Jump to content

Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Celeb section feedback please

Somebody added this:

Over one thousand authors have announced their support for the movement via “Occupy Writers”, an online petition that states “We, the undersigned writers and all who will join us, support Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy Movement around the world.” Signatories to the petition include Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Michael Cunningham, Jennifer Egan, Neil Gaiman, Naomi Klein, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jonathan Lethem, Ann Patchett, Salman Rushdie, Lemony Snicket, Alice Walker, and Naomi Wolf. [183]

At the very least I believe the names should not be included, but I'm wondering if it should be included at all. The ref does not work... Gandydancer (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, very long and no reference - I'm going to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be me. Thought I'd got the ref correct. I've reinserted an edited graf that cuts down on the names (leaving a handful to demonstrate the range of genres represented) and imcludes a working link to OccupyWriters.com. Eventually, I'll get the hang of this. OldSkoolGeek (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just find some discussion of it in a reputable news or other secondary source, and it will stay in (or at least have a good chance) (; Best. Be——Critical 06:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, if a second ref is found it will include the names so they do not need to be listed - that section already has a fairly long list of names of supporters. Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive. :) I've included refs from the Guardian, the New York Observer, Slate magazine, and the Christian Science Monitor.OldSkoolGeek (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Well, perhaps too much of a good thing... I believe that it should be pared down a tad - not that it isn't perfectly good information, but we have just so much room in each article and everything must be weighed as to importance. I will wait and see what other editors think. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Participants" section reads like a travel brochure

Section headings are competing with actual text for the actual space consumed; even after I removed a one-sentence section, there are still several more that are only one or two lines long. Everything is presented in the most positive light possible. One section, discussing a community board meeting at which widely reported complaints about protesters urinating and defecating on residential property were raised, instead cherry-picks only the most solicitous and encouraging quote from one of the residents, while euphemizing the complaints about urinating and defecating as complaints of "inadequate sanitation".

Besides perhaps closely inspecting the content for NPOV, I suggest we cut this section down to three subsections: Leadership and Demographics; a section called "Zucotti Park Camp" or "Conditions at protest camp" or something like that; and a section called "Impact on city". This would reduce clutter and eliminate the "this is an advertisement" feel, without diminishing organizational clarity. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I like that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree as well. Gandydancer (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
See discussion below about economists. I made the suggestion that Sections follow MOS more closely so the smaller amounts of referenced information can be included into the relevant subsection until such time as they grow naturally to a size consensus agrees on.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Adbusters given too much credit for initiating the protests

The line in the summary that says "The protests were initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters.[6][7]" seems like unwarranted self promotion by Adbusters. Only two sources, one is Adbusters themselves and the other is very sensationalist. I would like to see this line removed or at least get much better citation.

89.160.135.47 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing numerous sources talking about their central involvement. This doesn't seem a point that is especially likely to be challenged, notwithstanding the fact that you're actually challenging it, so I'm not sure we need extensive sourcing for this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been covered by major sources enough to satisfy the fact. We can check the current references to be sure they are not simply primary sources but the accusation that Adbusters themselves is self promoting is ridiculous and is an accusation of Conflict of Interest that has no basis that I can see and self promotion, even if proved is indeed a matter of consensus as to whether to include or not. Trust me on this one...I discovered an editor who had clearly linked himself to his edits with his real name on his article and with his contributions. The consensus of the ANI he brought was that he had a right to edit like anyone else, even editing or creating his own article and promoting himself. That alone is not against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's what the promotion involves and what each edit or contribution is. If an editor enters false information or attempts to remove facts that are referenced and fully support claims...then you have a problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times articles

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wealthiest Americans' Income Nearly Triples Wall Street Journal

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/25/income-growth-of-top-1-over-30-years-outpaced-rest-of-u-s/ Income Growth of Top 1% Over 30 Years Outpaced Rest of U.S. by Corey Boles October 25, 2011, 3:29 PM ET 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Economist resource

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america Income inequality in America; The 99 percent ..."Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution. Oct 26th 2011, 15:34 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Chef Eric Smith resources?

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a reference by Rebecca Rosenberg, New York Post, October 19, 2011 99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reaction by economists?

Shouldn't we have a section on the reactions of economists? Be——Critical 00:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so. Jesanj (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need yet another section. Is there any way to incorporate that somehow?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It's true there are probably too many sections, but what do you suggest? Be——Critical 01:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems that economists would not really deserve a section as they are not any more or less important than any other academic reaction. I wonder if all reaction should be condensed into a few sections, Academic, Political, Public opinion, Private enterprise and International. Everthing else to be subsections within these, such as celebrity reaction within the subsection for public opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This would require the section of "Reaction" itself to replaced with individual "sections". It just seems more encyclopedic to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You could do the main Reaction section (per MOS) and then subsections with their on sub subsections as shown below. 

== Section ==

===Subsection===

====Sub-subsection====

--Amadscientist (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In this way we stick to the Manuel of Style Guidelines, allow for all relevant sections and inclusion of information and when weight is acceptable once an area is expanded enough for it's own subsection the article can grow naturally with less instability.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Right now the only section following this is Political reaction.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

resource The top fifth of households collected half of U.S. income in 2010. (from graphic)

Middle class' share of the nation's income is shrinking by Marisol Bello and Paul Overberg, USA Today 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please close quote by Slavoj Žižek with "

Please close quote by Slavoj Žižek with " ... Žižek talking at OWS cited on the Charlie Rose (talk show) (on now). 99.19.44.40 (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Be——Critical 04:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Parodies

A CNBC correspondent reported that Occupy Wall Street movement sparked parodies which aim to expand the movement to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. An image of Luke Skywalker holding a protest sign was published: "It wasn't glamorous but I had a steady living working on my uncle's moisture farm. My aunt and uncle were unjustly murdered and the farm destroyed. I was forced to leave my home and join an extinct cult just to survive. I am now a member of an upstart movement to take down a greedy corrupt establishment. I AM THE 99%." Skywalker's enemies, the Imperial Storm Troopers joined the protest on another image circulating on the Internet holding signs: "End Galactic Corporate Greed", "Get Our Troops Off Tantooine" and "Keep Your Empirical Hands Off My Healthcare". Parodies relating to the Middle Earth include a woman which had written her complaint in Elvish, allegedly translated: "I spend every waking hour fighting orcs while Elrond and Galadriel eat lembas bread all day. I am the 99%".[1] Guy Fawkes masks from the film V for Vendetta are used as symbols against corporate greed.[2]

References

  1. ^ Wells, Jane (24 Oct 2011). "Occupy Movement Is Out of This World". CNBC. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
  2. ^ V for Vendetta masks: Who's behind them?

The section citing CNBC and BBC sources above on parodies was removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The material was removed without explanation, maybe because of its location as a sub-section of Reactions which is bloated as-is. I'll restore it as top-level section, right after Media coverage if there are no further objections. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Accept the current tags: POV + current event.

At first I thought, why can't they make the wiki process work and redact whatever, but then I realized better to just accept the tags as part of the site culture and move on as far as the article quality is concerned. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a consensus thing not a culture thing. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Judging by current state it's more of a vigour of youth thing. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravi Batra's support for OWS is notable

Two editors have made an assessment in the edit summaries that an entry on Ravi Batra does not merit inclusion in the "Celebrity reaction and involvement" section of the OWS article as Batra is not a "celebrity". This is a problem as the normal WP guidelines on notability are being suspended in this case. It has been shown that in terms of notability, the following entry merits inclusion in an article for a number of reasons.

On October 11, Ravi Batra wrote an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism“.[1] 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.[2] Batra is being linked to the OWS movement due to his long standing prediction that “monopoly capitalism would create the worst-ever concentration of wealth in its history, so much so that a social revolution would start its demise around 2010.”[3][4]

Ravi Batra is clearly notable as per general notability guidelines. While the coverage on him is clearly more in the 1980s and 1990s -- in the pre-internet era -- there is also recent coverage. The WP article on Batra testifies to this, as does the media coverage, as well as discussion of his ideas all over the net, including on the unofficial OWS web site. This has all been shown with reliable sources. Batra's life's work is also closely related to the OWS movement as brought out with RS above. In order to side step a subjective popularity contest among editors about Batra, it is therefore proposed that his entry be included in the article, but that a new place be found for it. Alternatively, it is proposed that the current celebrity heading be divided it into separate Writers and Artists sections.Plankto (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Being notable for the article or notable as an person of interest is not the same as Celebrity. It requires at least some form of secondary published reference to make the claim wouldn't it? Let's look at what Harvard says about academic celebrity: [1]. Now lets see what we find if we search for Batra under the search term: [2]. Immediately we see an LA Times article at the top of the search: [3]. Then just down from there is a reference to him speaking of the term: [4]. So there is what I can find. I am having a hard time with this to be honest. I find the term to be somewhat shallow and yet there are those that do find him to have celebrity status but is that really enough. There are other academics listed and quoted and they too have some small celebrity for their appearances, interviews and books but are those "fans" enough to qualify the person under the definition of celebrity for our purposes here? I am still trying to get a grasp on it to be honest and can't make an informed decision as yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I see all "celebrity" reaction being under a section: "Public Opinion" as a subsection and artist and musician as sub-subsections.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful information, Amadscientist, which establishes that Batra has been considered a "celebrity", as Gandydancer demanded be shown in his entry above on 18:20, 23 October 2011 and Andy0093 claimed Batra was not in his edit summary in the main article on 23:43, 26 October 2011. As these editors choose not to discuss the issue here, I suggest the entry be reinserted. It is the responsibility of the opposing editors to defend their actions on talk page, and not just revert with baseless claims in the edit summaries. In addition, and as shown in an irrefutable manner above, Batra is a notable in terms of this article. So, while his 15 minutes of fame may have come and gone, the notability remains. Personally, I'd like this discussion to end with a consensus, but that is not possible if those opposing the entry do not participate and just hop in and revert. Plankto (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
My vote: he's not notable. There's is no entitlement that consensus defend itself to a lone dissenter. After a point, consensus is set and should be respected. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You're pushing your luck Plankto. As anyone here knows, I've discussed this issue extensively with you through the numerous threads you've started (what is it now, six?). But just for the record, I'll say it one more time: One Truthout article and two mentions in the Fort Worth Weekly do not make Batra notable. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Dropping the stick and walking away from the dead horse carcus applies to winners of disputes. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Same here. I give up on this for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
One clear benefit of this debate for the article so far is the creation of a sub-heading for Authors and academics. It makes goos sense to separate the intellectuals from the entertainers - although these sections are still populated by a number of people less notable than Batra. But this is understandable in terms of the strong bias still felt against Batra. In June 2010, Gayle Reaves summed it up quite well in the third recent Fort Worth article about him titled "The U.S. Economy: Still a House of Cards":

"Almost no one likes his ideas –– excepts thousands of regular folks, business leaders, and admirers across a spectrum of professional disciplines, who may not agree with Batra on every point or on the depth of the doom he foresees but who believe that his theories ought to be included in the global debate now going on over how to fix the economy...“He’s brilliant. He should be on TV more. But he’s been excommunicated” by the economist community, Dimare said.""[[5]]

It should be brought out that the Fort Worth Weekly is a local newspaper for SMU where Batra teaches, and such continued interest is yet more indication of his still thriving local celebrity.
Batra's notability and relevance to this article is certainly not a dead horse issue, even if the zeitgeist in the US has yet to catch up with him, despite the recent developments. The national media, like the economics establishment, has still not forgiven his major wrong prediction for The Great Depression of 1990. However, his notability for this article arises from his continued promotion of concepts like the "share of wealth held by the richest 1 percent" and ideas about "Crony capitalism" and his foresightful predictions that the system would at some point crash -- no matter how wrong he had been earlier on the timing. Indeed, the US banking system has now experienced a major failure, just as he predicted it would. The Occupy Wall Street movement, like Batra, is protesting the unfairness of the fact that the adjustment to the financial crisis is yet again being borne by the increasing number of poor. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, one in every six Americans is now classified as being poor! However, as none have come forward to offer explicit support for the inclusion of an entry on Batra here, in the face of opposition by a few editors, I leave this issue for now but will revert if relevant national developments warrant. Please note that according to WP guidelines, the requested time for settling edit disputes is three months Plankto (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 October 2011

http://vimeo.com/30778727

CrackerJackWorks (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2; launching a nationwide general strike, some resources

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:"22Occupy" protests # potential resource 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Kalle Lasn not credited as Founder of Occupation Wall Street?

The New York Times lists Kalle Lasn's plans for Operation Wall Street in June 2011 as well as contacting 90,000 fellow activists: "Mr. Halper said he first heard about the plan for protests in June when he visited Kalle Lasn, the editor in chief of Adbusters, a Canadian anticorporate magazine, in Vancouver. Over a steak dinner, the two longtime friends discussed Mr. Lasn’s project, a plan to fill Wall Street with protesters as a way to galvanize anger on the political left into a revolutionary movement resembling the Arab Spring."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/he-made-it-on-wall-st-and-used-it-to-help-start-the-protests/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.175.55 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Because wikipedia is dominated and owned by americans and Kalle Lasn is a Canadian, If he was an american he would be a household name. At least that's my answer to your question. 174.89.101.194 (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just looked at Kalle Lasn's bio; doesn't even mention Occupy Wall Street. Wikipedia is american-ethno-centric; just like all american media; once you accept that reality, everything makes a lot more sense. 174.89.101.194 (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, select members of Anonymous started planning it back in April. After #A99 / #OESR (Operation Empire State Rebellion), communication #2, Project Icarus was launched. Playing around on youtube & watching A99 communication #1 & #2, then the couple "Operation Icarus" videos, you will easily come to the same conclusion. 67.253.8.103 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence from any legitimate publication that Anonymous planned OWS in April 2011? I searched extensively and found none. The NYT has significant resources to investigate this story and has clearly identified Kalle Lasn as the founder. In any other encyclopedia article here, that would be a sufficient source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.176.121 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Parodies

A CNBC correspondent reported that Occupy Wall Street movement sparked parodies which aim to expand the movement to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. An image of Luke Skywalker holding a protest sign was published: "It wasn't glamorous but I had a steady living working on my uncle's moisture farm. My aunt and uncle were unjustly murdered and the farm destroyed. I was forced to leave my home and join an extinct cult just to survive. I am now a member of an upstart movement to take down a greedy corrupt establishment. I AM THE 99%." Skywalker's enemies, the Imperial Storm Troopers joined the protest on another image circulating on the Internet holding signs: "End Galactic Corporate Greed", "Get Our Troops Off Tantooine" and "Keep Your Empirical Hands Off My Healthcare". Parodies relating to the Middle Earth include a woman which had written her complaint in Elvish, allegedly translated: "I spend every waking hour fighting orcs while Elrond and Galadriel eat lembas bread all day. I am the 99%".[5] Guy Fawkes masks from the film V for Vendetta are used as symbols against corporate greed.[6]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference truth-out was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference peoples-contract was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference uprising was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference prophet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Wells, Jane (24 Oct 2011). "Occupy Movement Is Out of This World". CNBC. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
  6. ^ V for Vendetta masks: Who's behind them?

The section citing CNBC and BBC sources above on parodies was removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The material was removed without explanation, maybe because of its location as a sub-section of Reactions which is bloated as-is. I'll restore it as top-level section, right after Media coverage if there are no further objections. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Accept the current tags: POV + current event.

At first I thought, why can't they make the wiki process work and redact whatever, but then I realized better to just accept the tags as part of the site culture and move on as far as the article quality is concerned. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a consensus thing not a culture thing. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Judging by current state it's more of a vigour of youth thing. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Red Army!

Red Army! Internet Kill Switch! 71.33.169.3 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See Aaron Klein and FoxNews.com. 99.109.126.95 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Not particularly reliable, per WP:RSN. Dualus (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Non reporters - Haack and Kingkade are amatuers

There is no way to use Haack or Kingkade, both are self-published bloggers. I could start blogs at their respective current blog hosts, the Guardian and the Huffpo, not have any editorial oversite like Haack and Kingkade, and it seems some editors would think my stuff was hunky dory. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

At one time I would have argued this, however considering that we now have a lot of controversy re his report, which was not picked up in any major news service, I agree with you - we should not use his work. (This is re Kingkade - I have not been following the Haack posts.) Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Not saying that either author is fit for citation, but are you sure it's that easy to publish on the Guardian blog space? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how you can start a blog post at Huff. Are you sure about that? I looked and didn't see a way to do that. Could be wrong though.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I wouldn't be surprised if there's just some minimal set of hoops to jump through to get started (else I'm not sure how Haack would have made the cut). But I don't think it's as simple as registering on a web forum. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe blogger is not what Haack is, he is ,though, an amateur comical source. His Guardian bio reads David Haack is an underemployed artist an anticorporate activist who lives in New York City. He has a degree in history from Suny Purchase. He is one of the 99% The full extent of his contributions to the Guardian is one article. Same for Kingkade, another crummy source nowhere near RS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Now, how do you get to be a Huffpo blogger. Well, you get asked to be one because you made a lot of comments on the Huffpo. Arianna calls them "opinion journalists", saying "we only invite people who have interesting points of view and the ability to express themselves in a compelling way. [6] It's a fantasy to think they deserve to be regaded as journalist whose reporting has passed the rigors of a factchecking editorial oversight. Kingkad simply has no bonas fides for a RS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Read more: <

Why don't you two ask what WP:RSN thinks of Guardian bloggers? Dualus (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Why, Haack isn't a blogger, is he? But he is, we know from he one and only piece published at the Guardian, as noted above, an underemployed artist an anticorporate activist who lives in New York City. He has a degree in history from Suny Purchase. He is one of the 99%. Not what you call first team RS by any stretch of the imagination. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has a point about Huffington post. I am not sure if we have established that Kingkade is just a blogger though as Gandydancer has at least provided the fact the Kingkade has multiple articles and not just one. Perhaps he is just more prolfic than others. At any case, Kingkade's article is being treated as opinion to Wiki policy in that regard and not as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not inclined to revert over any of this however. It seems a good consensus is forming.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that was interesting... I went over to Huff Post to "prove" that Kingkade was a step above Haack, but that was not what I seemed to find at all. While it's true that he calls himself a HP writer, and while it's true that he's written 50 articles since June, I now believe that The Artist is correct - they are both unpaid bloggers, though I'm guessing they may pay him something if they like what he's written. So I did learn something. It does lower my opinion of Huff Post, and I now understand why their stuff is questionable. Which is not to say that mainstream press is accurate and non-biased either - but that's another story... Gandydancer (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Amadscientist, at this point I think I would not accept Kingkade and would revert him. I wish I would have known what I know now a few days ago. Live and Learn. Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have made reverts and changes in order to better attribute the sources used by another in keeping with Wikipedia standards. I wanted to add that I wasn't inclined to do that again as consensus has become VERY clear on this now. I don't like the use of Huff for the same reasons as the consensus of the general community.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The Huff has some great reporters who would be great RSs if relevant. But Kingcade is not even a reporter, and I think the issue is as narrow as that, and take it to the broader level of yay or nay on the Huff is beyond the scope of whether Kingcade is a RS or not. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but lets not forget that the general consensus of editors was established through a series of ANI discussion and is very much relevant to the discussion here. Like finding out IMDB is not a RS on Wikipedia for the same reasons. Yeah...that surprises the heck out of people but it is a membership site that allows anyone to post information and has no editorial oversite. I have seen information I have placed on Wikipedia before it could be referenced with published secondary sources become fact on IMDB within a few moths of it's posting. That's called Wikiality and is a real danger I have seen first hand.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
If a Huffpo reporter has a good rep, then there is no need to exclude them. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between a Huffpo reporter and blogger; the former gets paid and is edited. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I no longer like adding information without a reference of any kind for that reason. I felt lucky as a relatively new Wikipedia editor at that time to find the information in a published book. It was true... and was in other places....but they could all be traced to my original remark on a message board when I attempted to research it online. Before it was referenced with a relaible source... it was just OR and didn't understand that.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Have either of you bothered to ask WP:RSN about Guardian bloggers (even new ones)? They are always under Guardian editorial standards and control, even when they are unpaid. The Guardian often uses unpaid reporters and bloggers for their first stories. Dualus (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, we know they have good judgement too. But what an impertinent question. I detect a misplaced feeling of entitlement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm pretty sure that the expected use of this tag and its associated editorial processes contemplates that the editor or editors placing the tag will actively work towards a consensus that will resolve the dispute that the placing editor felt justified the tag in the first place. Dualus seems now to have gone on vacation from this article.

Is there any reason the tag should not be removed pending some resumption of the discussion of whatever neutrality problems are perceived to exist here? Previously, I saw no point in debating the tag itself, at least while Dualus was still pleading his case, but I don't think it should remain if there's not even an active dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I strenuously object to the removal of the POV tag. I will return to the article soon to replace the deletions of which I complained of above less than two days ago. Dualus (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a willingness to edit-war is enough to keep the tag. What's expected is that you discuss the problems you think the article has. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is becoming clear. It will not be there forever. Things are wrapping up over his disputes.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
How do you figure? We're fresh off 20,000 words of one-man disputes, and now that one man is coming back. Fasten seatbelt. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
His disputes are indeed running out of time and will eventually be resolved one way or another. One does not have to get their way for a dispute to end.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor is helping to build a case that he is just edit warring and nothing more. I truly believe we have been very patient with him...far more than he has been with others. Above you see a comment that shows his intent to go against consensus and remarks like that are all over this page. Let him dig as deep a hole as he wishes.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is completely unethical to insinuate that I am the only person opposed to either you or Centrify's position when we have recently established that there are at least two people, and often three, who have spoken in favor of my preferred changes, on at least five separate issues. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably even more unethical to assume that's what I said or meant or that I have a position other than what is formed from the contribution of editors here. Consensus is not a vote. My position is clear. If consensus is against addition of any content...it's out. Making a lot of posts and edits is not consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I was certainly saying (not implying or insinuating) that not a single other editor supported your proposals on the issues that I was discussing with you. Which five [or more] separate issues are you claiming 2-3 editors supported you on? Above, you posted a list of 6 issues: "1. connection to the Arab Spring mentioned in intro; 2. recent polls summarized in intro; 3. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the intro; 4. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the body; 5. description of 99 Percent Declaration in intro (I believe we may have reached a compromise on this one); 6. description of the Goals Working Group (currently only one person on each side of this one)"
I wasn't paying much attention to two of the issues (1 - 2), but regarding the other four issues (3 - 6), I don't recall a single editor who agreed with your edits or proposed edits. A little explanation of what you mean here would be much appreciated. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
How many editors equal consensus...all of them contributing to the article and what they discuss and decide to live with. But if you revert without supporting it...it's just edit warring. I see no reason to keep the POV tag without at least explaining the reason for the revert on the talk page with civility. My revert was that consensus still holds without discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You're overstating the inclusiveness of "consensus". Consensus can and often does utterly reject the suggestions of one or more editors, and it does not require that every involved editor be able to "live with" the result. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I should probably say...all those contributing editors who are contributing to the consensus. Just reverting is not consensus. If a revert is made without discussion that is not consensus. A revert has to be defended or explained, as it is up to the editor making the revert to justify it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
And "Living with", "accepting" or "allowing" is a part of forming that consensus. It requires discussion but it doesn't mean everyone agrees. Am I incorrect about that?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Really I just wanted to clarify this for Dualus's benefit so he doesn't get the idea—or perhaps become further entrenched in the idea—that consensus means the article content has to be made acceptable to him. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah...sorry. I was also explaining my revert of The Last Angry Man's revert...who just reverted again. Let's see if he is just edit warring or intends to discuss his revert.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that he wishes to discuss but his new placement of the tag is on the "other politicians" sub-subsection.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


Repeating my above question so Dualus is sure to notice it:

I was certainly saying (not implying or insinuating) that not a single other editor supported your proposals on the issues that I was discussing with you. Which five [or more] separate issues are you claiming 2-3 editors supported you on? Above, you posted a list of 6 issues: "1. connection to the Arab Spring mentioned in intro; 2. recent polls summarized in intro; 3. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the intro; 4. description of calls for constitutional amendments in the body; 5. description of 99 Percent Declaration in intro (I believe we may have reached a compromise on this one); 6. description of the Goals Working Group (currently only one person on each side of this one)"

I wasn't paying much attention to two of the issues (1 - 2), but regarding the other four issues (3 - 6), I don't recall a single editor who agreed with your edits or proposed edits. A little explanation of what you mean here would be much appreciated. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this comment below. Search down from here for "connection to the Arab Spring" to find my response. Dualus (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravi Batra's support for OWS is notable

Two editors have made an assessment in the edit summaries that an entry on Ravi Batra does not merit inclusion in the "Celebrity reaction and involvement" section of the OWS article as Batra is not a "celebrity". This is a problem as the normal WP guidelines on notability are being suspended in this case. It has been shown that in terms of notability, the following entry merits inclusion in an article for a number of reasons.

On October 11, Ravi Batra wrote an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism“.[1] 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.[2] Batra is being linked to the OWS movement due to his long standing prediction that “monopoly capitalism would create the worst-ever concentration of wealth in its history, so much so that a social revolution would start its demise around 2010.”[3][4]

Ravi Batra is clearly notable as per general notability guidelines. While the coverage on him is clearly more in the 1980s and 1990s -- in the pre-internet era -- there is also recent coverage. The WP article on Batra testifies to this, as does the media coverage, as well as discussion of his ideas all over the net, including on the unofficial OWS web site. This has all been shown with reliable sources. Batra's life's work is also closely related to the OWS movement as brought out with RS above. In order to side step a subjective popularity contest among editors about Batra, it is therefore proposed that his entry be included in the article, but that a new place be found for it. Alternatively, it is proposed that the current celebrity heading be divided it into separate Writers and Artists sections.Plankto (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Being notable for the article or notable as an person of interest is not the same as Celebrity. It requires at least some form of secondary published reference to make the claim wouldn't it? Let's look at what Harvard says about academic celebrity: [7]. Now lets see what we find if we search for Batra under the search term: [8]. Immediately we see an LA Times article at the top of the search: [9]. Then just down from there is a reference to him speaking of the term: [10]. So there is what I can find. I am having a hard time with this to be honest. I find the term to be somewhat shallow and yet there are those that do find him to have celebrity status but is that really enough. There are other academics listed and quoted and they too have some small celebrity for their appearances, interviews and books but are those "fans" enough to qualify the person under the definition of celebrity for our purposes here? I am still trying to get a grasp on it to be honest and can't make an informed decision as yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I see all "celebrity" reaction being under a section: "Public Opinion" as a subsection and artist and musician as sub-subsections.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful information, Amadscientist, which establishes that Batra has been considered a "celebrity", as Gandydancer demanded be shown in his entry above on 18:20, 23 October 2011 and Andy0093 claimed Batra was not in his edit summary in the main article on 23:43, 26 October 2011. As these editors choose not to discuss the issue here, I suggest the entry be reinserted. It is the responsibility of the opposing editors to defend their actions on talk page, and not just revert with baseless claims in the edit summaries. In addition, and as shown in an irrefutable manner above, Batra is a notable in terms of this article. So, while his 15 minutes of fame may have come and gone, the notability remains. Personally, I'd like this discussion to end with a consensus, but that is not possible if those opposing the entry do not participate and just hop in and revert. Plankto (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
My vote: he's not notable. There's is no entitlement that consensus defend itself to a lone dissenter. After a point, consensus is set and should be respected. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You're pushing your luck Plankto. As anyone here knows, I've discussed this issue extensively with you through the numerous threads you've started (what is it now, six?). But just for the record, I'll say it one more time: One Truthout article and two mentions in the Fort Worth Weekly do not make Batra notable. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Dropping the stick and walking away from the dead horse carcus applies to winners of disputes. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Same here. I give up on this for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
One clear benefit of this debate for the article so far is the creation of a sub-heading for Authors and academics. It makes goos sense to separate the intellectuals from the entertainers - although these sections are still populated by a number of people less notable than Batra. But this is understandable in terms of the strong bias still felt against Batra. In June 2010, Gayle Reaves summed it up quite well in the third recent Fort Worth article about him titled "The U.S. Economy: Still a House of Cards":

"Almost no one likes his ideas –– excepts thousands of regular folks, business leaders, and admirers across a spectrum of professional disciplines, who may not agree with Batra on every point or on the depth of the doom he foresees but who believe that his theories ought to be included in the global debate now going on over how to fix the economy...“He’s brilliant. He should be on TV more. But he’s been excommunicated” by the economist community, Dimare said.""[[11]]

It should be brought out that the Fort Worth Weekly is a local newspaper for SMU where Batra teaches, and such continued interest is yet more indication of his still thriving local celebrity.
Batra's notability and relevance to this article is certainly not a dead horse issue, even if the zeitgeist in the US has yet to catch up with him, despite the recent developments. The national media, like the economics establishment, has still not forgiven his major wrong prediction for The Great Depression of 1990. However, his notability for this article arises from his continued promotion of concepts like the "share of wealth held by the richest 1 percent" and ideas about "Crony capitalism" and his foresightful predictions that the system would at some point crash -- no matter how wrong he had been earlier on the timing. Indeed, the US banking system has now experienced a major failure, just as he predicted it would. The Occupy Wall Street movement, like Batra, is protesting the unfairness of the fact that the adjustment to the financial crisis is yet again being borne by the increasing number of poor. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, one in every six Americans is now classified as being poor! However, as none have come forward to offer explicit support for the inclusion of an entry on Batra here, in the face of opposition by a few editors, I leave this issue for now but will revert if relevant national developments warrant. Please note that according to WP guidelines, the requested time for settling edit disputes is three months Plankto (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 October 2011

http://vimeo.com/30778727

CrackerJackWorks (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are we citing student newspapers?

Does anybody really think that there is such scant coverage on OWS that we need to dig deep down in the barrel? If something can't be sourced to an ordinary newspaper, why are we discussing it in the article at all? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Given the coverage of OWS it is unlikely that much is missing within ordinary newspapers. Arzel (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I cited a student newspaper, but it was one with, if I remember, a circulation of 10,000 statewide. Be——Critical 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
But do you agree that with such a very widely covered movement, there shouldn't be any need to cite to sources that seem to be marginally reliable at best? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Which source(s) are you asking about? Dualus (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternet

Alternet is liberal, but is it an unreliable source for Wikipedia? Be——Critical 19:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good writers write for Alternet, so I would look at the writer as well. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it certainly doesn't seem to be a mainstream source, and as an informal point of reference, our WP article describes it as a "progressive/liberal activist news service" which would seem to imply that it is not. And in the specific case of the first reference I removed, a source with a sensationalist headline reading "Occupy Wall Street arrests approach 1,000, while police rake in millions in overtime" was being tagged to a sentence that it didn't support and that already had numerous ref—and in a separate place, for an otherwise innocuous figure of number of arrests; I removed that ref on the rationale that the citation was completely unnecessary and didn't match the article text in the one case, and was easily replaceable by a more NPOV mainstream source in the other.
I suppose, though, that the ref for the Immortal Technique interview might not be objectionable and perhaps I should not have removed it.
At the same time, I have to wonder, for general citations, if certain material can only be found in a less-than-mainstream source, some suspicion is warranted and I wonder if we should reconsider including it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't object to your removal but Alternet is not necessarily not mainstream because it is liberal. Liberalism isn't necessarily non-mainstream, and is often more mainstream than other sources because it often is based more on expert opinion than other sources, as academics tend to be liberal. Be——Critical 01:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I was referring mainly to the word "activist", not "liberal". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2; launching a nationwide general strike, some resources

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:"22Occupy" protests # potential resource 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Again: no one is making any effort to further any debate about, or otherwise justify, any POV tag on this article. Leaving it in place during a dispute is one thing, but the purpose of the tag is not to just slap it on an article whose tone or content you disagree with and then walk away. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no POV tag. Be——Critical 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
See the "other politicians" section. An editor tagged this without ever explaining why, if I recall, and I haven't seen any discussion of it at all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This shows very poor understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and policy. As the tag says, it should remain until disputes are resolved. Dualus (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This comment is so absurd that it doesn't even merit a response, but here goes. The policy doesn't say (or mean) that one editor can simply place a tag and require it to remain in place until he is personally satisfied that the article is neutral. There may not be any explicit timeframe for resolving the dispute, but if you spend some time reading noticeboards you'll see that there has to be an actual dispute that editors work towards resolving in good faith. If the editor placing the tag makes no effort to resolve the dispute, and particularly if he is the only editor arguing that there are POV problems, the tag needn't remain. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing of the intro

Why was this line "The movement has been criticized as having no formal demands or goals. Princeton professor Cornel West has called it a democratic awakening, suggesting that it would be difficult to reduce to a few demands.[12] Washington Post opinion writer Katrina vanden Heuvel has said that at this time, the primary goal of the movement is to grow in size.[13] A member of the New York City General Assembly said OWS will not issue demands, because "demands are for terrorists and that is not who we are."[14][15]" Which has been in the intro for over a week removed unilaterally? No census was reached on the talkpage about the decision to remove it.

--Andy0093 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's true but it seems like that has now been overtaken by events. It's an artifact from the very early days of the movement, isn't it? Be——Critical 01:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The removal was actually discussed a good deal in discussions above. West comments are notable for article but undue weight to lede. How do you wish to argue for it's inclusion in this manner? The same is true of reference attribution to any particular writer or author in lede. Per MOS "emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject"--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Andy, it's because we don't work with consensus here or even a mention on the talk page. We use the willy nilly method. That's what I use in my raspberry patch, and it doesn't work very well there, either. Critical, I generally think you make excellent posts, but I don't agree with you on this one. Although time moves on, I believe that certain foundations do or should remain intact, and West is a good example. He spoke within the first few days and continues to demonstrate - in fact he has been arrested at least twice already. Although this is a revolt initiated and led by the fresh instincts of the young, we need the grandfather's wisdom to offer their insights as well. West certainly is not an artifact of the past and I'm surprised that anyone would suggest that. Gandydancer (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a particular problem with the actual statement or statements, but the need to quote any person in this manner is giving them far too much weight in the lede. Maybe we can use it without the need to attribute the personalities if the are attributed in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
And Gandydancer...that was unnecessary. I came to the talk page and gave my reasons for the revert just as Andy did. Please assume good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
My own POV is that West works very well in the lead, but at the same time I have to agree that he isn't notable enough for the lead relative to the body of the article as it's currently written. Nor the rest of the paragraph, which is just distracting. Be——Critical 02:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The statements might have a place in the article... but the lede? Sounds like undue weight to me. Bowmerang (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I meant no offense Scientist. I actually agree that your line of thought may be correct once I consider it, but it seems to me that you made the decision on your own to delete the paragraph. I try to follow the discussion, but perhaps I missed your post. Gandydancer (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Careful... You know how Amadscientist feels about not being addressed by his full username. :P Bowmerang (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably the same as using the talk page to disparage other editors Bowmerang. If that's going to be your contribution here please refrain from further comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When it was removed there was no discussion from the editor who did so, but no one objected. There has been discussion on the lede and undue weight of presenting information not in proportion to the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. It does actually look like there is some consensus here. Sorry to ramble rouse. --Andy0093 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No rabble roused at all Andy. Consensus can change. You did everything right here. You were bold and used the talk page. You also didn't fight the consensus...which can always (and most often does) change in time....but not always. Anyway...thanks for the civil posts!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

The naming style and placement of references in the article is a mess. I'm going to read up on the manual of style recommendations; any help fixing the broken references is appreciated as well.--~TPW 02:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all I've confirmed is that named references should be kept simple - these names are not that. I'm going to try to help.--~TPW 02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
May the Wiki gods feed you cookies. I have been endeavoring to make fixes and work on this very issue for about a week now a little at a time.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • A ref naming style I have used on long articles with many (contentious) edits, with the danger that ref / cites get deranged by innocent other editors, is <ref name= "Journal-AuthorLast-YYYY-MM-DD">.
    This style has the particular advantage that if the original cite is deleted, the orphan refs can be, without much agony be fixed, and the source easily found, even many months later, should that be necessary, without having to play peekaboo in the history.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
True..but I wonder if Just using a more basic citation format wouldn't be easier.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I think with the list style being used here, such complex names won't be necessary. Let's see if I can get a few done today, and thank you to whoever fixed the broken ones!--~TPW 12:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, although at least one other was helping last night.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed info from the "criticism" section for being "editorialising/POV."

In this edit, an editor removed content from the "criticism" section, and commented, "editorialising/POV."

I don't think that that comment is accurate, because it is a fact, not an opinion, that those criticisms were made.

Here is the text that the editor removed. I think it should be put back in. What do other editors think? Is it really "editorialising/POV" to point out, in the "criticism" section, that these criticisms were made? Or, it is appropriate content for a section that is titled "criticism"?

In an editorial in Commentary magazine, Abe Greenwald referred to celebrities who supported the protests as "self-demonizing millionaires."[5]

Conservative opinion columnist Ann Coulter wrote, "They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate 'Wall Street.' You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government." In comparing them with the tea party protestors, Coulter wrote, "Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public... Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning."[6]

In an editorial titled "The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street," celebritynetworth.com wrote, "Occupy Wall Street's slogan 'We are the 99%' is derived from the idea that they represent the difference in wealth that separates the top 1% and every other American citizen... So why are multi-millionaire celebrities showing up to offer their support and grab attention? And why is Occupy Wall Street taking them seriously?" [7]

Remy Munasifi wrote and sang a song, in the style of Bob Dylan, called "Occupy Wall Street Protest Song," which criticized the protestors for not understanding how well off they are.[8][9]

Mk2z0h (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

At a glance that doesn't look very notable or well sourced, with the possible exception of Ann Coulter. Be——Critical 03:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The 'someone' who removed it was me. A random selection of comments, selected by the contributor, and justified by an edit summary stating that "Multiple reliable sources have pointed out the hypocrisy of wealthy celebrities who protest against the richest 1%, plus other hypocrisies" is clearly intended to make a point, and as such a breach of WP:NPOV. Of course it is appropriate to refer to criticism, but it has to be done in a way that provides context, and the opportunity for counter-arguments. Actually, as much as anything else, this illustrates why 'criticism' sections in articles are problematic, and generally best avoided, and critical commentary interspersed instead with other content. Wikipedia is supposed to report events, rather than act as a forum for debating them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Since the examples were "selected by the contributor" (your words) they cannot be "random" (your word). The reliably sourced criticism of the protestors' hypocrisies is notable. The fact that celebrities in the richest 1% support a protest against the richest 1% is notable. The fact that people protesting against Wall St. support reelection of the candidate who got the most contributions from Wall St. from any candidate, ever, is also notable. These things should be included. Mk2z0h (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well sourced information of this kind could go in the reaction section. It doesn't have to be positive reaction to be included...just properly referenced. If it grows in accordance to MOS it can be re-added. Problematic or not criticism is a reaction. I am unclear what is meant by: "..it has to be done in a way that provides context, and the opportunity for counter-arguments". Can you clarify?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe what AndyTheGrump is referring to is context to prose. Wikipedia is not a place for random facts. Counter argument might also simply be a reference to the way it is written but not sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Those facts are not "random." Since the protest is against Wall St. and the richest 1%, it is notable that celebrities in the richest 1% support the protest, and that protestors support the reelection of the person who got more donations from Wall St. than any candidate. These facts are not "random." On the contrary, they are relevant and notable. Mk2z0h (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Placement may have everything to do with "Random".--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

resource?

How OccupySF thwarted a police raid 10.27.11 11:15 am San Francisco Bay Guardian by Yael Chanoff 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not for this article. There is an Occupy San Francisco Wikipedia article.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important enough to include. If you get enough protesters, the police can't afford to do anything about it. That's important to know. It seems to be related to about 1m00s of the http://vimeo.com/30778727 video someone else wanted to include. How do people feel about the both of them together, as co-sources? Dualus (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Not related to the article subject. User submitted video contains copyright material and cannot be used on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

501(c)3

I deleted this from the intro. Can anyone verify it?

In late October, Occupy Wall Street registered for 501(c)(3) status, with the Alliance for Global Justice, a D.C.-based grassroots organization, serving as the movement's fiscal sponsor."(ref>"Money Donated To Occupy Wall Street Brings Much Needed Supplies And Tension" by Lila Shapiro. The Huffington Post. October 24, 2011.</ref>

It's a real HuffPo story but per the reliable source criteria, we would need corroboration if something like that goes in the intro. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything else about it. Be——Critical 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's probably a prank; just something some smart-ass said to a reporter. We have reliable sources saying the protesters are encouraging that sort of thing, which doesn't make it any easier to edit this article. Dualus (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Source for growth caused by income equality

The International Monetary Fund recently published a timely report showing that income equality causes economic growth. The principal component analysis in its Chart 4 is particularly instructive. Someone should add that to the article. In the "Background" section? Dualus (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we get to add IMF graphics per copyright? Be——Critical 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think so. I'll check on that. We certainly get to include their images per fair use/WP:NFCC and WP:OI.
This is related to [12], [13], and [14] which others have asked be included above. Dualus (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This too. 67.6.179.27 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaaaaand it looks like we get to put this info in the article, since this article links the IMF to OWS] Be——Critical 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Dualus (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The article does not. Kristoff's opinion piece, already a mark against making it a RS, argues that OWS's feeling of inequality is justified. He then uses the IMF report to show why he agrees with OWS. That's it, folks. There is no reporting - a rare thing in opinion pieces anyhow - of OWS acknowledging the IMF report in any way. Hence no real connection. The editors are trying to use synthesis in this case, and really need to get with the program: we are not a soapbox. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You may think we doubt the truth of that; I don't, but it's synthesis to rely on these sources. Where are the secondary sources that connect the facts to OWS? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The ones posted above -or at least the one I posted- are secondary sources linking the IMF article to OWS. Be——Critical 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
And I would draw attention to this change which others including myself do not agree with. There may be portions of that revert which took out questionable material, but it's not appropriate to revert wholesale when some of the changes were well-sourced. Be——Critical 01:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note this. Be——Critical 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reinserted it. Blanking entire well-sourced sections is not appropriate, especially when it's derectly pertinent to the topic. Night Ranger (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I reported it. Thanks (: Be——Critical 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Be Critical did some forum shopping to settle a content dispute. Besides being slapped down for using the wrong forum, he didn't get all that |much love: You're relying on primary sources outside the topic. Start with the OWS secondary sources you are using first and then show how the secondary sources tie directly into the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Sourced material only goes into the article if there is a consensus that it is relevant and correctly weighted. The fact that it is sourced is a necessary criteria for inclusion, but not a sufficient one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that someone needs to create 99 Percent Declaration and New York City General Assembly if they have not been created already, or at least have them redirect to an appropriate section of an existing article. Dualus (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous has a misunderstanding of OR and SYNTH. I'll explain it once, but I'm not sure that will be enough: When reliable secondary source 1 makes it clear that certain information in reliable source 2 is relevant to the subject of the article, one can use the second source. At any rate, the sources used in the removed text discuss the subject of this article and directly related issues, and they are RS for this article. In addition, if multiple sources support the same text, and you feel one is RS and one is not, that's not reason to remove the text. Please stop taking out this extremely well sourced material. Be——Critical 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
That is oblique. Is "reliable secondary source 12" the Kristoff article? (An opinion piece, not a RS in any case expect to say something like "Kristoff agrees with OWS because...") That stool is on two legs. If not, then what the hell is it number 1? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you please be specific about your objections? This is one source [15]. Be——Critical 04:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Geez, would "you please be specific" and throw a dog a bone? What is behind the door labeled "reliable secondary source 1"? And what is it supposed to make clear, beyond the ever so vague "certain information"? I'm done guessing. I imagine I'll then need to repeat a well explained objection. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I just told you one of the sources. Read post above. Be——Critical 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If you could be so helpful so I could know what you were talking about, you would get an answer. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If it's Kristofff, boy is that lame. Read my above trouncing of that one and pick it up from there. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stats in the lead

The statistics

The participants' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to income inequality in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% which controls about 40% of the total wealth of the country, and the rest of the population.

Keep getting edited out. I've inserted the information in the body of the article now,[16] and I think this statistic is absolutely central to the movement. So I'm not sure why others don't think it should go in the lead. Be——Critical

I think it was removed unintentionally the last time; I restored it.--~TPW 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, you did? Oh, you did once, then it was taken out here. Be——Critical 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That was fast. I support keeping it in.--~TPW 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The forty percent is TMI - read too wonkish - for the lead, and without a link showing OWS working the 40% ratio as much as 99%, this is WP:OR. Which is probably the case, when I googled "occupy wall street 40%" I found how "absolutely central" the statistic is not to the movement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The 40% isn't original research - it's how much the 1% owns. All that number does is clarify what "the 99%" is referring to, in a way that the lead doesn't now.--~TPW 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Until you have refs showing a high profile connection for OWS and that stat, like them really using it a lot and vocally, it doesn't matter that it is true, it's not that connected to OWS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It's connected in the same way that fruit is connected to a banana. If you mention that X likes bananas, and people might not know that bananas are fruit, you might mention the fact. The 40% is just as high profile as the 99% and 1%. Now, that's the logic, but the refs also fully support it, for example: "As 2.6 million Americans fell under the poverty line last year, the top 1 percent continued to control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth." and "In comparison, the 60 percent of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their incomes increase by just 40 percent during the same time period, according to the study, which was based on a combination of IRS and Census data." It's basic background which should be mentioned the first time we mention the "99%," in order that people can understand what they're reading. Be——Critical 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is too good to let it slide on by, especially since it demolishes any idea of 40% being notable for the lead: " It's basic background". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That would be a classic case of OR through synthesis. Can you show that OWS is aware of this fact and has made a big deal of it? If no, then we can't either. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I just did show that. However, it's the share of growth that may be more emphasized. If you prefer that statistic it can be inserted. Be——Critical 04:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We'll keep "basic backround" out of the lead, all the same. That's why it's called the lead. Now, when you can show not OWS putting the 40% figure out there - you know, in the foreground - then we can talk. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Stop the officious tone. You and I both know that this is a basic statistic. Now, it may be that sources favor income growth inequality, over percentage of wealth, but that's a tweak. I'll get to the sources tomorrow when I have more time. And we will include it in the lead, since the lead summarizes the most important points of the article, and this is in fact the most important point as it's the motivation for the movement. Be——Critical 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're done barking orders... I indeed know it's a basic statistic - of the background variety, as it were and as you pointed out. Good luck with finding the sources, the one you've come up with so far just didn't cut it. 05:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (: Be——Critical 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the background section, I propose text something like this for the lead:

The participants' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to the difference in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% whose incomes have increased by 275% since 1979, and the bottom 90% whose incomes have shrunk.

Any objections or suggestions? Be——Critical 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer:
The protesters' slogan "We are the 99%," refers to income inequality in the United States between the wealthiest 1%, who control about 40% of the total wealth of the country and whose incomes have increased by 275% since 1979, and the bottom 90% whose inflation-adjusted incomes have declined.
How is that? Dualus (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Better, thanks. Be——Critical 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this is true, but without secondary sources showing that these facts are very well known and play a large part in OWS's interior dialogues, it's TMI for the lead and the background section. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter of encyclopedic terminology. I have copy edited further for more neutral phrasing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference truth-out was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference peoples-contract was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference uprising was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference prophet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Occupy Wall Street Could be Disaster for Democrats, Commentary magazine, October 4, 2011
  6. ^ This Is What a Mob Looks Like, by Ann Coulter, Human Events, October 5, 2011
  7. ^ The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street, celebritynetworth.com, October 11, 2011
  8. ^ Remy's Occupy Wall Street Protest Song, Reason magazine, October 10, 2011
  9. ^ Occupy Wall Street gets a theme song ... sort of, AFP, October 11, 2011
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_12&oldid=591298108"