have mentioned support for OWS. Why just mention these two? NickCT (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - Mention these two because it is widely covered and they are fairly significant. It's also covered that the Black Panthers support the group so we should add that in there too as controversy because that's what it is. AndyGrump is nothing more than an apologetic propagandist come on here to do damage control for his OWS buddies.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, because it's not true, apparently. I think it's just a false meme. Looking at the sources, I'm skipping the one likes Drudge and the Tehran paper and a lot of the rest of them because they're obviously not reliable sources... looking for entities with some kind of reputation, I come to the Boston Herald. It's an opinion columnist, and he says that OWS is endorsed by a list of entities including the American Nazi Party and the government of the People's Republic of China... this seems unlikely to be true, so I can't trust this source... next, the reputable LA Times... but its a gossip column (the "Ministry of Gossip")... it says "Meanwhile, the American Nazi Party on Sunday issued a statement of support for the Occupy Wall Street crowd" and they have a link. But the link is here, which has says nothing of the sort, is not any kind of official statement, and doesn't mention Occupy Wall Street or come close... so this appears to be false. (There doesn't seem to be anything about Occupy Wall Street on the American Nazi Party website, that I could find.) Moving on, we have to drop a little in reliability, let's look at the Jacksonville Courier... it is not a news story but something called "Open Line", which may be an opinion column but is not signed and, inferring from its name, is just a place where readers can post stuff... whatever it is, it appears to be a stream-of-consciousness post by a stoned or deranged person... it says ""The Wall Street Mob has gained some interesting supporters. Among them, The American Nazi Party..." with no support for that. I have zero confidence that the writer is reliable or even sober. How many more of these do I have to look at? And these are the best ones. My patience is exhausted with this subject and with the the editor initiating the RfC, who appears to be a troll. (FWIW, even if it was true it's trivial, of course.) Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[3] The ANP report was archived, so yes they have endorsed OWS. You appear to have missed a great many of the reliable sources which were posted, such as Fox, Politico, Washington post. Perhaps you ought look again at the sources presented? The point is this is widely reported on, millions of people will have read about it and then look here and see not a word, this damages wiki`s credibility. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine, but still. Who is the American Nazi Party and what is their organizational structure? Does that page constitute an actual endorsement by vote of any central committee, or is it basically some blogger who has discovered the wonders of the CAPS LOCK key? How many members do they have? What is there notability in the public discourse? If their name was "American Committee for Public Knowledge" instead of the inflammatory word "Nazi" how notable would this be? The fact is that I could convene a meeting of myself and my cats, call ourselves the Trotskyist Front, create a blog and endorse OWS, and if this was picked up by Drudge and Fox News and the Tehran papers, so what? This is maybe one step above "OWS was endorsed by Mrs. Pinckney Pruddle of 27 Hummingbird Lane, Sandusky, Ohio". It's not a notable event, at all. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No per NickCT. Why not start a List of individuals and organizations that have endorsed Occupy Wall Street? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Townhall has a full editorial staff and meets the criteria as [[W{:RS]] The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No because it's just guilt by association. Nothing could be more opposite from how these protests really are, than by linking them to Nazism. 완젬스 (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No ANP is not relevant, their support is not relevant. Connecting them and their alleged support to the OWS is WP:SYN and even throwing the ANP, nevermind Nazism in the article is WP:UNDUE.--Львівське (говорити) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Support is reported in WP:RS. WP is not censored. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• yes widely reported as fact. supports OWS with money or man hours, that is a benefactor/volunteer, not endorsement. Boston Herald turned out to be crap, http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 Oct 18, Todd Gregory. non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement, none of which are requirements for notability. a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Few members of the ANP can actually read, no chance in hell they are members of the press. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No It's a poorly-sourced fringe issue attempting to link the movement to the Nazi party. I don't see this sort of accusation in the hundreds of articles that have been written on the protests in the mainstream media. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) poorly sourced? The American Nazi Party chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Absolutely not. Not only are the groups fringe, but there are no reliable sources reporting any connection whatsoever. Beyond the reporting that this is a right-wing attempt to connect the groups to the group this article is about, there is no sourcing at all. Seeing as there is definite sourcing about the attempt to connect these groups to these protesters, perhaps we should look at the attempts to enter the information in the same manner. The editor/s who are making these attempts all seem to have the same goals. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No We don't serve as the mouthpiece for the American Nazi Party. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Obvious fringe problem but inclusion is also a weight problem: there is not any indication why this is a significant item that merits inclusion. The import of information should be obvious to our readers, but at the very least we should be able to explain its inclusion to our readers. Saying "Nazis support OWS" leads to the question, "So what?" and there is no good answer. The opinions of Nazis hold no value in any society. wp:GHITS and politically-motivated Op-Eds aren't persuasive. This is the same guilt by association nonsense that Americans saw in the 2008 election with Hamas endorses Obama; Al Qaeda endorses McCain. --David Shankbone 23:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Lots of groups are trying to co-opt this movement, but it is a de-centralized, non-hierarchical movement. That gives it a low Drag coefficient that, miraculously, attracts many groups whose own agendas are floundering. For example, why is there widespread union support for OWS? The Union leadership announces their support. So that must mean everyone who belongs to such-and-such union needs to fall in line. Right? But then read the fine print. Because the bottom line is the "Union bosses" realized they were losing their own Rank and file to the movement (ie., their people were showing up at the occupy locations). Let's just say it was "expedient" for the unions to show support for the Occupy movements. But Unions are part of the OWS mix. They aren't dictating anything to OWS. OWS is not part of the Unions. Unions need OWS alot more than OWS needs them. (I would guess that the Nazi movement needs help with their own "rank and file", not to mention a HUGE credibility gap. Again, NO. If you need more examples of groups or individuals claiming support, I can name many more. How about Elizabeth Warren taking credit for providing the philosophical underpinnings and ballast for OWS? That's interesting Ms. Warren: if that's the case, then Warren is an anarchist in her roots, and is only (oh by-the-way) incidently running for public office. Could go on and on with examples of many groups and factions wanting a slice of the "OCCU" - pie. Christian Roess (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Based on what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any actual tangible connection between the ANP and the OWS movement (not even a diminutive one). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• No unless we specifically mention all other groups as well that have voiced support. The list mentioned above, if it's started, could be a place for this information. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-semitism discussion

• Yes - Widely covered, notable. Anti-sementism is an element of the views of many OWS campers, and as they have no real leadership or manifesto, it warrants coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - again, it seems to be a smear campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No:There is no evidence that anti-semitism is shared by a significant proportion of OWS participants outside of a tiny minority. The fact that the movement has a few kooks in it is not surprising, nor is it notable enough to warrant mention here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - Widely noted with many examples. No sense in hiding it under the rug. There is no requirement that it be shown to reach some magic number of people to be incorporated. Such faulty logic would dictate that nothing bad ever be reported because one could simply say that none those that do bad things don't represent the movement. If it was one or two incidents then probably not. It is clearly far more than that. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - ...with requisites. The article on the Tea Party solved the issue of reporting on alleged racism by not trying to account for how widespread racism was, or by simply stating the Tea Party movement was racist. Rather, it focused on the discourse of some accusing it of racism while others defended it, and it focuses on a few major events. Similarly, this article need not state that the Occupy protest movement has an antisemitism problem, but rather has been accused of it, and it could include references to supposed events and counter arguments. This should likely fall not under goals, or philosophy, but rather as a sub-section on reception. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - I scanned the list of articles that came up in the nominators link. The two serious sources that appear (i.e. the New York Times & Washington Post Article) refute the anti-semitic charge or point out that it's marginal. If we do want to add a sentence about anti-semitism it would have to be so heavily qualified that it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning. NickCT (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, per NickCT. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• 'No. The nominator's link produces nothing of value. Doing my own search, I find (in reliable sources as opposed to polemic blogs etc.) only the same stuff that NickCT finds, to the effect of "some bloggers have claimed anti-semitism, but it appears to not be true". Not notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No per NickCT. I would just point out that the Washington Post link is an op-ed column, not a news article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  re the op-ed column - Duly noted. Apologies for not stating it as such. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No But I think maybe 1 sentence, with a response as user Cast has proposed, but not a whole entire section, which I'm against. 완젬스 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• yes, if the tea party can have a "racial issues" section, so can ows. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  There's no way an entire section will ever get consensus over here, like over at the tea party article, so 1-2 sentences, take it or leave it. If you're trying to divert attention away from the issue by comparing it to the tea party, you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone. 완젬스 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  See WP:CONSENSUS to brush up on what it says, because that's what is common (and applied) to both articles. 완젬스 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - seems WP:UNDUE to me to use individual comments and turn it into a standalone section. Unless this becomes a relevant part or chunk of the protests, then no. Unless it gains traction in the media in some form, then no. Until then, all of this can be summarized into a single sentence - a section is too much weight.--Львівське (говорити) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes The incidents are being reported in WP:RS. Ironically racism by Tea Party members is only alleged. OWS members actually went on anti-semitic rants on TV! I saw it! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  There are plenty of references for Tea party members shouting racial epithets (see [4] for example). The question isn't whether one or two guys within a much larger movement are racist/anti-semetic. The question is whether racism/antisemitism is a pervasive theme within a movement, or whether it represents a viewpoint pushed by a significant portion of a movement's members. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  The question is not if ows is racist, rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  What's the difference? It's still guilt by association, and will attract edit warring & make the article unstable. Can't anyone else see that? 완젬스 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Typical wikipedia mob rule, published racism undue here, not undue at tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  If you're not in the majority, then just wait your turn. You're trying to change an OWS article during the height of OWS popularity. If you bring up a proposal (an entire section!!!) on antisemitism knowing it will fail, is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point which everyone knows nothing good will come from it. It just creates division between editors when the article still has plenty of peaceful improvements we could instead discuss otherwise. If you know an entire section will never gain consensus, then propose something more popular so that the "mob" will agree with it. When you're on the side of the minority, the burden is on you to work with the majority (unless you're like Dualus who bypasses consensus) because without consensus, even the most noble & well-intentioned edits will never stand, and you know that. The tea party is de facto racist whereas only 2 reliable sources have barely said anything usable about OWS being antisemitic (because as user NickCT said) the statement would have to be so heavily qualified, that it wouldn't be worth mentioning. 완젬스 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  re "rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable" - I think you should be posting your comments in the section above, but as I said above, OWS has reportedly gained the support of the latino community,former leaders of ACORN,labor unions,Kayne West,the mayor of Richmond, California, Jay-Z, vetrinarians, Canadians, etc etc. Should I go on? Get the point? You want to mention all of these groups? If not, why are you so focused on the ANP? NickCT (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Jayz, vets and acorn, you left out Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, CAIR, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Hugo Chavez, Revolutionary Guards of Iran, The Govt of North Korea, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah, a regular who's who of obscurity. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Ok.... But you're missing the point. You said we should mention ANP b/c their support has been noted in RSs. I pointed out that an endless slew of folk's support has been noted in RS, and that it's not piratical to mention them all. Again, why are you so focused on highlighting support from particular groups? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Absolutely not. There are no reliable sources reporting any connection of this accusation whatsoever. Beyond the reporting of anonymous people who have shown up at some protests, there is no sourcing at all. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which mention it, your saying there is not is pointless. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Again, Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece for the far-right Wurlitzer. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor is it a mouthpiece for the leftwing nutjobs of the OWS, wiki reports on what reliable sources have written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• NO - This is more desperation from the Far Right. It's a story generated just like the recent ACORN connection given by an anonymous source to Fox News in the last few days. Christian Roess (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, per NickCT and Dave Dial. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all or nothing: presenting a 3rd option

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

At one time we did have a short discussion with a good ref, but it's long gone. This situation is similar to the incident when a "protester" took a dump on a police car...or so it was said. I believe that we need to remember that there are thousands of homeless in NYC, and most of them live in the very same area that the protest is being held. Not to paint all the homeless with the same brush, but many of them are addicts and/or have serious mental problems. These people have been doing such things in NYC long before the movement established their occupation of the park, but it did not make national news. Same thing for racists - there's nothing new about blaming the Jews for our financial problems - and I can imagine that the protest would draw this sort of racist to the occupy site like bees to honey. Rather than report that the protesters are Nazi, Jew-hating, Commie, dirty hippies, etc., I believe that the information could be covered in an unbiased manner. If we had a reference... Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, and the onus is on people who want to include it. Quick question though--are you saying the "good ref" is long gone? Or the discussion is still in archives or had been deleted? I think a single sentence, in context (with how rare that antisemitism is) can be added, as long as it is put into the proper perspective. There's no way an entire section on antisemitism will ever see the light of day here, and I think the nazism has even less of a chance than antisemitism. 완젬스 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it. For all I know my memory could be wrong. I know we both agree that the task of any editing at all in this article was such a hellish experience till Dualus was banned that it was hard to keep up with what the hell was going on. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if these are the refs from the inclusion I remember, but these two turned up from the past article. [5] and [6]. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source, Media Matters, that explains the issue, "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them]". We could use that story for the article. TFD (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good finds, Gandy, I'll check it out it. Thanks for link thefourdeuce but not quite controversial enough! ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source. It is like asking the arsonist who started the fire. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I would go that far, lol. They're a private non-profit, so they can allow their editors/bloggers more unrestricted and "no strings" journalism & blogs. It's a good site, has lots of recaps & summaries of what the other sides are saying. Each video is like a miniature documentary--highly recommended and very informative for any Wikipedia editor who works on poli-sci articles. 완젬스 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MMfA has come up many times at RSN and is rs. You are confusing the neutrality of a source with its reliability. Certainly it is true that right-wing blogs are playing up the Nazi Party story. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you have them, let's see them. 완젬스 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

American Communist Party - 2,000 Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A single well-written sentence that makes it clear that both of these are being pushed by the far-right American press would be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• What's in the article right now seems to at least have equally contradicting opinion. Can we live with it and the very short mention in lead or do we need changes?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: discussion of reliable sources & Re: does OWS have an encyclopedia-worthy, non-negligent amount of antisemitism

Regarding the above discussion of reliable sources & whether OWS has an encyclopedia-worthy, non-negligent amount of antisemitism, then this article is proof in the pudding of why the consensus process here at Wikipedia works. To the editors calling wikipedia "mob rule" I'd like to respectfully point out the vilification process by your "right wing" corporate media empire. The editors of this article are under attack both from the outside, and from the inside. It's clear by looking at who's for OWS and who's against it, by realizing who wants to make constructive edits verses wanting to make destructive edits. Let us resist the pressure to sabotage OWS under the guise of including a "calculated subjection" to antisemitism. If we let antisemitism get a foot in the door, then we'll be hard-pressed to disallow nazism next, as we're currently seeing. 완젬스 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, it proves that the editors here who openly voice support for the OWS mob have taken control of this article. The fact that a reliable source has mentioned sexual abuses at the protests and drug and weapons being found is notable, why not put it in the article? Your censorship here is disgusting in the extreme, you cannot just continue to praise this mob and censure all reports which may cast them in a bad light. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want this movement to fail? The media companies (cnn, abc, cbs, fox, nbc) control the news and if you blindly believe what you're told by those you believe in, then you're trapped in what you believe. Wikipedia works by consensus, and we can think on our own, and form consensus in whatever way we decide. That's why the freedom of ideas is more powerful than the powers of freedom. Wikipedia is run by donations and volunteers. Wikipedia itself was a "big idea" that nobody could have envisioned would change the internet as we know it, or be conducive in "censoring" (your words) the type of impediments which could bring the OWS movement to a halt. Wikipedia itself has grown and survived because it overcame the limiting factors of explosive growth. You know, and everybody knows, that violence and rapes and antisemitism and defecating on police cars would only hurt the movement, if publicly known. Please watch all 3 videos, and ask yourself where do you stand? 완젬스 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

FNC? OWS at this point is the kitchen sink for all that discontent which doesn't fall silent or into the Tea Party discontent. If there's a Nazi or Antisemitic group that supports them that would only seem to be notable if it was, if you'll excuse me. You know if it was like most every single group satisfying that designation or something, they were being noted elsewhere as particularly prominent at occupations, etc.. Otherwise it would seem to be at worst an attempt to smear OWS and at best a lack of discernment. The same standards should apply as to the Tea Party article(s), where btw, this is probably a more likely issue. If FNC refers to Fox News, it's less than clear, it doesn't occur prior to the title of this thread on the page ATM. Lycurgus (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to topic, I think if we allow 1,000 cuts to OWS, starting with allowing the antisemitism to erode support of OWS the same way racism eroded support to the tea party, then it will be death by a thousand cuts to the vibrant spirit of this article. 완젬스 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the Last angry man said, you are cencoring anything and everything that might paint the OWS in a bad light. OWS is, according to Gallop Polling, a fringe group. And at the very least you must admit that it is extremely controversial, so why are none of these controversies in the article. Why would we not add the rapes, trash, deification, violence, arrests, suspicious support? Why? The only reason you give is that it "would only hurt the movement". So you admit to censoring the article to protect the movement from being "hurt". I advise you to stop editing the article because of your nonconstructive, self-proclaimed, censoring of any and all controversies for the stated purpose of not "hurt[ing] the movement".--174.49.47.34 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was writing my post, when someone messaged me on Facebook about the Fox article, so my thought process was 90% about the previous discussion (and even my first sentence made that clear; my fault on the section titling) but my comment was too long for the section above it, regarding whether to include antisemitism or not. I made a very good point warning other editors not to give in to antisemitism because then it will lead to inclusion of other equally viable angles to ferry in undue taintededness for our article. I want to be brief in the voting section immediately on top of this section, but to explain my reasons as well as offer future guidance on improving the article going forward. I feel I have every right to voice these pertinent concerns, per WP:TP, on the talk page of this article. 완젬스 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You should recuse yourself from editing this article, you POV is blatant. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Editor (forgive me if I don't know how to refer to you) should recuse himself as an obvious WP:COI. It is obvious from his statements above that he wishes to use WP for propaganda purposes to promote OWS. His actions go against all that WP stand for, and ironically what OWS would claim to stand for. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to second this idea. The editor has clearly not only shown a POV, but a lack of willingness to edit from it despite that POV. Toa Nidhiki05 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What about someone using WP for propaganda purposes to disparage OWS? Does that imply a COI too? Given the number of times that TLAM has been shown that there is no justification, and no consensus, for the material he has been trying to get included, I can't see how he can be seen as any less culpable than 완젬스 here. This is clearly a controversial article, and partisan accusations against editors based on their opinions (as opposed to their actions) are hardly going to improve tempers. I think this talk page has got diverted into marginal issues far too often, and we should maybe bear in mind that readers are less likely to be interested in trivia about fringe groups and questionable claims than they are about the broader issues raised by the occupations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is not designed to appeal to what the people want - it is designed to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't cater to their readers, they are meant to show verifiable fact. And it is verifiable fact that OWS is not utopia. We can't sugarcoat content because 'users don't want to read it' - the support from fringe groups is widely reported in the media, as are the cases of sexual abuse and violence. This needs to be reported rather than censored. Toa Nidhiki05 03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been trying to say. Many of these groups support the OWS, that is fact and that is controversy. We wouldn't add Jay-Z and Canadians because that isn't. People have said that it isn't well sourced and it isn't notable but that is just blatantly wrong. I have provided many, very reliable sources for each group and to say that their support is not notable is POV.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity photos

I photographed David Crosby and Graham Nash at their OWS concert yesterday. Is it too much to have both Morello and Crosby/Nash photos? Both the concerts and the performers are significant to OWS in their own ways, but I don't want to overload the article with famous people photos (here's the gallery at Commons). --David Shankbone 00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As usual, great photo! I believe this would be excellent to add. I don't feel we have too many photos at all. I wish that many articles had more photos, but often they just are not available. IMO you have really done a great job with your selections and the way they have been placed in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Great job here with the photos and their placement. Really some of the more crucial photographs of this movement are in this article. Maybe this article should have its own photo section on this page; of course there is this page which is a must see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street. Christian Roess (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys - those were big compliments. Feel free to prune what I add; I'm trying to be discerning. --David Shankbone 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the "Social Media" section in this article?

Why is there no section in this article about this protest coming to fruition in the age of FACEBOOK and TWITTER? Or is that tacitly understood already because of its being an outgrowth of the Arab Spring (which I disagree with for the most part). HOW could Occupy Wall Street have survived this long without social media, ie., without Facebook, twitter? If you need just one example: how about when Brookfield Properties (the 'private' owner of the 'public' Zuccotti Park) and the NYPD were going to clear "Zuccotti Park" for cleaning last month? What happened then? Facebook, twitter, etc., got the message out to their peeps and a couple thousand showed up overnight. Brookfield Properties and the NYPD decided that maybe it wasn't such a great idea. That's just one example of how this movement LIVES & DIES because of the importance of "social media" and networking. I bring this up because I just had my edit deleted with these hashtag references. Ok, maybe it doesn't belong in the "lede" section (ie.,t #occupywallstreet; #ows; #occupywallst). And look at this reference: According to Twitter there are more than 100,000 hashtags used in these protests. ~~> http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/occupywallst-ows-or-occupy-over-100k-different-hashtags-used-in-occupy-protests_b15109. Just sayin'....! Christian Roess (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it gone? We had it here for awhile. If it got "disappeared" (Catch 22) I believe it should be added again. Gandydancer (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC) But not in the lede! Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be right. It got "disappeared"! But I don't remember much mention of it here, ie., this is becoming one of the more "successful" social movements (ie., because mainstream media is covering it)... that is if it isn't already surpassing the Tea Party, etc, as the most successful (so far in the "Age of Twitter") "social movements" in this part of the world (ie., North America). And it's success is clearly due to "social media". Maybe what I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt mentioning the hashtags in the "lede" if only for this reason: there are probably folks out there, believe it or not (real young in age, for example), who keep seeing #OWS in text messages, etc., but haven't made the connection. Should probably set up a few "redirect pages". Someone may put in the search term #occupywallst and not be making the connection. Again, just sayin'...!! Christian Roess (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 November 8, a resource ...

• A record number of Americans — 49.1 million — are living below the poverty line, based on a new census measure. (Washington Post)

99.181.135.155 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall St. donated $20,000 to Occupy Oakland, which was then deposited in Wells Fargo.

I added this to this article.

Occupy Wall St. donated $20,000 to Occupy Oakland, who then deopsited it into Wells Fargo on November 7, 2011, the very bank whose windows Occupy Oakland had smashed just a few days earlier. Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this desposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."

Mk2z0h (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

reads like an advert for Wells Fargo, and anyway doesn't pass WP:WEIGHT for this article. Wait a few weeks and see if it has any lasting impact on the general story. B^e——C_ritical 02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The comments by Pulido were sent out as an email to news media after the deposit came to light, and certainly looks like he's taking a victory lap of some kind. Whatever the case, it may deserve some minor note on Occupy Oakland as a footnote in their financial dealings—other articles went into greater detail about why this decision was made, including how several of the OO members were upset but went along with this grudgingly, for the benefit of those in jail for whom the money was needed. The San Francisco Examiner isn't known for being a very good paper anymore. Personally, I'm glad to see they went with practical necessity, rather than ideological purity, but that's not important. Regardless, it doesn't belong on this article, as it isn't notable in the wider context of the Occupy movement. --Cast (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does seem appropriate; not in this article, but in Occupy Oakland, where it actually appears. I see much of the trivia that used to be here has either been removed or just moved somewhere I can't find it. If the latter, shame on you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article?

Should we attempt a good article nomination?

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

--Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Would be nice. Someone would probably come along to help on a significant article like this. Then on to FA. B^e——C_ritical 07:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely not good article material.

-Not Stable- Not only is there still major debate in the discussion page about significant changes but there has yet to be any serious contributions with controversies in them.

-Doesn't cover major aspects- The OWS movement is very controversial,gallop polling shows that less than 25% of the population agree with the movement, yet there are little to no serious controversies outlined in this article and I believe this is due to censorship of material by a select few editors(One of them actually admitted to reverting edits because it would "hurt the movement").

-Not Neutral- The article was largely written by people in support of the movement and that shows in the article. Some people in discussion page admitted to adding feigned controversy just to make "Glen and Limbaugh look bad". There is a tiny criticism section although the media has largely reported things like trash on the streets, multiple rapes, defecation, violence,the keeping of people from their homes and jobs, and the injuring of many civilians that had nothing to do with the movement.

-No List Incorporation- Editors (including myself) have tried to include these controversies and controversial groups in list format in the article many times and each time have been reverted with with illegitimate reasons.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say there is a lively debate and consensus is being formed on the talk page (that's a good thing) but the article itself is not unstable. But we don't have to really debate that as I am willing to live with your assessment.

With only a general message I can only assume you mean things like the negative police reaction and controversies which I think is thin, but the hipster cop thing I think is interesting. What do you think should be added and is there anyway we can incorporate into prose? Editors generaly prefer prose over list insertion. List may be perceived as puffery I believe. There are a good deal of supporters but that is not a bad thing either, there should be due weight given to controversies but consensus determines that. --Amadscientist (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is not stable enough to reach GA status. There are constant edit wars, new content is added and removed daily, the editors here show a serious disregard for neutrality. Censorship of content which may cast the mob in a bad light. I could go on but what is the point really? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

There should be some mention under the "Demands and goals" section and the "Week 8 (November 5-November 11)" section of the recent emergence of The Declaration of Desperation, a document which attempts to direct and narrow the goals of the Occupy Movement. The text is published at thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com. This text is the beginning of a shift in the movement, and its dissemination is a significant event of Week 8.

Paine1776 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Paine1776, can you please cite your sources? We can't just add willy nilly. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Whether it is the "beginning of a shift in the movement" or a "significant event" of week 8 should be sourced to third-party references. — Bility (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The lede currently doe not summarize the article, there is no mention of the rapes, attempted rapes, sexual assaults, drug dealing, weapons, defecating in public areas (such as on a police car). Nor is there mention of the people who have endorsed the protests. All these need to be mentioned in the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it doesn't mention the individual subjects or a critical opposing view represented?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added more.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the lede is meant to be an overview on the article in brief, as such anything in the article should also be mentioned in the lede, as in the specific items I mentioned in my previous post. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand you feel there should be more weight to these issues but they don't have that weight in the article. They are brought up in the lead however.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It doe not matter how I "feel", it is policy. The lede must reflect what is in the article, currently none of the criminal activity is mentioned at all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines are not absolutes in regards to lead content. Please link the guideline that you refer to for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet...what's the main stuff you object to not going in besides full lists.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That was all in the body of the article already and i moved it all into a controversy section and added a line in the lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference 240 is dead. 4 Links

Christina Boyle and John Doyle. "Pepper-spray videos spark furor as NYPD launches probe of Wall Street protest incidents". The Daily News. Retrieved October 11, 2011.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy subsections

These sections can be expanded with sub-subsections if needed. Be bold, but not reckless.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This really needs some of the controversy of the police and their early action added to the police subsection section for accuracy with due weight, It's mentioned in the time line but missung from the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

At Scene of Wall St. Protest, Rising Concerns About Crime by Cara Buckley and Matt Flegenheimer, published November 8, 2011, A23 & A25 in print. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)