Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15

Coordination with the Tea Party Patriots

I noticed on that Lawrence Lessig co-chaired the Conference on the Constitutional Convention September 24-25 with Mark Meckler, co-founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, the largest Tea Party movement group. Have there been any other examples of cooperation or coordination with the Tea Party? I am reminded of this Venn diagram from this blog post. Does anyone know how many of the 3,500 Tea Party Patriot chapters are in accordance with the OWS constitutional amendment demands? Dualus (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be relatively clear that this really isn't an example of any "coordination" between OWS and the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not? Dualus (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's an example of collaboration by Lessig, an arguably liberal law professor, with a Tea Party group founder. Q:How is it an example of collaboration between OWS and the Tea Party? A: Unless there's something you're forgetting to point out, it's not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you believe that Lessig is not involved with OWS? We have a news report that says he wrote a manifesto for them. Dualus (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I could have sworn that the news report contained a journalist's opinion that 'something Lessig wrote' "could serve as a manifesto" for OWS. Not the same thing by a long shot. Being a source of inspiration for a protest movement is also not nearly the same thing as being a part of it, much less a major part. So what we have here is an example of someone whom OWS protesters admire collaborating with a single Tea Party leader. Again, not even the same ballpark as saying the OWS is collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you find any reliable sources which support the idea that Lessig is not part of the movement? Any reason to believe that the Tea Party Patriots aren't behind it? Dualus (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing is required to establish a connection, not refute one. Imagine if I asked you to find a source showing that Karl Rove is not the mastermind of OWS? The burden is on an editor wishing to add content to establish that it is well-sourced. You haven't done that and you're not going to find any sources that will support a Wikipedia statement that OWS is "coordinating with the Tea Party" because a person who is a source of inspiration for OWS happened to co-author a book with a Tea Party leader. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Co-chaired a Conference on the Constitutional Convention, the book is a monograph. Dualus (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The article on Lawrence Lessig has its own talk page, and if you create an article on Mark Meckler, that will have its own talk page too. This is the talk page for Occupy Wall Street. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Regional turnout counts

This FiveThirtyEight blog post is interesting, with numbers suggesting the movement is more popular in the Western US, but not in the South. "The true overall figure might have been somewhere on the order of 100,000 protesters. That’s pretty big, but not as big as the largest day of Tea Party protests in 2009." Does anyone have good international numbers for the weekend? Dualus (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post says, "Rallies were held in more than 900 cities in Europe, Africa and Asia, as well as in the United States, with some of the largest occurring in Europe. The demonstration in Rome turned violent, and more than 70 people were arrested in Manhattan on Saturday night, but crowds elsewhere were largely peaceful." But that was on Saturday the 15th. This followup from the 16th has the same count. Dualus (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the intro says only 600 cities, someone should update it to say 900. Should the 100,000 figure be included as well? Dualus (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing 600 cities to 900 is fine. My only problem with the 100,000 estimate is that the blog post states that the median estimate was 70,000. It's probably an underestimate, but the 100,000 figure is a guesstimate. I would change the statement in the lede to say "at least 70,00" or "estimates range from 70,000 to 100,000 protesters". Bowmerang (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The article specifically says 70,000 is likely an underestimate and a more accurate figure is 100,000. We have to remain true to the sources. Dualus (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Time (magazine) resource (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt from graphic accompanying Taking It to The Streets on page 24 ...

Occupied Territory. A TIME poll shows more voters support the protesters than the Tea Party

with a source: This TIME/Abt SRBI poll was conducted by telephone October 9-10 among a national sample of 1,001 Americans ages 18 or older. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/-3% points. The full questionaire and trend data may be found at

This appears to be the poll mentioned: (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Two paragraph intro much shorter than prescribed by WP:LEAD

WP:LEAD#Length says an article this size should have at least four paragraphs, doesn't it? About a week ago it had a decent intro before the "Background" section was created, but now it's scrawny. And out of date: It says 600 international cities when the Washington Post, cited above, says 900. Would someone please make a decent intro for this thing? Hint: Summarize the important parts in the order they appear in the article. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I fleshed the intro out a little. Is everyone okay with this? Dualus (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource

Why 'Populism' Shouldn't Be Obama's Battle Cry; A leftward tack could appeal to protesters but leave voters cold in Politics & Policy BusinessWeek October 13, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Devin Leonard (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Forward-looking prescriptive op-eds are not the most reliable sources. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New York (magazine) resource

Surviving Zuccotti Park: How the Protesters Stay Warm, Fed, and Cheery 10/18/11 at 08:23 AM by Tim Murphy (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting addition, thank you Dualus; WP:Tea (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting it, but you're welcome anyway. Dualus (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Occupy Chicago Occupy Austin, and Occupy Kansas City (wp article?) are also mentioned. (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Conservatives" in OWS

Previous consensus has been that it would be an NPOV or Weight or similar violation to have the article say or imply that OWS is so-broad based as to include conservatives among its ranks. Please see the most recent prior discussion. Recently the term was re-inserted without apparent discussion. I will revert. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Where was that discussion? The Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator co-chaired the constitutional convention, and George Will likes it. Dualus (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It's difficult to take your comments seriously. The Lessig constitutional convention was not an OWS event. And the George Will article ridiculed OWS thoroughly and squarely implied that if Democrats embraced OWS, it would be an act of political suicide which would deliver political control back to Republicans. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see in the least how this is directly related. Are there any RS's that are stating that the protesters are calling for or are in agreement with Lessig in calling for a Constitutional Convention? It is clearly undue weight for the lead, and appears to be Original Research and synthesis of material to make the connection. Furthermore, since there is no leadership, and this implies he is the leader, there is a clear contradiction of statements. Arzel (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There are some references in [1], by Jack Balkin at [2], and Lessig in DC. Dualus (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism section

I deleted the recently added Antisemitism section. It solely based on the quotes of two individual protesters, and because of this, did not represent the character of the OWS protests at all. I think was just added for the sake of stirring up controversy. 2 people doesn't even justify saying "some have expressed antisemetic views" in the article. It's irrelevant and has no traction at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Worse yet, this was already discussed. It should have been clear that consensus was against including anything of the sort. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue in that other article was a lack of reliable sources. That is not the issue here.
Given that the article Tea Party Protests cites several examples of alleged racism without having any proof (such as video recordings), how can real examples with real video evidence of proof not be included in this article?
Mk2z0h (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
If two people in the crowd at a Nicks game said some anti-semetic comments, would an antisemitism section be allowed on the NBA article? A couple people does not represent the OWS protests, or their character at all. If the were groups of people doing this, and the media was reporting on this, then sure. At this moment you're just cherry picking for sensationalism--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, these examples have been reported by reliable sources. The previous discussion merely concluded that YouTube is not a reliable source.
Secondly, Tea Party Protests cites several examples of alleged racism, without any video proof. In fact, an offer of $100,000 for such video proof has never been claimed. But in this case, there is video proof. A claim with video proof is far more notable than a claim without video proof.
Mk2z0h (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS--Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Video proof, or indeed any form of "proof" is not necessary for an included section on this article, but rather our concern is with giving undue weight to this concern, which could give a reader a misinterpretation of the nature of OWS. In the case of the Tea Party, undue weight would also be a concern, and while that article should not state that the nature of the Tea Party is one of racism, it can be reported that commentators have referenced this as an accusation against the Tea Party, and that the media has concerned itself with this issue. As the media has given more measure to the celebration of Yom Kippur at Zuccotti Park, should we instead present a section on OWS being a Jewish movement? Hardly, though perhaps that celebration may be mentioned in the demographics section. All things added must be put into perspective. Please do not misunderstand our concerns. --Cast (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Addendum Just to be clear, there is photographic "proof" for racism at Tea Party events.Tea Party Leader Dale Robertson Ousted for N-Word Sign That has led to several of the allegations of racism at Tea Party events, but in the case of that article, the section was not titled "Racism" as you have titled the section you wish to include in this article "Antisemitism". Rather, it has been titled "Racial issues" and room has been provided for inclusion of comments and reports from defenders of the Tea Party. You have not attempted to include any defending commentary for OWS. --Cast (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought this issue was settled. If this editor is concerned about similar information at the Tea Party article s/he should fix that article, not play tit for tat and put it in this one as well. It should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. (I just don't want to get into an edit war so I figured we'd get consensus for these 2 sources as well) (I have no idea what the tea party has to do with this)--Львівське (говорити) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the protests against large banks in a major metropolitan city with a large Jewish community, numerous antisemitic stereotypes are bound to be made by some elements of a protest. It would be interesting to know what other Occupy protests around the country have had to say on the matter. The issue is too new for it to have been fully addressed, but it should be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in the weeks and months to come. For now, we should be clear that having anti-zionist and anti-Israel (in regards to Gaza and the West Bank) should not be automatically construed as antisemitism, as these are criticisms of ideology and national policy. The article features a video which contains clip of a discredited YouTube "character" who seemed to be interested in gaining negative attention at the price of making both antisemetic and racist attacks and jokes, and was being attacked for this by other OWS protesters, and juxtaposes that man with people holding up signs protesting the occupation of Gaza. Its a pro-Israel perspective attempts to lump policy criticism with wingnuttery. We'll need to be very careful about how we use some references for just this reason. Not all media reports will be equal in value.--Cast (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Addendum As I write this the issue has already been settled. However, I can see this issue coming up again at some point, so I'd just like to follow up on that video ad we've linked to. Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks have produced a response: Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitic Say Conservatives. Uygur addresses this ad concisely, and if this ever comes up again it would be good to recall this rebuke. --Cast (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with you--Львівське (говорити) 16:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete this section. It does not belong in this article. Its very misleading to this movement. A couple random protestors doesn't warrant this section being here, it needs to be notable people who are inciting antisemitism for this to be relevant. Not to mention the section was added by a Wikipedia user with a history going back only a month and no user page or info which leads me to believe this is a personal agenda of the user who added it for personal reasons and not because its relevant. Lets give people the actual information about whats happening with this protest folks and not mislead them. RazorBrainsAndWisdomStains (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, you've only been here a month and also have no user page...pot/kettle?--Львівське (говорити) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Also in fairness, there's nothing wrong with being a newbie and having no user page so long as one is not engaged in combative POV-pushing editing. Not passing judgment on whether the other user is in fact doing that, but if he is, other rednames have every right to call that out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If we are to include any of these claims, we should also include this Al-Jazeera article, which discusses the political background to these allegations. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
As an op-ed piece, would that count as a reliable source?--Львівське (говорити) 16:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting everyone. Since the consensus is against including the section, I won't add it back in. Mk2z0h (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus. The charge has been made by columnists in WP:RS like The Atlantic and the Washington Post the charges have been clearly rebutted, and it would be useful to have a summary of the charges and rebuttals in the article when people do a Google search to find out more about OWS. --Nbauman (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, David Brooks made the accusation of anti-Semitism in his New York Times column, somebody else made the claim in the Wall Street Journal, so it's a (false) charge that's been made in many WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please edit the section "reaction by NYC locals"

and add something about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
...and removed by someone who apparently can't read WP:LEAD#Length. #$@%&%. Dualus (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Add Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wikilink

Add Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wikilink, as related to ... (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added the first one. Where do you think the others should go? Dualus (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fringe views" section

Out of curiosity, why do we have a section devoted to the anti-Semitic gadflies and other fringe views? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a lot of press stories about fringe views among the protesters, but I'll leave it to others to decide whether to take it out. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I can find a lot of press stories accusing OWS of anti-Semitism in major conservative publications, like the Wall Street Journal. They are influential, and heavily-quoted. These charges are going around, and it's important to give the actual facts. --Nbauman (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
agreed. i heard a brief mention on the radio in the car yesterday and was glad to be able to find a fuller version of the story here when i got home. i think the presentation in the article is good, npov, and important.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I see it's been deleted "as per previous consensus". My impression is that the previous copy was not appropriate (I agreed), but I felt that the new addition was excellent and I'm sorry to see it gone. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and George Will

The Signpost is reporting that Jimmy Wales has expressed support. Should this be added to the article?

Added to list at end of "Celebrities" section. Dualus (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

George Will has expressed his support. How many other conservatives have? Dualus (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

uh, maybe i'm missing something, but that sure doesn't sound like an expression of support to me; more like a cackle of disdainful glee.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this guy. Dualus (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"a cackle of disdainful glee" - good one! yeah, I think so... Gandydancer (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
However you interpret the reasons he offered, Will clearly states, "Conservatives should rejoice and wish for [OWS] long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates," under the headline, "George Will: ‘Occupy' is good news for conservatives." Will correctly states that OWS will lead to greater fiscal conservatism. However, I added it to the section on critical commentary. Dualus (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
i think that the quote you put in is at least in the right section, although i think it makes little sense without some context, and i can't think of a way to provide it any context without original research, a sin i'm loathe to commit because the upside is so miniscule. on the other hand, i think george will should rejoice and wish for glenn beck's long life, abundant publicity, and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates. it's not everybody that can make george look so darn sane clever in contrast.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You do realize Will was ridiculing OWS and suggesting that conservatives should embrace OWS because if Democrats adopt an OWS platform they will be voted out of office... right? We don't misrepresent sources by taking sound bites out of context and presenting them in a misleading fashion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this compromise wording agreeable to you? Dualus (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really. It doesn't do justice to the sharp criticism of OWS that Will offers. And if we were to reflect that criticism accurately, there would be no reason to include the quote that has been misinterpreted as praise, unless we really wanted readers to misinterpret it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)it isn't agreeable to me. george will was being sarcastic in that piece, and it seems to me that (a) that must be made clear for the quote to make sense in the article and (b) that there is no way to make that clear without doing original research in the sense of interpreting will's tone. i don't think anything from that will piece is useable, and think that we should wait until either a reliable source summarizes what will said or else until will says it directly (although knowing his work, i'm guessing godot will show up before that happens).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
How would you prefer it be phrased? Dualus (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Alf.laylah nicely summarized the core concerns. We probably shouldn't use it at all. There is already plenty of criticism of OWS without making a labor-intensive and probably ill-advised attempt to find some way to include this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Dualus, would you mind removing your "compromise" language while this is under discussion, especially since you seem to be the only user who thinks it should be included? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, until anyone can articulate cogent objections to it. Do you honestly think that George Will should not be cited in this article? Dualus (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
exactly what about the two objections articulated so far do you find to lack cogency?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
How do you "do justice to the sharp criticism of OWS that Will offers"? Dualus (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
as i said above, i don't actually think that it's possible to do so. that was my objection to including the material.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg 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) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone should add a fair use rationale and upload a copy to enwiki while Commons admins try to figure out the implications of Feist v. Rural in Lower Elbonia. Dualus (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia there may be an argument for deletion as original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, and the image-specific section is WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupy Wall Street spreads to Portland.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Occupy Wall Street spreads to Portland.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 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) 13:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff edits

Somedifferentstuff is making massive deletions of WP:RS material like this [3] without giving reasons in the Edit summary, and without any discussion at all, in the article's Talk or in his own Talk page.

It's often useful WP:NPOV material. He's not just adding information, he's making major changes in the focus of the article.

He's the major contributor to this article, basically a single-topic account, and he's taken it over.

I and other editors have asked him on his talk page and he ignores us.

What should we do about this? --Nbauman (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been very PO'd at this editor in the past and complained about it - he came back with a FU and finally made his first edit on the talk page advising that any further edits to that section must be discussed before being added! He does a lot of good work here, but he seldom bothers with edit summaries and, as far as I remember, never discusses anything here. grrrr Gandydancer (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that part of the info has been put back (which I BTW think is a tad long and too involved) but my edits with the Times poll and another that I added today are still gone. Very frustrating when a know-it-all editor takes over an article - though someone else may have deleted my edits - I don't have time to look right now... Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
In theory, two editors could out-revert a third editor, until he ran into the 3R rule, and making a change without a reason in the Edit summary is a good reason for reverting.
But I'd rather solve this problem in a less confrontational and more educational way, by showing Somedifferentstuff how to better follow WP policies. --Nbauman (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the out-reverting tactic you describe would seem to be a clear instance of WP:TAGTEAM, which is frowned upon (and I suspect it would be treated as edit-warring). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I don't like it (although it goes on all the time). But what is the WP procedure when an editor just takes over the article and edits it as he pleases, ignoring everyone else and not discussing it? --Nbauman (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would say — Informal request to the user to stop --> Template warning for edit-warring on user talk page --> Informal request for an admin to step in and try to resolve the disputes --> open a Request For Comment on the user; in more or less that order. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

the new thing: Bank transfer day

On November 5, there is going to be people at Occupy Wall Street wanting to transfer their money out of banks to credit unions. Bank Transfer Day: A Good Time to Be a CU Bank Transfer Day and Occupy Wall Street: Marx on Capitol Students: It's Our Money. Let's Take It Back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrpf22pr (talkcontribs) 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We already have a Bank Transfer Day article. Where do you think it should go in this one? Dualus (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
well if there is already an article then these could be used as reference on week 6 once the news comes in.--Nrpf22pr (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That article is nominated for deletion. LOL. Dualus (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland in the Polls and surveys section

I believe that the information from this source is way too extensive. It is so long that it gets complicated, confusing, and hard to follow - perhaps too little for understanding but too much to really understand the more complicated version? I have purposely not gone to the source because I believe that we must figure out a way to condense information into a compact form and readers that have interest can go to the source to find more detailed information. Saying this, I want it understood that I generally do look at source material for further information while many readers perhaps do not. So, it may just be my way of looking at things... Gandydancer (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I added it, but I can understand why you feel it's too long and complicated, and I would have liked to make it shorter.
However, Shoen's WSJ op-ed was very important because it is, in effect, the heavy artillery of the DLC "moderate" Democrats' attack on OWS. The *one* thing that OWS agrees on is that the wealthiest 1% is too rich and powerful; the DLC represents the Democrats who are rich and powerful. Schoen is making their strongest argument against OWS, and as other WP:RSs say, he's distorting the facts and wrong. It's a critical part of the debate.
What do the OWS protesters believe? It's hard to tell, but Shoen actually gave a good, detailed answer by a skilled pollster, however much he may have used that poll to distort their views. And that's why I gave so much detail.
If you think you can preserve the most important of those issues in fewer words, go ahead (not that you need my permission). --Nbauman (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Nbauman, Yes, I don't know that I could do it better! If the truth be known, I'm just terrible at trying to condense stuff. Perhaps someone with the "gift" will come along and do it? Gandydancer (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I gave it a shot but I may not have condensed it enough. There's a tradeoff between condensing and misstating the source. --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Read my edits and see what you think. The reason that I combined paragraphs is that when I see a new paragraph my mind thinks I will be jumping to a different set of information, and it takes a moment to combine it to the previous line of thought, if that makes any sense - maybe it's just me... Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Mostly young"

The article currently implies that while the protests were initially made up of "mostly young" people, that is no longer the case. My impression is that the sources continue to identify OWS protesters as mostly young, and thus that the current article text is misleading. Does anyone dispute this? If I come forward with sources establishing that this is the case, will anyone object to changing the article to indicate that the protesters are mostly young? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I predict the protesters reached median age 32 on the morning of October 15th. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see that information as well - looking at the videos one can see that the protesters are getting older. As one of the "grey hairs" myself, we are not accustomed to how fast a movement may become with the addition of Facebook, etc., for communication. My friends and I protested the Iraq war for several years (we "occupied" bridges in Maine) and there was no one over 40 with us. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

coverstory resource

From Occupy Wall Street to Occupy Everywhere by Nathan Schneider October 11, 2011; This article appeared in the October 31, 2011 print edition of The Nation. (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"On July 13 Adbusters magazine sent out a call to its 90,000-strong list proclaiming a Twitter hashtag (#OccupyWallStreet) and a date, September 17. It quickly spread among the mostly young, tech-savvy radical set, along with an especially alluring poster the magazine put together of a ballerina atop the Charging Bull statue, the financial district’s totem to testosterone." Nice ref! Dualus (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Added as a reference only, but I couldn't find anything in it that the article didn't already have. Dualus (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Be careful deleting material

The reason the References section of this page is full of red error messages saying for example "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named alternet; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text" is that people are making indiscriminate deletions.

Repeated Wikipedia citations are in the format <ref name="REFNAME">FULL CITATION GOES HERE</ref>, and then the subsequent citations are in the format <ref name="REFNAME"/>.

When you delete the first reference with the full citation, you screw up all the subsequent citations.

I think people are violating WP guidelines by deleting properly WP:RS cited material, sometimes apparently because they don't agree with it (which violates WP:NPOV).

But at least when you delete material, make sure you're not deleting a footnote that appears in other places throughout the article. --Nbauman (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the edit which destroyed the references. [diff fixed] There are some references in [4], by Jack Balkin at [5], and Lessig in DC supporting just putting the constitutional convention back in the intro. Dualus (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Those are not reliable sources. How about people stop using refnames until the article settles down. Arzel (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
sigh. i fixed a bunch just now, and minutes later there are a bunch more. perhaps we could find a way to bring some of the much-touted spontaneous self-organization of this movement into the referencing system?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please keep it simple! Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

99% Declaration

Does anyone know the provenance of this document? Dualus (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's good for a laugh. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I see it is already at the end of the "Focus" section. Dualus (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We need a list of the documents being put forth with some indication of who is supporting each. Dualus (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard discussion as to whether to mention the support of the Nazi Party

Please see this discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

4th and 5th discussion of Larry Lessig and whether his conference and book are attributable to OWS, at 2 noticeboards

This issue has previously been discussed here, here, and here.

Dualus has now initiated discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard as well as the original research noticeboard. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Running to the other parent seems to be going on. TheArtistAKA 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to take it to RSN above. The one uninvolved respondent at RSN said to take it to ORN. Dualus (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Long term background : section or create a separate article

The #Long term background is 34 done. It need some copyedit, but then should we include it or creqte a separate article ? Please feel free to push forward this issue. --Yug (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Context in article to include images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see any context to qualify this image use on this page and it appears to be original research with no references. There is also a problem with copyright.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If nothing else, I think it's relatively clear that many (if not most, or all) OWS protestors are upset about wealth inequality. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but that is not context. That's called a "Given" and we don't do that on an encyclopedia. We need to establish true context or the image has no legitimate reason for use.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If sources supporting that claim have not been specifically cited, it shouldn't be too hard to find some. I'd guess that numerous sources already used will show that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I added some context.[6] Jesanj (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jesanj. Would anyone object to the added information and references being added directly to the section prose and not just in the image summary. In this way, should the image be deleted (there are some copyright issues), the information will remain.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States.[23][24] Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters.[25][26][27] CBO data shows that in 1980, the top 1% earned 9.1% of all income, while in 2006 they earned 18.8% of all income.[28]

At this time copyright concerns are currently being addressed at Commons, the outcome is still not clear but an attempt for OTRS is being sought. Another editor has argued the issue using Wikipedia Original Images, however the full guideline here [7] states: Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. For example, if you take a picture in your neighborhood, you do not need to produce a published, independent reliable source to prove that you took the picture in your neighborhood. However, if such sources are available, please provide them. This is particularly important for technical drawings, as someone may want to verify that the image is accurate. At this time my only concern is POV and lack of reliable sourcing as the author has not yet provided the material to verify the information. This is a Wikipedia concern, not a Commons concern. I am still not convinced the information is wrong or the graph incorrect but believe it's use may be...may be point of view editing in only the way it is currently presented. I am not of a strong opinion on that however and see no reason to take any action such as deleting or moving etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

References and using youtube

There are a number of youtube videos being used as references. The Wiki guideline on user submitted videos is pretty simple. [8] [9] [10] I think we need to make sure all these videos are being correctly used here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

ugly errors in references

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

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

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

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

  • There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect many of the "Occupy" articles to this Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The discussion above was closed on 21 October 2011 (UTC). Northamerica1000(talk) 23:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravi Batra para - request for opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Fleming was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference inline.poster was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference nation.FAQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference wallstreet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference cnn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference anonmessage was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference adbusters3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Occupy_Wall_Street_-_Sep17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference The_Tyee_.E2.80.93_Adbusters.27_Kalle_Lasn_Talks_About_OccupyWallStreet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference US_protesters_rally_to_occupy_Wall_Street was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ibtimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference twsC65 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference rabble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference socialistworker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference globalresearch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.” Accessed October 2011.
  18. ^ “Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed October 2011.
  19. ^ Johnston, David Cay (March 29, 2007.) “Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows.” The New York Times. Accessed October 2011.
  20. ^ “By the Numbers.” Accessed October 2011.
  21. ^ Reich Blames Economy's Woes On Income Disparity
  22. ^ Robert Reich 2010: Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future p. 20-24. ISBN 978-0307592811
  23. ^ "Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed October 2011.
  24. ^ “By the Numbers.” Accessed October 2011.
  25. ^ Alessi, Christopher (October). "Occupy Wall Street's Global Echo". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved October 17, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York City a month ago gained worldwide momentum over the weekend, as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in nine hundred cities protested corporate greed and wealth inequality.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Check date values in: |date=, |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  26. ^ Jones, Clarence (October 17,2011). "Occupy Wall Street and the King Memorial Ceremonies". The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2011. The reality is that 'Occupy Wall Street' is raising the consciousness of the country on the fundamental issues of poverty, income inequality, economic justice, and the Obama administration's apparent double standard in dealing with Wall Street and the urgent problems of Main Street: unemployment, housing foreclosures, no bank credit to small business in spite of nearly three trillion of cash reserves made possible by taxpayers funding of TARP.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ^ Chrystia Freeland (October 14, 2011). "Wall Street protesters need to find their 'sound bite'". The Globe & Mail. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 
  28. ^ Michael Hiltzik (October 12, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 
  29. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference truth-out was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Best_Sellers_From_1987.27s_Book_Crop was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Regular_economic_cycles_:_money.2C_inflation.2C_regulation_and_depressions.2C_Venus_Books.2C_1985 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bullnotbull was invoked but never defined (see the help page).