Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Hedges addition

While I don't find the recent addition of new material particularly problematic in itself, I do think that it is flawed in its current state and should be removed, and that there are some procedural issues that need addressing.

• The editor added material to challenge or balance the "anarchism" claim in the lead ("To omit this view would be POV by exlusion"), taking Hedge's statement that the movement is "conservative" as evidence that the movement is not (exclusively) identifiable as anarchism ("Hedges implicitly finds anrachy no the sole and only influence" [sic]). However, Hedge's statement in context is clearly not indicating that OWS activists are what we would normally call conservatives, and thus not anarchists, but is rather a rhetorical gesture meant to challenge common perceptions of the movement. For Hedges, they are "conservative" not because they are on the political right, but because they seek to reinstate the rule of law (as opposed to the "criminals", i.e., the bankers et al.). One might make a case that that would necessarily rule out anarchists, but that would probably be strained, and certainly be WP:OR.
• Second, WP:BRD does not mean "no tag backs," but that when material has been added, then removed, the next step is to take the question to the talk page, NOT to reinstate it with a barely intelligible edit summary. That's called edit-warring.
• And even if Hedges were actually saying that OWS is a conservative movement in the sense that we normally think of the word, we should treat that as we treat the claims about the anarchist affiliations or anything else, namely, by following WP:LEAD, specifically the part that says that the lead should summarize the contents. If you want to make a case for the conservative nature of OWS in the body, and then include it in the lead, by all means, do it, but you'll certainly need a stronger source than the one we have now.
• And finally, I'm not necessarily alleging bad faith, but the edit summary provided clearly states that this material is being added to challenge the anarchist claim ("Hedges implicitly finds anrachy no the sole and only influence and this is a significance non anrachist facet of OWS" [sic]), and continues rather aggressively by stating that "To omit this view would be POV by exlusion" [sic]. This is not the way to treat either the lead of an article nor the dispute about OWS/anarchism. POV doesn't mean that every claim needs a counterclaim (however contorted), but that we represent the best sources as best we can. If you think the anarchism thing is getting undue weight, please chime in in the ongoing talk page discussion. Don't add a sentence to the lead that misreads its own source and doesn't reflect any content in the body of the article; that helps neither the consensus process nor the article.

Sindinero (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - You are correct that the removal of content in this particular instance (and maybe ever) is certainly NOT "POV by exlusion" as one cannot state that removing POV is POV. Any content must be balanced with due weight to the academic sources. The reference itself is from "Raw Story" which is "a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media." and by it's very deffinition is simply promoting fringe ideas. The actual claim being made is indeed very much a "fringe" theory and has no true basis in mainstream academia. It should not be included in this article until such time that a more reliable source can be provided. Let me clarify, it isn't that the source is biased to one direction of political winds either left or right...just that it is not reliable in that the main purpose is to push an "obscure point of view" to begin with regardless of bias.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed both the reference to conservatism and this:

The Occupy movement's defining characteristic is a philosophy of anarchism

I think that perhaps any mention of anarchism in the lead should be backed up by a huge preponderance of sources. I don't know that such exists. That's because it is a very telling claim, and it touches deeply on NPOV since it would essentially tar them from the outset. So I'm happy to have it in there if it's true and very well supported as the predominant philosophy which Occupiers actually espouse, but I would like to see a lot of sources that make that claim about the predominance of that philosophy. B^e——C_ritical 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that any mention of anarchism in the lead needs a huge preponderance of sources, or just the mention we already had? I think the sources we have are good for demonstrating some connection between OWS and anarchism - see my comment in the above section for a possible wording. (I'm not sure that a mention of anarchism would 'tar' OWS from the outset, either.) Sindinero (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Be's compromise is sensible. Otherwise we are obliged to accept what any notable's opinion of what is OWS's philisophical basis. If consensus accepts this, other arguments become moot. Sind should be reminded that the nationalist, patriarchal right uses anarchism as a pejorative description of OWS, so the word is too loaded for the lead, they've debased that much as they have debased in appropriation of the ID conservative. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the condescension to a minimum, eh? I don't really need to be "reminded" of this at all, I'm pretty aware of the various uses and abuses of the word "anarch*". I just don't think that prior abuses of the word should be our guiding factor in writing this article (see my comment in the above section). It's not our job to protect or shelter OWS from an affiliation with anarchism or any other movement - if we have good sources upon which to base an accurate characterization, then we give this characterization regardless of what fascists, nationalists, or political illiterates may do with it. OWS is clearly a complex political movement, and has many influences and a complex genealogy; pointing to the anarchist influence isn't supposed to mean that that's the only one, but neither are we obliged to accept anyone's "opinion" of OWS. But we already have good sources that link concrete political practices (GAs, consensus, horizontal organizing, direct action, etc.) to anarchism: I think it's fair to indicate the connection without, however, suggesting that OWS is "exclusively" anarchist. Sindinero (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the word anarchy in copy that is connected to any notable person that uses it to describe the movement. But for us as to pronounce that it is an anarchist movement is certainly not appropriate. And again, I don't see how you can read the Wikipedia anarchy article without admitting that it is Graeber's interpretation of anarchy and not necessarily the common one. See the dictionary def for example:

a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature Gandydancer (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should avoid blanket pronouncements, as I've written above a couple times now. I'm familiar with the wp article on anarchism (and a few other texts on the subject), and I don't think that Graeber's view on anarchism strongly deviates from most others. It's also worth bearing in mind that there's a difference in definition and usage between "anarchism" and "anarchy," although the two terms are often muddled. But yes, in any case, you're right, we should avoid blanket pronouncements either way, and characterize the connection between OWS and anarchism according to the sources. Sindinero (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It was sourced to author and the subject of the history section, David Graeber, however it is also referenced to other RS. This should never be Wikipedia writng as the authority making these claims as these are not "undisputable" statements like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west sort of thing. It's also an issue not to be anytrhing more than encyclopedic with the amount of content and what claims we make, negative or positive about a living person without it being solidly sourced.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

definition of ANARCHIST

a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism

Anarchism does not mean plunder and outrage upon society. Contrarily, it's mission is to outroot the sytematical plunder of a vast majority of the people by comparatively few-the working classes by the capitalists.Anarchism: its philosophy and scientific basis as defined by some of its Apostles (1887) By Albert Richard Parsons

We can't write this article assuming that the definition of "Anarchism" or "Anarchy" has a negative or positive connotation. That is not neutral. That takes a side by assuming it is one way or another and not wanting to "taint" the subject with the very issues it brings up in the very way and manner it is undertaken. No...Occupy Wall Street as a movement can be said to be an anarchist movement in it's design and intent...almost without dispute. It is easily sourced and is encyclopedic in value to this subject. We need to be precise when speaking to exactly who takes what view and how for BLP issues, but we cannot take a blind eye to the very essense of the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Amadscientist.

Gandydancer, I'm not sure which of those definitions you feel is supposed to stand in opposition to Graeber's view, but those are also just the standard dictionary definitions. For political terms nobody would seriously turn to Random House, since their definitions are superficial and don't really contribute to a solid understanding (that's why there are encyclopedias of political science). We could toss around definitions all day: Ammon Hennacy said that an anarchist is just anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell them what to do. Ursula Le Guin defined anarchists as those who accept the responsibility for their own choices. And there are many more that don't play up the whole "violence and chaos" canard. Check out Kropotkin's Mutual Aid for a canonical work, Daniel Guerin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice for a classic text, or Uri Gordon's Anarchy Alive! for a contemporary overview, if you're interested in more.

But my point is, again, that it's no more appropriate for us to oppose mention of anarchism because we want to protect OWS from a negative association than to include anarchism because we think anarchism's swell and we want it to get more publicity by associating it with OWS. We go by what the sources say. Can we at least agree on that? Sindinero (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the major mainstream sources clearly indicate that this protest and even the movement uses anarchism as its basic make up in both philosophical as well as structural make-up. The use of general assemblies is part of the structural anarchism and really echo back to ancient Greece and Rome when the first assemblies of civilized man began to make community decisions. This is an ancient concept and is brought up in the article and is referenced. It's all very interesting. I am very sure that what we can reference and source that the protests were organized in an anarchist manner, by an anarchist, with anarchism within it's structure. The main stream media have all made note of this fact from the beginning and recently and even a point of criticism by some. We can't look the other way to be overly cautious, but move cautiously forward. Perhaps this really needs expansion for clarity and full encyclopedic value and weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street anarchism references and due weight

Lets go ahead and revue it.

1. Began as a anarchist call/suggestion.

Micah White:

Though he describes himself as a “mystical anarchist,” White has three strict rules that govern his day: No naps. No snacks. Get dressed. “By dressed,” he told me, “I mean pants and a shirt. Enough so that if someone came to the door and knocked on it you wouldn’t be totally embarrassed.” After earning a B.A. at Swarthmore, he wrote a letter to Lasn, whom he had never met, saying that he would be arriving in Vancouver in a matter of weeks and wanted to be put to work.

reference number 7

1. Organised by an anarchist.

Design anarchy. Adbusters Kalle Lasn

1. Anarchism structure

A “general assembly” means something specific and special to an anarchist. In a way, it’s the central concept of contemporary anarchist activism, which is premised on the idea that revolutionary movements relying on coercion of any kind only result in repressive societies.

reference number 12

There is some interest in anarchist models, perhaps because they're the only thing that hasn't been tried and failed. But there's also just a lot of confusion."

reference number 6

1. Anarchist calls for protest and demonstrations

"Anonymous gave us that -- I don't know what you call it, that sort of anarchy cred. All of a sudden this organization that has this strange mystique to it, they're saying, 'Yeah, occupy Wall Street!' That first video of theirs was quite a delightful little piece of videomaking, and at that moment I could feel that we got a mighty boost forward.

Reference 11

1. Anarchism noted by academics.

Institutue for Anarchist studies

1. Reported as an anarchism protests by the mainstream media.

Older organizers were protest veterans, members of far-left parties, anarchists or unaffiliated supporters of the anti-globalization movement who have spent the decade since 9/11 marching against banks and both Democrats and Republicans.

Huffington Post.

These are a lot of referenced points not to have this recorded more accurately.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right on this, but I have to tell you that while I was aware of the influence, I was not aware that anarchism is something we could say was that basic to the movement. So I want to see a lot of highly reliable sources which say the extent to which Anarchism influences the movement. It's such an important and inflammatory point I would want to source it better than other points. B^e——C_ritical 16:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree - but I would insist, again, that there are shades of grey here, and we don't necessarily need to say that anarchism is basic to the movement in order to say that it's an influence. Sindinero (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. B^e——C_ritical 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying anything at the moment about a specific degree of influence, but that it is at it's core at least basic to the subject. This is apples and apples and with relevent context. I do agree whole heartedly that these claims in the article would have to be sourced properly. They already are really, the article has simply excluded a great deal of information needlessly. This isn't to elevate claims of influence and there is academic counter point on this as well, just not as weighted as the understanding that OWS, is basically a protest with very blatant anarchistic overtones. Influence of any kind would be speculative and need to be attributed as opinion, but...if you start breaking down the academic quotes we have such as from Levinson with and his opinion that this hasn't been seen since ancient times than there is some mainstream direction on the subject. Along any line that regards something within a political light there are going to be opposition because some don't believe the same thing as the next guy, but that isn't a legitimate reasoning to overlook the obvious.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

MadSci is trading in falsehoods, and has turned weak assumptions into conclusions without helpful or informative citation. All apparently in ignorance of context. (Update: After this posting, MadSci reedited his above posting. So no, I was not high on shrooms when I saw no citations from MadSci, they were put in after I posted this.)

Began as a anarchist call/suggestion.

When and how did Adbusters, the instigator of OWS, become explicit anarchists? They prefer to call themselves "culture jammers". The Adbusters About page says nothing of anarchism.. To further complicate the ideology basis of the Adbusters, it has recently promoted "post anarchism", a phrase in and of itself signifying a departure from anarchism. Also WP article says nothing about the magazines anarchist foundations., And Adbuster founder and editor Kalle Lasen's First Things First 2000 manifesto" is neither described by WP as an anarchist statement. Lasen's book "Design Anarchy" seems to be a clever title, not an embrace of anarchy, per se: it is so politically unclear that a reviewer of the book asked "what is Lasn’s political stance?" The answer, to no surprise, is not anarchism.

Organised by an anarchist.

Usually MadSci makes an army of one, but here he is in reverse gear. Why is only one person -Graeber- credited as the organizer? Tellingly, Graeber, an avowed anarchist himself, has strenuously objected to labeling any OWS factions as anarchist. For example, of the "Blac Block Anarchist", whom he pointedly calls "Blac Block groups". Quote: "It follows one can no more speak of “Black Bloc Anarchists,” that "Black Blocs have tended in the past to be made up primarily of anarchists but most contain participants whose politics vary from Maoism to Social Democracy. They are not united by ideology, or lack of ideology, but merely a common feeling that creating a bloc of people with explicitly revolutionary politics and ready to confront the forces of the order through more militant tactics if required, is, on the particular occasion when they assemble, a useful thing to do." If he can't stand an OWS faction being termed anrachist, what would he have to say about tagging the whole movement as such?

Anarchist calls for protest and demonstrations

This argument is a repetition. See above critique of Began as a anarchist call/suggestion.

Anarchism noted by academics.

MadSci's alluded to habit of turning the singular into a multitude rears it head again. The Chronically of Higher Education lists only Graeber as making the anarchist connection while cautioning, "It is far from clear, of course, how attuned the protesters are to the scholarship of Mr. Graeber, other critical theorists, or academics who study anarchism." And, besides David Graeber, who are these other "academics" of note?

Reported as an anarchism protests by the mainstream media.

This is plainly false, as a Google search of OWS anarchism/anarchy will easily prove. It's has been reported by "mainstream media" as nihlist, and in the interest of thorough, we would have to mention this in the lead as well. And perhaps more commonly, it is called a progressive movement.

Let's take direction from Graeber and not label OWS as anarchist. It's not helpful to the reader: the term is too commonly misunderstood, and in Graeber's case, vociferously object to as a label for OWS. While the influence of anarchism is strong on OWS, it's often used to denigrate and diminish the protestors by right wing publications. The body of the article is where is anarchism influence on OWS can be fairly and duly accounted for.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

AKA, try to tone down the personal attacks, that's not helping anything. Do you disagree that we need to represent OWS according to the best available sources, regardless of our concerns about "protecting" the movement from a potentially untoward association with anarchism? If so, then we can ignore what right-wing denigrations may or may not say and move on with this article; if not, you need to refamiliarize yourself with wikipedia policy. It's really not our place to ward against possible misassociations with a term; we can provide ample wikilinks to the anarchism article where curious readers can inform themselves. This line of reasoning is really unconvincing; many have negative associations with words like "protestors" or "progressives" - should we avoid those too?

You keep quoting the line from the chronicle about the protesters' possible unfamiliarity with Graeber's works.[1][2] As I've tried to explain, I think you're taking that quote out of context, and mistaking a simple transition for a more weighty topic sentence. I'm not going to repeat my reasoning here. But it is simply misreading the chronicle piece to think that it is qualifying or minimizing the influence of anarchism on OWS. The sentence you're fond of quoting is followed shortly afterwards by this:

"The defining aspect of Occupy Wall Street, its emphasis on direct action and leaderless, consensus-based decision-making, is most clearly embodied by its General Assembly, in which participants in the protest make group decisions both large and small, like adopting principles of solidarity and deciding how best to stay warm at night."

And this is how the piece ends:

"While some students in the movement might be passingly familiar with anarchist studies, Mr. Jun says, they have probably not read much of the scholarship. It is much more likely that anarchism itself has had the greater influence on Occupy Wall Street because, he says, many activists there "regard anarchy as an ideal to be realized.""

So the Chronicle article is a pretty poor choice if you're intent on showing that the influence of anarchism on OWS actually wasn't that great. It doesn't name any other figures but it also doesn't limit the influence to Graeber alone.

I certainly think we have enough good sources for some inclusion of the influence of anarchism in the lead, although not as strongly worded as it was before.

Sindinero (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I had no idea I was had done so. Please detail. How many were there? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, AKA, you're quoting from a text by Graeber on the black blocs, but in trying to show that this piece proves that Graeber "strenuously objects" to associating OWS with anarchism, you're either misrepresenting it really irresponsibly or you've completely misunderstood the point of his open letter. Read what he's actually saying in the text you're quoting from: "In fact, anarchists like myself were the real core of the group that came up with the idea of occupying Zuccotti Park, the “99%” slogan, the General Assembly process, and, in fact, who collectively decided that we would adopt a strategy of Gandhian non-violence and eschew acts of property damage." Sindinero (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeppers, I read that, but more closely than you it seems. To repeat a point of mine egregiously missed: why did Graeber go ballistic on Chris Hedges for accusing the Black Bloc groups of being anarchists and outraged that any faction of the Occupy movement be labeled as such? That would be the text from which I actually quoted. Resolve this for me please, and I will be grateful.

Sindinero you say to the Artist, "...if you're intent on showing that the influence of anarchism on OWS actually wasn't that great." I don't believe that he has said that at all, in fact he said:

While the influence of anarchism is strong on OWS, it's often used to denigrate and diminish the protestors by right wing publications. The body of the article is where is anarchism influence on OWS can be fairly and duly accounted for.

I'm in complete agreement with the Artist here. I believe that the attempts to show that we can label OWS an anarchist group are pretty far-fetched. There has also been attempt to suggest that since they have (supposedly) used anarchist tactics it's proper to label them anarchist. Hundreds of groups have used similar tactics such as GAs, consensus, and leaderless authority that would certainly be surprised to learn that they were anarchists. Gandydancer (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the General assembly makes use of anarchism in organisational structure. It is referenced above.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Adbusters is an anarchist publication, Kell Lasn, Mica White and David Greaber were central in the initial set up and organisation of stucture, direction and message and relied heavily on Annonymous' call to demonstrate. These are all self proclaimed anarchists and used anarchism in the originial philisophical core of the call and movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Graeber is a writer for Adbusters who has written 6 articles for the magazine, and White is a senior editor of the magazine, but where does Adbusters say it itself is anarchist? We can't call it anarchist in the article or here without clear proof.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject a question made elsewhere. How is Lasn an anarchist? And please, don't mention the book title "Design Anarchy" unless you can show it is not just a title of whimsy. I couldn't find any claims to anarchy by Lasn from the book. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment[1] organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age."[2] Gandydancer (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incidently, it has frequently been argued that the general population does not necessarily view the term as negative....or that all they need to do is just click the word (since it has been suggested that a dictionary definition is not adequate) and Wikipedia will explain the term. Get real - who is going to read the whole damn thing...I sure haven't....though I did read enough to learn that there are many forms of anarchism. Furthermore, why then does this information in our article state: According to Nathan Schneider, an editor for the blogs Waging Nonviolence and Killing the Buddha, anarchy is not just a negative philosophy or excuse for vandalism. Anarchism attempts to build a society where people maintain and care for themselves and their community and this draws on direct democracy, believing that "basic need" is more important than greed.[14]. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's address distortions, misleading arguments and continued falsehoods. Instead of responding to direct criticisms, especially the fact the Graeber will not have OWS called anarchist, MadSci has curiously made elaborations. They are curios because they appear to be part of the original posting of his, when that is not the case.

1. MadSci is still clinging to the singular. We now know who in MadSci's mind is the organizer of OWS: Micah White, but the New Yorker makes clear that OWS was not organized by one man, but by a collective, and White's WP article calls him the "co-creator" of OWS. As for the other co-creator...
2. Is there anything showing Lasn claiming anarchy as his ideology, or claiming to an ideologue of any sort? I already pointed out why not much can read into the title "Design Anarchy", and how it has not received as such. MadSci has yet the account for that. This is skin deep sourcing on MadSci's part.
3. The "anarchist structure" lacks a source that clearly states this. The Chronical of Higher Education did not make this claim. Instead it said the "But Occupy Wall Street's most defining characteristics" are from anarchism, but there was no specification that the defining characteristics were "structural". In short, OR has been used. He might be correct, but a source is needed, not his conjecture. As for Lasn saying that Anonymous gave "I don't know what you call it, that sort of anarchy cred" is identifies an affinity and a sympathy, not Lasn's or OWS ideology, if there is in fact one held by OWS. This hardly a resounding and articulate embrace of anarchy by Lasn, but it is synth on MadSci's part.
4. MadSci needs to vet his sources, and be less liberal on granting academic bona-fides. The source for the only other academic he can mention is an apparent press release for a speaking tour by one Cindy Milstein. The body of the press release, however fails to mention OWS or the occupy movement. Moreover, the announcement is from the web site, the board of which she sits on. This is essentially self-publication. Finally, what makes her an academic? I can't find anything suggesting that she has published peer reviewed articles, or what her academic pedigree is. I can't find out if she she graduated from any institution of higher learning. Clarification on this is requested.
5. Is the HuffPo piece is another shabby source. Leave aside whether the HuffPo is "mainstream" or not, the article never calls OWS anarchist. It's time to put up or shut up in claiming that "mainstream media" likes to call OWS anrachy. Fact checkers of respected news outlets would seem to require more than MadSci does.

One additional note: MadSci's edits make it seem that I had reacted in my prior posting to points he has encased in quote blocks. This, while not suspected by me as a bad faith move, makes it difficult for other to follow the chronology of the discussion. It would be better to append future comments and defense, rather than literally insinuate them into an earlier post without noting the update, and that the update is responding to a later post of mine. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't have time to read the whole thread just now, but I must say that reading one of the sources [3], what I get out of it is that there is a lot more than anarchism going on... "we had democratic socialists, we had anarchists, we had Marxist-Leninsts, we had people who were just angry the banks had been bailed out." Are you sure anarchism is not simply one element which happened to have a large influence, especially in the organizing/deorganizing process? B^e——C_ritical 04:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Four points :

1. As I've said multiple times now, there are shades of grey. I think we have enough material to mention an anarchist influence (or the argument that there is such) in the lead. This is not the same as labelling OWS an anarchist movement. This should be obvious to anyone. I've said above that I disagreed with the suggested wording in the lead because it was stronger than what the sources could support.
2. I've never seen anywhere in wikipedia policy that says we should hesitate from following the sources because of what the ignorant might think. "People won't really read the whole thing anyway" is a horrible reason to not represent a subject accurately, let alone to censor it.
3. AKA, you seem to read as carelessly as you type. Nobody "egregiously missed" your point; it wasn't actually a point, and I responded to it in my last post. I have better things to do than to parse a complete text for you, but it is almost unfathomable that you managed to glean from this text the idea that Graeber went "ballistic on Chris Hedges for accusing the Black Bloc groups of being anarchists." He's responding to Chris Hedges not because Hedges accused the bb of being anarchist, but because Hedges called the bb groups "the cancer of occupy" and thus, in Graeber's view, tacitly endorsed violent action against them. It takes a little work to tease out the main argument of a text; picking random sentences out (and usually sentences with little semantic or conceptual weight, like transitional or rhetorical gestures) isn't the way to go about it. Elsewhere in the piece Graeber puts anarchists at the core of OWS, a statement you maybe glibbed over or chose not to register. He also says that bb is a "tactic, not a group." Please read your own sources more carefully. However, even if it were correct that what Graeber objects to is calling black blocs anarchist (and it's not), it would be a huge stretch to infer what seems to be AKA's main point here, that "Graeber will not have OWS called anarchist". Can this charge be backed up by a single source? It seems a super-strange, contorted argument to use against the sources we have that show Graeber arguing for the anarchist qualities of OWS. I agree that the problem here is that we don't have enough sources to "label" OWS an anarchist movement (see point 1); but it's absurd to argue that one of the few sources we have in support of this idea is actually saying the opposite.
4. Gandydancer and AKA have both questioned the "structural" connection between anarchism and certain practices of OWS (direct action, general assembly). True, other groups may use these without being anarchist, but anyone who knows anything about the radical political scene in the states over the last decade or two would know that these are generally considered hallmarks of anarchism as opposed to other groups on the left. But this isn't the point—to argue (as I've done) that these tactics are particularly anarchist or (as Gandydancer argues) that they're not, based on our own knowledge and experience, is getting close to WP:OR. What is important is that the Chronicle article makes this connection for us. Look at the article carefully: starting in the fifth paragraph, it links anarchism with the specific practices of direct action and horizontal decision making. In the tenth paragraph, these lessons come (via Graeber) from Madagascar to the globalism protests, "the clearest antecedent, in spirit, to Occupy Wall Street." The fourteenth through sixteenth paragraphs detail the impact of the practices earlier explicitly associated with anarchism (DA and GA) on OWS. The article is quite clear about the influence - it doesn't matter whether we think these practices are or aren't particularly anarchist.

Sindinero (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To keep it simple, I'll just deal with one falsehood of Sind's: ...if it were correct that what Graeber objects to is calling black blocs anarchist (and it's not)t o repeat a quote I've already used from Graeber that shows that Sind has gone off the res: It follows one can no more speak of “Black Bloc Anarchists,” that "Black Blocs have tended in the past to be made up primarily of anarchists but most contain participants whose politics vary from Maoism to Social Democracy. They are not united by ideology, or lack of ideology. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're reading my own comments as carelessly as you're reading Graeber's article. He is stating that black blocs are a tactic not limited to use by anarchists, but as I said above, that's not the point of his text, and it's hugely wrong-headed to try and understand his letter to Hedges as representative of his opposition to dubbing OWS 'anarchist'. I've explained that above; you are fond of quoting the same sentences over and over, off topic and out of context, but don't take the time to address the other quotes from that article. Please take the time to read, and understand, the articles you're citing in what you think is support of what you think is your position. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sind, read this carefully: Black Bloc is a tactic, but we are talking about Black Blocs. Notice the plural,it is critical. Sind blew it big time saying black blocs are a tactic. You think the illogic of that would have been caught by a professed good reader, who would know that a plural can not be a singular, or is at least extremely likely to be one and it behooves you to take a second look. Graeber always discusses Black Blocks groups, e.g., most Black Blocs agree on a strict policy of not damaging owner-operated enterprises Sind couldn't have been more careless of sloppy. One hopes Sind admits the error so other points can be dealt with. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sind couldn't have been more careless of sloppy?? Well played, mate. You're not making any sense at all any more. I get the difference between singular and plural. It's actually quite common for a singular and a plural to be joined by a copula, as in "black blocs are a tactic," "Simians are a kind of primate," or "stubborn half-literate morons are a frequent source of disruption on Wikipedia talk pages," as a general truth, of course. I also get what Graeber was saying about black blocs in his letter, where he uses both the plural and the singular of black blocs more or less interchangeably. What's your point? Do you understand that his letter is not primarily about whether the bb is/are anarchist, as you originally alleged, and that it is about what Graeber saw as Hedges' implicit call towards violence towards the black blocs?

Let's spell it out for you: "I am appealing to you because I really do believe the kind of statement you made is profoundly dangerous. The reason I say this is because, whatever your intentions, it is very hard to read your statement as anything but an appeal to violence. After all, what are you basically saying about what you call “Black Bloc anarchists”? [...] Surely you must recognize, when it’s laid out in this fashion, that this is precisely the sort of language and argument that, historically, has been invoked by those encouraging one group of people to physically attack, ethnically cleanse, or exterminate another—in fact, the sort of language and argument that is almost never invoked in any other circumstance."

I can't help but feel that you're shifting goalposts by talking about the singular/plural issue here. You introduced Graeber's open letter to Hedges as a way to show that Graeber opposes calling black blocs "anarchist," and would thus theoretically also oppose calling OWS "anarchist". It does no such thing, as I hope even you must by now recognize. ("In fact, anarchists like myself were the real core of the group that came up with the idea of occupying Zuccotti Park, the “99%” slogan, the General Assembly process, and, in fact, who collectively decided that we would adopt a strategy of Gandhian non-violence and eschew acts of property damage.") Why don't you give it a rest so that we can move on with this article? I don't think this one text is particularly useful for the OWS article either way, since it says nothing about Graeber's view of OWS' anarchist influence than the other sources we already have. Sindinero (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I narrowed the focus in order to nail down one falsehood of yours, but we can't even get beyond that. Your habit of not admitting error affects how others regard your agrguments. Especially since you will resort to semantics. the dubious mission of which, my brother, is to attach meanings to words, (Black blocs has to mean a tactic because I, Sind, and almost nobody else, say so.) rather than meanings to words (Without exaggeration the overwhelmingly dominate usage of "black blocs" is to signify groups.) I made no mistake in my reading, but have you stuck to yours several times. Kinda like a gear stuck in sloppy, as it were. My sincere hope (and I am not being sarcastic or ironic) is that you take more care lining up your arguments. So it goes like this:

1 "Black blocs are a tactic" is such an extremely exceptional usage, and not at all "quite common" Shoulda done your homework first. A Google of "black blocs are a tactic" got SEVEN results. None of them from any one of note.

2 Graeber early and often refers to groups as "black blocs", but...

3... he never confuses "black blocs" with the black block tactic. They are always a group of people to him. He scolds Hedges for calling the groups "black bloc", but since no one would mistake waht Hedges was talking about, it was stupid of Graeber to make a federal case of it when all it deserved was very minor clarification.

Anywhoo, time for me to declare victory and move on. P.S., do you think Cindy Milstein is an academic? Just askin'. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Cindy Milstein one way or another. I have even less idea than before what exactly you're referring to by my "falsehood" or "error," but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about either. In many years copy editing, translating, and teaching English prose, I've rarely seen verbal abortions as scrambled and bewildered as the agglomerations of letters you seem to wish to pass off as sense-bearing utterances. Could you spell out what difference it actually makes at all, with regard to your original point (That David Graeber supposedly objects to labeling OWS as 'anarchist'), whether we refer to black blocs as a tactic or a group? Lunch counter sit-ins are a tactic; they are also done by groups of people. General assemblies are a tactic; they also involve groups. Many tactics are also groups. What's your point here? With 1), reread what I wrote. The google search doesn't demonstrate anything; you seemed to find the connection of a singular and a plural to be illogical, when you write, "who would know that a plural can not be a singular" - I was showing that this is actually quite common in English. Wasn't talking about that one particular phrase. And with 3), you still haven't understood Graeber's text at all. He's not scolding Hedges for calling them "black blocs", nor for calling them anarchists. Please reread the text; it's not really my responsibility to explain to you the text that you yourself introduced. "Anywhoo, time for me to declare victory and move on"?? Are you twelve? Again, let's put this discussion to rest; I don't think that particular text gives us anything that other RSs don't, and your petulant inability or unwillingness to comprehend either that text or anything I've written is getting a little dizzying. Sindinero (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing personal or disrespectful intended (yeah, I know, some may be skeptical), but I won't be reading the latest reply; I'm sticking to a declaration of victory. And I think I made it clear that I can be tenacious enough. But this dispute has no direct relevance to what should go in the lead, since consensus seems to favor adding ideological related content to the body, and then to possibly factor it in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. Whatever the ins and outs of our increasingly banal dispute, a "declaration of victory" is incredibly immature, and perhaps not the best way to interact with other editors. The starting point of the discussion was your claim that David Graeber's letter to Chris Hedges shows that Graeber opposes labeling OWS "anarchist." It clearly doesn't. Let's move on with the sources we have and the others that may arise. I've said numerous times that I'm in favor of strengthening the body before adding strong claims to the lead, so at least we agree on that much. Let's go from there. Sindinero (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be much more mention in the body before it would go in the lead. That's the way leads work. If it has enough weight for at least a large portion of the Participation and organization section, then it might have enough WEIGHT for the lead. But as it stands, leads should reflect the article. Please excuse, I'm having trouble having enough time to read the volumes of text. B^e——C_ritical 18:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent and sensible suggestion for us to have agreed upon text in the body before we shoehorn anything about anarchy in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I have made my point that the subject has anarchist connections and structure and that these are not even controversial statements and are referenced. I am not labling. These are self identyfied people through writings and references by others in published form, most already in the references used on the article and many other primary and secondary sources. This shouldn't be about the connotations others outside or even within the subject use for their own purpose, but only considered as part of making a community decision on the subject of anarchism connections to Occupy Wall Street. There are mainstream sources that see this connection, and main stream academic sources that discuss it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Falsehoods are always controversial, and without responding criticisms of them and forging a consensus, they stay that way. You can't say there are a ton of references to support your point, especially one is used to manufacture the fiction the Cindy Milstein is an academic. That gross error of judgment and the refusal to acknowledge the mistake makes any of MadSci's assertions suspect and in need of verification. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should label OWS anarchist. I do think we have enough to mention the influence in the lead. Is there any good reason why a connection between OWS and anarchism needs more solid sourcing than any other claim? I don't think there's any WP policy anywhere that would support treating a particular political position like a taboo or a dirty word. We have sources placing anarchist people and practices at the core of the organization of the original Zucotti Park occupation; this seems significant enough to mention in the lead (again, since people seem fond of overlooking this, without labeling OWS as anarchist.) Sindinero (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time, but you seem to know the sources. I would like to suggest you write up a paragraph on the influence of Anarchism, and put it in the Participation and organization section. Once that is done, and well sourced, then there should be no objection to mentioning the organizational structure of OWS in the lead, by whatever name. B^e——C_ritical 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I'll see what I can come up with. Sindinero (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Although I have no idea whether there are satisfactory sources for doing so (or whether this has in fact been done.. I've been away awhile..)—it might be worthwhile to distinguish between the actual protesters (or perhaps a gung-ho core of them) and some of the broader ideas that resulted in other members of the public, i.e. non-protesters, identifying with the protests or reasons for protesting. I think one of the interesting phenomena surrounding OWS was the seemingly wide gulf between the two. My gut feeling was that there was fairly wide approval of the basic gist of the protest message (at first at least?) but that the majority of regular people who supported that "gist" didn't actually agree with the methods, or even agree with perhaps 90% of the statements that ended up coming out of the protesters on the street. So, while anarachists may have been at the core of the movement to begin with, and might even constitute a majority of the protesters out there in the streets, that's not the part of OWS that got the nation talking, and in fact that aspect was largely dismissed and ignored as people (again, a pretty wide spectrum of the country, I think) focused on the issues that, to them, mattered. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OWS is about "high unemployment"?

From the lede: "Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement that began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector." There is no reference for any of this, I assume it's common knowledge. It's all accurate except, IMO, for the addition of "high unemployment". I suggest this claim be removed until a supporting reference can be found. High unemployment is but one of the many symptoms that may have given rise to OWS, but I have never heard of this as defining what OWS is against the way all the other points (wealth inequality, corporate takeover and corruption of DC, greed) together, do. I have watched since the beginning, the live feed, the marches, read the blogs, etc., and have never seen reference to "high unemployment" on any protest sign or as the subject of Occupy related articles. petrarchan47^Tc 08:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the body of the article does not develop the high unemployemt issue, then I would have to agree to its removal from the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There are refs for most of it in the body. But the high unemployment part does not have a source that I can recall. B^e——C_ritical 20:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the inherent "we're protesting over whatever somebody can come up with that sounds good" nature of the movement... as long as everyone's struggling to come up with some coherent goal to attribute to the protesters, don't lose sight of that fact, and especially don't give in to the tempation to reflect that fact only with sources that are eager to excuse it, or are otherwise overly sympathetic. That's not what WP is for. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism revisited

Although I added the anarchism stuff in the lead, after going through the previous discussions, I now agree any political characterization of the movement should not be included in the lead. May be there should be an "Ideology" section to analyze the political nature of the movement. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I suspect there are a few different ideas on what it is, as there are lots of people talking about it. Just pop a new section into the article. Steal the second paragraph of the slogans section away, it's not about slogans, it's more an ideology kind of paragraph, so stick it in your new section.

(from section above this) For the slogans, see if you can find a few, pop them all in there.Penyulap _talk 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We have some editorial prerogative as to what goes into the lead. B^e——C_ritical 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's axiomatic of any WP article, except in extreme circumstance. We are almost saying to a helpful, well-intentioned proposal: "We don't gotta if we don't wanna". I suggest we be more welcoming to the editor by dealing directly with Pen's suggestion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

TOC

(just edit this table)

   * 1 History and Chronology
         o 1.1 Origins
         o 1.2 September
         o 1.3 October
         o 1.4 November
   * 2 Movement structure and makeup 
         o Goals
         o Protester demographics
         o Participation and organization
   * 3 Zuccotti Park 
         o occupation
         o Funding 
         o Security concerns and crime
   * 4 Slogan
   * 5 Reactions
   * 6 See also
   * 7 References
   * 8 Further reading
   * 9 External links

Any suggestions on better grouping of topics ? I'd figure demographics and participation are rather well related. Penyulap _talk 14:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some natural groupings. On this version, Movement structure and makeup relates properly to Protester demographics and Participation and organization and maybe even Slogan and Goals, but then you would have Zuccotti Park occupation, Funding and Security concerns and crime as separate headings. It's not useful to group things unless there is an easy and natural way to do so. It's not an imperative unless it actually improves the readability of the TOC or article somehow, and in this case I don't see how it would. What you'd have is something like:

* 1 History and Chronology
          o 1.1 Origins
          o 1.2 September
          o 1.3 October
          o 1.4 November
* 2 Movement structure and makeup 
          o Goals
          o Protester demographics
          o Participation and organization
* 3  Slogan
* 4  Funding
* 5  Zuccotti Park occupation
* 6  Security concerns and crime
* 7  Reactions
* 8  See also
* 9  References
* 10 Further reading
* 11 External links 

I don't thin the extra structure improves the article. B^e——C_ritical 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've combined your suggestion and added another, how does it look now, just delete the second table, go for it editing the first one so we keep the talkpage short. Penyulap _talk 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BeCritical. Gandydancer (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The post by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has been removed--perhaps it would be better to strike it so that the posts following don't seem out of place. Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just plain don't like it. If I liked a change I'd go into why I liked it but I don't feel that I'm being unwelcoming to say I don't like a new proposal. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Gee how nice of artist to be so welcoming to someone new when he can't extend the same to those who have been here since October...but Welcome Penyulap. However, we don't gotta if we don't wanna...but I am neutral on the proposal myself. Seems reasonable and yet I hesitate.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Entire "Chronology" section should be deleted

It is in no sense a summary of the chronology of OWS, nor even a summary of the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street article. Why it remains here is an utter mystery to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Me three.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

Me four.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but we do need a section where people can go to get the updated contemporary state, which I just added under this section as March. B^e——C_ritical 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to be an up-to-date resource in an encyclopedia. It something is our note, it should apply to another section. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It sort of is, this is how WP differs from other encyclopedias, in that we cover current events. Thus, things which seemed of note will need to be deleted, and we'll keep updating it with what seems significant now. If we have to have a timeline section to do it, then we should, but a section on "Ongoing activities" should suffice. B^e——C_ritical 00:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't a compromise be to wikilink the main Occupy Article in prose somewhere in the body of the article in a neurtral manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That is the usual best practice. When there is a closely related article or topic, you put a section, maybe two to four paragraphs of prose in, with the link to the other article. Penyulap _talk 04:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

CBO report in article

Problems with this text and citation: The top 1 percent of income earners have more than doubled their income over the last thirty years according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. ref

The text accurately reflects the RS but...

1. The ref says nothing about OWS.
2. Three editors view it as OR which either explains or could justify OWS motivations.

Even so, I don't think we should be quick to delete the text. There is a chance of an RS tying the report to OWS appropriately. Or there may be a similar report that with modifications allows pretty much the same to be said. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You can use it to justify some statement that is not controversial, like "protesters are upset over the growing class separation (what do you call it? divide?)" put it in as a reference note to explain what is meant by what some protester is saying, plus you can link to a bunch of other articles as well, the CBO and all that kind of stuff. It's important, it's in the article, it's not getting in the way of more immediately relevant things, or you could have it in the see also section sort of thing. Would that be better ? Penyulap _talk 19:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The section needs going over, and I keep meaning to do it. See this video, it should source nearly all of what one would wish to say [4]. B^e——C_ritical 23:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Be, let's give you time, but if you delay working on the section, and no one is saying you made any promises, I may start editing the section, starting with the CBO cite. I pasted it here for comments, and there is apparent consensus to excise it. But since you have worked on the section as much as anyone else, comity suggests letting you go first. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second here, the source does directly connect OWS to the CBO report "As Occupy Wall Street and related protests inject themselves into the 2012 presidential campaigns, a new government report shows that over the past three decades the incomes of the nation’s top earners have grown far more rapidly than those of everyone else...The nation’s economic gains have been increasingly concentrated in the households of the top 1 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, echoing previous studies cited by Occupy Wall Street protesters... The report comes as the concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement are increasingly entering the nation’s political debate."

Isn't that sufficient mention of the relationship between the report and OWS? B^e——C_ritical 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I already checked the source mentioned above on the RS noticeboard, but I'd like to hear any objections to it here before I go the the trouble of using it. Everyone okay with it? [5] B^e——C_ritical 18:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I was not following this section of the article as closely as some others, I do know that a great deal of discussion and work went into coming up with it in its present form. Back then, in the early weeks, it was hard to find almost anything that was OWS related. So perhaps there is some new information available. I would strongly argue against removing it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The original section was without any RS tying it to the movement, just as Artist state, but as Becritical mentions there is a RS there. I added that some time ago when disussing this section as original research. It was the local consensus of the community to keep the information and in a good faith attempt to rescue the laterial I researched a reliable source to give it context to the subject. I agree with Artist in that the section is overweighted to that single source (as it was added after the fact, but it still does give the section some context) and may need either more contextual references or a trimming down of the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is an "is", not a "was", and it has not stayed static. The CBO is still OR, and the challenge is to find a secondary RS, if you'll excuse to apparent redundancy. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Amad, let me make it plainer. You said what the consensus was, and I said "yeah so", in so many words, when I said had changed ("not stayed static"), and at least one other editor wondered what the hell it was doing in the article. Words to the effect that "we were gonna do something about it a while back" just don't cut it. The CBO ref is hanging by a thread since time has well passed for a secondary source that links the CBO report to OWS. Right now it only serves to justify an OWS axiom. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"is", "was","according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal. (from the policy document Consensus can change). Penyulap _talk 04:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same things? I'm talking about this. B^e——C_ritical 04:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

this is the one at the top of the section, it's not fantasic at all. this is the one you just mentioned, and it looks great. Is there some point that was to be made with the first one that you want another ref for ? If it's covered by the second one, just use the second one. Penyulap _talk 09:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street Research Group

Hi - I recall seeing an Occupy Wall Street research website, but now I can't find it. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Been looking for it for darn near 30 minutes or so. II | (t - c) 12:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• http://occupyresearch.wikispaces.com Speciate (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

--WARNING-- the above link points to a site with an unvalidated security certificate. Click on it at your own risk.

The security (or SSL) certificate for this website indicates that the organization operating it may not have undergone trusted third-party validation that it is a legitimate business. Although the information passed between you and this website will be encrypted, you have no assurance of who you are actually exchanging information with, and many websites connected to cyber-crimes use this type of security certificate. Prior to exchanging sensitive information including login/password, personal identity information, or financial details such as credit card numbers with any website that generates this warning, you should find some alternative method of validating this business or consider abandoning the transaction.

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

what is going on with the article, and can I help ?

I see by looking at the article it's in a woeful state, the lede doesn't summarize the article, the two sentence summary of the sub article 'reactions' is the worst I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and the talkpage is something of a mess, can anyone explain why, or would anyone like assistance ? (if I don't respond straight away feel free to notify me on my talkpage) Penyulap _talk 11:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to get some help! Perhaps you could start by improving the summary for the sub article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it, in an earlier Talk discussion I vociferously pointed out how inane, unsourced and generic the Reactions section was. Your help would be much appreciated. As for the lead, I'm all ears and would welcome specific suggestions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

recommendations

(on the lede)The lede is not overburdened with cites, that's a good thing, as they don't need to go there. What it is meant to be doing, is putting the topic in context, like, is this similar to other movements, and which ones. Then you go through each section and get a sentence or two to summarize what that section is about, and also try to get in a 'start middle end' sort of thing for the timeline. read WP:lede it's probably one of my best areas. (on reactions section) Usually to summarize a stub I find the easy way is to go and steal it's lead section, cut'n'paste, then brush it up a bit. Occasionally editors make a misunderstanding when an article is split, and put everything into that split article and leave nothing at all in the original article. It's not like that. It's just where it's a subject in it's own right, then the sub article is a place to really yap and waffle until everyone has fallen asleep. Two lines however, that's no summary at all. I'd figure it's easier just to merge them back again rather than leave it as it is. You never cut the guts out of an article when you create a sub article, it's NOT for removing content, it's for elaborating on content. But it is a common mistake, and occasionally a naughty way to try and push whatever it is your up to, not saying that is the case here, as I have no idea. (on sources) What problems are you having with sources ? Sources don't need to be perfect, and they don't need to be 'correct' to be in wikipedia. It's just how you present what is being said, and how controversial it is. You can have 'perfect' sources that say absolute crap, I see it all the time, but you can still write a lovely piece and use them. NASA is filled with lazy naughty people whose every word needs checking, but then so is the chinese space agency. Meh. Here is an example of using totally conflicting sources, this is where I started. Also, some things, when you explain them properly need no further cites because everyone just stands back and says 'woah' cause they just learned a lot. So sometimes writing is so good it's practically it's own cite. But do include cites of course, they are absolutely necessary, it's just good writing style takes the argument out.

What would you guys say are the LARGEST problems with the article specifically from your view. Penyulap _talk 18:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a couple. A one paragraph lead that be expanded to two or three. Reliance on primary sources in Slogan section, such as taking directly from of CBO report without citing OWS awareness or acknowledgement of that report. Essentially OR. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For the slogan suggestion, see the tp section below. Penyulap _talk 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to echo Artist AKA's sentiment regarding the CBO stuff; I made a somewhat similar point above in the "anarchism references" section. There's a certain "we're mad about something, and hey, this sounds good" aura about OWS that seems to have each person rushing to rationalize and justify the movement in the terms that make the most sense to him or her. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, looking at the Reactions article, oh, my, God, that is one detailed article. A work of art really, and sure to put any reader to sleep if they are after a summary of the subject. Detailed, yes, deserving of it's own article, well, probably a few, but way too much information for this article.

In the meantime, something that needs fast addressing is the gaping hole in the article where reactions used to be. It needs a great deal of what is in the sub article copied back in to solve technical issues. Looking at the technical problems that were created by the split, I'd suggest a rollback should be considered. Is anyone for or against restoring the article to fix the underlying problems, and then quick as you like, re-edit all the little bits that you've done since, and chop down most of the reactions section to something that is more readable in this article ? It's not about removing all the small edits that have been done since, go for it restoring them, it's about fixing a lot of the underlying technical problems I can see.

proposal

This is just an easy formal way to request the help of an admin, just type underneath this section if you are ok with or object to this idea, I will format your text if needed don't worry, and then I'll request an admin to make the adjustment, and we can let rip with a lot more editing.

Propose rolling back the article to a suitable point to fix problems that were caused. Then chop away the reactions section down to something much more readable, could be 1/3 or 1/5th the size or so in this article, but lets make it readable and not something to fall asleep over. Penyulap _talk

• support I think it solves a lot of issues fast, plus we can chop out and balance up the article much easier now that everything IS mentioned in the sub article. Penyulap _talk 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I tried to return it, but by then too many editors had contributed. I doubt a roll back would work if the first attempt I made was reversed, but maybe rollback has different policy around it. I know little about Rollback.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What dates or diffs are we talking about (as a guide for fixing things, and to see if it too far back to fix) Penyulap _talk 08:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "roll back". Please explain exactly what it is and give some examples of where it's been used to improve an article. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There is some information to read here Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Penyulap _talk 16:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Do any of the reasons for using rollback apply here, though? I'm not sure I'm clear on what the article would gain through a rollback that it wouldn't through normal editing. Sindinero (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be the last one on the list. If you examine the article in edit mode, like the reference section and so forth, and then consider what copying back in the reactions section will do to multi-refs. (the reactions is easiest to copy in and then cut and chop down, cause it'll have all it's refs)... so weigh up copying back newly edited sections from the edit before a RB vs re-reffing and there you go. For me, it'd be easier to rb, but that's just me. If someone else wants to help here I'm all for leaving it up to them, or just leaving all the trash where it is, and the holes in the article. Whatever, I have plenty else to keep me busy, I'm just looking at the easy fast-track solution that makes a clean rebuild. Penyulap _talk 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh...well I'm aware of the roll back you linked to... ...I'm not in favor of your proposals... Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: summary for the "Reactions to Occupy Wall Street" section

I propose the following summary, or something similar to it to provide a summary and overview of reactions to Occupy Wall Street, based upon information in the content-fork article Reactions to Occupy Wall Street:

Main article: Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

On October 5, 2011 members of the National Nurses United labor union march to Foley Square in support of OWS

Among the general public, opinions of OWS have varied over time, and there are contradictions among the data collected by various polling agencies. Many prominent politicians, academics, and public figures have reacted with both criticism and praise. During an October 6 news conference, President Obama said, "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country ... and yet you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place." House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, said she supports the growing nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement. In September, various labor unions, including the Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 and the New York Metro 32BJ Service Employees International Union, pledged their support for demonstrators. Five days into the protest, Keith Olbermann criticized the initial media response for failing to adequately cover the protests. An October Quinnipiac University poll of New York City voters found that 67 percent of New Yorkers approved of the movement with 23 percent disapproving. The results also found 87 percent of New Yorkers find it OK that they are protesting. Despite media criticism that the protesters views are incoherent, the poll also found that 72 percent of New York City voters understand their views.

(Note: currently, references 9 – 16 are applicable to this proposal. Others are from different areas of the talk page.)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks great support, I shoved it straight in temporarily as it is better than that gaping hole in the article. Penyulap _talk 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do find it helpful that Northamerica wrote a suggestion, however I believe that it is extremely questionable that Penyulap reached a concensus of one and "shoved" it into the article. Of course I can't speak for Northamerica, but I would guess that he would welcome suggestions and approval before putting his suggested copy in the article. IMO, as written we are using two Democratic political figures that have voiced approval without any suggestion of others who have voiced opinions, such as presidential candidates who have voiced disapproval. Also, I think that the polls would be better somewhat summarized rather than only presenting the results of just one poll. I like the labor union copy and the Keith Oberman inclusion, but I think mention of his opinion should be at the beginning of the paragraph, not near the end. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg's opinion should be included. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer it doesn't work like that, I haven't reached any consensus of one final closure on discussion kind of thing. Anyone can edit anything at any time with or without consensus. It's just that if for example you decided that none of it should be in there, and put it back to nothing but a gaping hole in the article then Northamerica1000 wouldn't be 3RRing you if he kept putting it back in. If someone else took it out then he couldn't do that, as you don't seem to approve, and the next editor doesn't like it too, so out it goes and 3RR applies. But discussion is ongoing and consensus is ongoing and editing, I do hope is ongoing. If we discuss everything to death first then the article will never get finished. JUST EDIT. add your changes this instant ! plus, just say what you do or don't support, as a guide to the next editor. Because if there is some argument, it helps settle things down if you can see on the talkpage what other editors think as well. The only thing that I personally would try to revert is huge chunks of deletion that totally unbalance the article. (we're talking massive here). Consensus is never really final, and no editor whould think they need clearance from any other editor prior to editing, because that's not the case at all. You'd need a consensus to point to prior to reverting more than once or twice though, that is different. That is where it helps to say, "I reverted because Jack, jill, and philip all agree it should be in the article". Penyulap _talk 09:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this is nonsense. On a low-volume and static article, your voluminous diatribe has merit, but on a dynamic article constantly being hijacked by misguided editors it is Gandy who is correct here. I suggest you search "Dualus" in the archives of the talk page history. It creates unproductive work for people like Gandydancer who would ideally spend 90% of her time making the article better and only 10% of her time defending the article from descending into uncharted or recharted territory. There has to be a sense of sanity and familiarity to the article, without it changing too much from hour to hour. Otherwise, the article becomes unmanageable because too many major changes happen concurrently, which then turns the talk page into massive walls of text. 완젬스 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How dynamic or static an article has been isn't really of consequence. Editors sometimes get excessively attached to articles, feel it's their "duty" to maintain them, and therefore think they need to serve as gatekeepers so as to lessen their burden in the future. Content doesn't need to be agreed upon beforehand -- the nature of a wiki is that we all edit the live content, rather than craft it on the talk page first. This is the case no matter how "dynamic" the article is. If you feel overwhelmed by how often it changes, take a break. But don't make up new rules. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:32, 9 Mar 2012 (UTC)

완젬스, what you describe perfectly is called wp:own and it's frowned upon. It is against policy, and will do nothing but get people in trouble. The size of an edit is meaningless. Some people will make small important changes to detail, some will use robots to make tens of thousands in a week, and it's all good. (I bend over and pull out some big edits on occasion) and as a rule of thumb, if an article is getting warred over or vandalized it's because it is a big steaming pile of crap. Now there are many editors on this page who have expressed their concerns over the state of the article, and working together is the best way to improve the situation. Warring doesn't help. So have a look at the article, fix something, add something, consider what other editors have to say in wp:good faith. You can tell me I'm wrong, feel free, but once a good few people are saying the same thing, it's consensus. Penyulap _talk 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another idea / proposal

Extended content

I found when I went to summarize that reactions article it was pretty bland. So to stay awake I made a hot cup of coffee, then as I read through, every now and then I'd pick up the cup and spill some in my lap on purpose, it really helped. Ok, so one of those two sentences is true, for me, but I had a hard time finding anything that really gripped me. So I was looking around for Tony Blair's comments for Occupy wall street and looking for hey, what did he say about the occupy London ? Here is a nobrainer shortcut to a less bland solution. Where there are the list sort of things saying domestic reactions or responses or whatever you guys want to call it, paint up the international section of that as a listy sort of summary of whatever suboccupy articles are good enough to summarize. huh ? Look at this bit here, you've got a lovely pic, plus a main article, plus the prose and ref stolen from over there. * 1.3.1 Responses to Occupy Wall Street o 1.3.1.1 Domestic reactions o 1.3.1.2 United Kingdom o 1.3.1.3 Canada o 1.3.1.4 Australia o 1.3.1.5 Belgium o 1.3.1.6 next country o 1.3.1.7 Some organisations or something Responses to Occupy Wall Street Main article: Reactions to Occupy Wall Street Stuff that doesn't fit anywhere in particular goes here, like international bodies with commentary. Domestic reactions On October 5, 2011 members of the National Nurses United labor union march to Foley Square in support of OWS Just assume this is sorted into domestic / international sections Among the general public, opinions of OWS have varied over time, and there are contradictions among the data collected by various polling agencies. Many prominent politicians, academics, and public figures have reacted with both criticism and praise. During an October 6 news conference, President Obama said, "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country ... and yet you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place." House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, said she supports the growing nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement. In September, various labor unions, including the Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 and the New York Metro 32BJ Service Employees International Union, pledged their support for demonstrators. Five days into the protest, Keith Olbermann criticized the initial media response for failing to adequately cover the protests. An October Quinnipiac University poll of New York City voters found that 67 percent of New Yorkers approved of the movement with 23 percent disapproving. The results also found 87 percent of New Yorkers find it OK that they are protesting. Despite media criticism that the protesters views are incoherent, the poll also found that 72 percent of New York City voters understand their views. United Kingdom The occupy London protests began in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protests. On 10 October 2011 a campaign was launched on Facebook for protests to take place at the London Stock Exchange on 15 October in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York and with multiple other protests planned worldwide for that day. Blah bla blah blah blaaah blah, bla blah blah blaaah blahBlah bla blah blah blaaah blah. bla blah blah blaaah blah, bla blah blah blaaah blahBlah bla blah blah blaaah blah, Blah bla blah blah blaaah blah and there are even not-fall asleep piccies already there to choose the best one to represent that section How about that half-arsed approach to editing, I think it's actually the whole summarize the sub article into the main idea of good editing actually, hmmm, oh well. Maybe this editing thing isn't so hard after all. But if you have a look at those articles, it's a bit easier, and if someone can go through the reactions article and find a few bits and pieces, they could go into the appropriate place. Penyulap talk 12:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Canada Occupy Vancouver on October 15, 2011 There is something in the article with references that state how the canadians were responding to the OWS and so forth, easy to find. Example text only -> On October 15th in Vancouver, around 4,000 to 5000 people participated in rallies and the local general assembly. Many interpreted the unorgranized and predominantly middle class turnout at Vancouver and elsewhere to be renascent of a larger act of an anti-systemic nature rather than a social movement of activists. The days following its inception at the Vancouver Art Gallery saw the arrival of over 150 tents, food, health and safety services, operating on a volunteer basis nearly around the clock. The early encampment coincided with the public outrage against the violence perpetrated by police against protesters in Oakland, and a strong public support with which public officials did not attempt to intervene. Although spurious claims of logistical need "housing and feeding activists" were cited, the predominance of these activities compared to other occupies was due to the persistence of activists who favored these activities, groups such as food not bombs, which were largely unrelated to the politics of the larger movement. The larger political dynamics of the majority who came out were sidelined by the moralizing that surrounded the camp's efforts to feed the homeless population that drew in increasing numbers to the camp. Many who visited the camp after the initial day found the atmosphere of constant noise, music, and constant interference by fringe interests and conspiracy groups to be highly alienating and not at all conducive to political work or awareness, and highly detrimental to the movement's public image. Counter-cultural aspects of the movement, as well as it's emphasis on highly demanding participatory activities prevented many who were sympathetic to the movement, from seeing themselves as part of the movement. Australia Police evicting Occupy Melbourne protesters "Occupy" demonstrations took place in Canberra, Wollongong, Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne., as well as smaller towns around the country. At the Occupy Melbourne protest on 21 October 2011, approximately 150 protesters defied police orders to clear the area, and were subsequently removed with force. 95 arrests were made and 43 reports of police violence were filed. Occupiers returned the following day in a walk against police violence, re-occupying multiple sites since. Belgium In Brussels a large Occupy demonstration took place on 15 October involving between 6,500 and 8,000 participants. The protest was largely peaceful, although seven people were arrested following vandalisation of the Dexia bank headquarters and financial tower. The Occupy Antwerp (Antwerpen) movement had its first gathering on Saturday 22 October at the Groenplaats, next to the cathedral. About 150-200 people attended a speakers corner. The socialist party (PVDA) was present and served free soup as well as information about its proposed "milionaires' tax". To date, there have been four Occupy protests in Leuven. Three took place on the Grand Market in the centre of the city and one took place at a building of the city's Catholic university. The number of protesters in these rallies varied from 100 to 250. These protests have not included prolonged camping, but the protesters say that it is a possibility in the future. Occupy Ghent (Gent) began on October 29 with 400 people in the South Park (Zuidpark). They received a visit by supporters attending the "second day of Socialism" (de Tweede Dag van het Socialisme), also held in Ghent on the same day. next country Some organisations or something

Don't worry about the text chosen for the example here, it's just the approach I want to illustrate. If anyone likes it, just do it, don't wait for me, I'm so distracted with a lot of things, but I figure the clear approach I outline here may help. Penyulap _talk 12:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Merge article Reactions to Occupy Wall Street into this article with a redirect. This proposal should remain open for two weeks per Help:Merging but local consensus may be able to overide this as it's only mentioned as a footnote.- Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose These are both very large articles, and they can stand on their own. Peacock28 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral - I know another editor has shown interest in bringing that section back. I made the split and tried to return it, but it was reversed. A merge requires no rollback capabilities. If the consensus is to merge this is easily done with an approval by the comminity and if against then at least we know for now to leave the articles split.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The split was done poorly that's all. The other article is fine, in fact it reminds me of another fine article, List of moths of Italy, it has that same sense of 'you just can't stop reading' like when you can't put down a good book. We need to get back the lot, and then cut it all down to about 10 to 30 percent of what it is over there, here in this article, and get all the references fixed up. Otherwise there is a gaping hole here. Merge is better than the gaping hole, but deleting the boring other article isn't required. Penyulap _talk 04:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. A merge does not actually delete the article, just blanks the page and has a redirect link back to the main article. Should consensus change the base article and all it's history is still there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

by 'gaping hole' I mean there is a gaping hole in this, current, article. Penyulap _talk 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Peacock28. Why is Amadscientist proposing this, he split it off to begin with? B^e——C_ritical 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew the outcome and apologize if you feel time was wasted. But I wanted to be sure this article had true consensus for the split and simply remind editors we have options to redo it. Now, mind you if this were not a controversial article one could boldly make the edits and just merge back the contents but then that spur a reversal. Since a new editor has requested this, but not in the correct manner i wanted to at least have the community discuss it. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see, good thinking. B^e——C_ritical 06:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist you dont' have anything to apologise for, we all do our best, and your bad days are better than many editors good days. Penyulap _talk 09:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose We're gonna bring back an article that starts with "There have been reactions to Occupy Wall Street". Probably the lamest opening statement in a WP article ever. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, time to go fix it then, as the merger is going nowhere. Penyulap _talk 09:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The lede needs work as well. We should revisit the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't see why the article was split in the first place (or, rather, I think that "this article is too long" is often an unhelpful rationale for a split). The whole point of this protest movement, like many others, is to be thought-provoking. Better to reflect the thoughts provoked within the main article rather than spun off. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The article had been discussed in a previous thread about a split. Then it came up again I believe about the time I came back to the article after the holidays. I suggested that the article be split for management reasons. It was far too long to manage. There was a consensus of editors and the split was made with a small summary that, even after a number of edits by others, at least one editor believes sucks. I say bring it back if enough editors agree or leave the split as the current consensus unless of course Factchecker wishes to make a suggestion for a compromise, seek a third opinion or even the dispute resolution notice board. If he feels he can live with the split and is the single hold out, he need not do anything further but agree to living with the split for now. It can always be brought up again. While consensus can hold weight, it can change.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider myself a "holdout" as I don't currently plan on editing this article again. I was simply expressing that I see a good rationale for the suggested merge. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I very strongly oppose merging these two articles. We split it because it, not surprisingly, got too long. To bring it back we would have to "chop" (a word I don't like) it down to practically nothing. Some editors have suggested that Among the general public, opinions of OWS have varied over time, and there are contradictions among the data collected by various polling agencies. Many prominent politicians, academics, and public figures have reacted with both criticism and praise. is not an adequate summary for the split article and I don't think that any editor disagreed with that. It seems to me that it was longer at one time but an editor complained that the sources were missing. Since Penyulap has said that s/he wants to help, perhaps s/he would be glad to write up something that is longer and better. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It will make the article too long. I would like that section to have more prominence though. What about squeezing it into the lead with a hotlinked sentence of some sort. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Occupy Wall street article is already long enough. However, a more extensive summary of information in the Reactions section, culled from the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article would be very appropriate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - But the article should be called Responses to Occupy Wall Street. Anybody can have a reaction to something. But to respond to whatever OWS is? That's something else. Anyone can have an opinion, and REACT. And they don't have to ENGAGE with the FACT of this movement. They don't have to be RESPONSIBLE. Responses to OWS? Now THERE would be an article. Maybe it's semantics. Maybe not. Change the title of the article and you could bring a better focus to the article. It would focus on those groups who really have to critique and analyze and THINK ABOUT what's happening. That would be about those other factions, political groups, police, city governments, unions, banks, etc, that have to DEAL with OWS. The Oakland Police Force has to RESPOND to Occupy. Do they? How's Mayor Quan dealing with this? Politicians have had to respond to Occupy (ie., Michael Bloomberg). Anthony Bologna? The Pepper Spray cop on the UC campus? Hey, I'm not sure. Radio talk show hosts can react to OWS all day long. But are they really responding to what OWS is about. Just puttin' the suggestion out there. Christian Roess (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now it's just boilerplate that says nothing For instance, Among the general public, opinions of the Chevy Volt have varied over time, and there are contradictions among the data collected by various polling agencies. Many prominent politicians, academics, and public figures have reacted with both criticism and praise. 'Nuf said. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thus the need for the article title as it is. Nice idea of writing though (: B^e——C_ritical 05:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The title has been discussed before and if it is "reaction", "response" or "reception" makes little difference to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons I stated last time we reached consensus to have separate articles. 완젬스 (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Post merge proposal rejection proposals.

I doubt anyone would say the merge proposal gained consensus. But what should we include, how should it be included, is a separate section necessary, or can content be integrated in the rest of the article.? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A split-off article generally becomes a summary-style section with a main article link. The current section does need some work to actually represent a summary of the "reactions" article. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:53, 9 Mar 2012 (UTC)

An editor, who is new to the article, and whose block log give mine a run for the money, has effectively hijacked the article, and imposed his/her edit. I have restored the tile "Responses", see extensive prev talk discusssion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that an editor's block list shouldn't be propagandized to imply the merit of their actions, one of my blocking admins was de-admined as a result of it (during a bout of other rash actions) and one was done mistakenly (by admission of the admin), while the rest (which occurred years ago so I'm fuzzy on the exact details), save for perhaps one, were reversed via an admin consensus that they were implemented erroneously.

Call me if you'd like to discuss relevant things.Equazcion ^(talk) 19:27, 9 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Ahw, now don't get butthurt, and I actually think my block log beats yours, so take it with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, the reverts do confirm what what a block log shows. Now, besides defending wounded honor, what about the article? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Split-off articles are retained as summary sections in their original articles. If anyone has a problem with the current content of that section, they are free to edit it; this is a wiki, after all. But removing it entirely in order to draft it on the talk page is inconsistent with the way Wikipedia works. The content isn't controversial as to warrant that, even if the existence of the summary seems to have been -- I defended implementing a well-accepted practice, per WP:Summary style, by re-inserting the section. Neither my block log nor my experience (nor lack thereof) in editing this particular article change that. The section does, again, need some more content in order to represent an adequate summary though. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:42, 9 Mar 2012 (UTC)

B4 lecturing us on WP protocols, you really should take time to look at the discussions we've had; you would see that it was by consensus to yank the content out, and it was through consensus, to merge it. In effect, not returning the content it. We would be grateful to not have what we established overridden or ignored. As of now, we are working on what and how to bring the content back. BTW, get might want to get over the block log thing. You essentially made it better known. My talk page might have been a better venue to address perceived wrongs. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

...as would mine. I don't remember bringing up block logs in the first place. This is the first I'm hearing of a previous consensus to remove the section -- all I've heard thus far from you have been sarcastic comments. Had it been brought to my attention this would've likely gone differently. Point me to a consensus and I'll gladly consider it before chiming in again. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:56, 9 Mar 2012 (UTC)

To quote you guys some policy, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." and "Consensus is not unchangeable, and matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before." from consensus, it's the policy. Penyulap _talk 23:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a larger summary of the Reactions article should be put in this article. However, as has been my position previously, I do not think it is appropriate to try to forcefully insert material into the article. Let's get a consensus on it first. I will change the article back to how it was before the recent insertion. But I do agree in general with the edits, and if we can gain consensus on it I would like to re-insert them. B^e——C_ritical 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with "Talk first" and edit after consensus. That is not editing freely, however once an edit is reverted then a discussion about the actual content and not the size of one's block logs usually takes place.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you it's fine to edit boldly. And yes, I'm not sure what the problems were with the proposed text? Let's discuss any there may be. B^e——C_ritical 06:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There were no stated problems with the proposed text. That's why I re-inserted it. The only "problem" stated was that the insertion hadn't been discussed and agreed upon first, which everyone seems to agree is no problem at all. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:44, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

There was no "forceful" insertion -- that summation strikes me as a demand that changes need to meet with the approval of the veteran editors of this article before they're implemented (wp:own). I think new people and new bold changes are just what this article needs. I've re-inserted the section. No one's stated any problem with it, other than the fact that it wasn't discussed first, and we all seem to agree that that doesn't matter at all. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:29, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Where did anyone state a problem with the fact that it wasn't discussed first? 완젬스 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Anywhere on this page where the "responses" section is argued over, that is the only problem anyone has stated. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:53, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit then let me defend gandy (as she has taken a wikibreak from this article). What she wrote is that user:NorthAmerica started the wheels of motion for a discussion of forming consensus. Then Penyulap subverted this process without participating in NorthAmerica's discussion first. If NorthAmerica wants to spark a discussion and Gandy wants to join him, then let the collaboration take place the way NorthAmerica & Gandy want it to. If NorthAmerica wants to surreptitiously insert the unrefined proposal immediately, then let him do it by himself. If you look at Gandy's edits to the talk page of OWS and to the article page of OWS, you'll find that her ratio shows her as someone who would have first liked to collaborate with NorthAmerica on the talk page first, rather than have Penyulap overrule NorthAmerica's suggestion. Gandy never stated that she had a problem with the fact that it wasn't discussed first, unless you can give me a diff where she stated those words. I've worked with Gandy long enough to emphatically state that she loves to work with people on their terms, including user:NorthAmerica. Because Penyulap decided autonomously to just insert the unrefined product of their collaboration prematurely, I know that we lost probably a couple hours of beneficial editing by one of this article's finest editors. To say she stated something (without providing a diff of her edit) is disingenuous. 완젬스 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What Penyulap did happens very often, and it's fine. An editor will often make a suggested edit on the talk page because they're unsure of it, or think (whether erroneously or not) that a consensus needs to be demonstrated first; which is often followed by someone boldly implementing the edit rather than waste time with red tape that didn't need to appear in the first place. In other words, just because a discussion started doesn't mean it needs to continue -- unless there's a good reason, and since there was none here, boldness was warranted. The proposed edit needed work, some of which I performed before re-inserting it, but there was never any reason to revert the insertions. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:49, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Well if that's how it happened, then I am pleasantly corrected. I thought it was just brazenly "shoved" into the article in its unrefined state, which I can see how it would upset Gandy. I hope she knows you performed some work before re-inserting it, because that makes it square by me. 완젬스 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, my point was that it doesn't matter whether or not work was done. There was never any reason to revert the insertions -- mine nor the original by Penyulap. Work needed to be done, which could have been done while existing live in the article, rather than removing the section wholesale for refinement as a talk-page draft (this is the crux of the problem; the brazen shoving, as you put it, is part of the fundamental live wiki editing process, rather than misbehavior that requires contention). PS. Gandy didn't even revert me, and didn't even participate in this issue other after I got involved. That was the doing of other existing editors here. I take issue with her statements, but she hasn't been the one keeping them alive. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:25, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Err, "shove" was the word that Penyulap used...and all-in-all perhaps it was a pretty good choice of words after all. I'll repeat what I said: At one point I do believe that it is a good idea for an editor to come up with a suggestion as Northamerica did. But I do believe that when an editor just "shoves" it into the article without discussion that they are just asking for an edit war - which is exactly what happened. But what's done is done and I think we can work with it for improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion seems to conflict with wp:bold. "Shove" is basically just placing a negative spin on boldness, and a re-familiarization with that guideline might help. I'm glad we're starting to move past this particular instance, and hope the more fundamental root of this conflict doesn't cause more of them any time soon. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:13, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Please quit lecturing me. The word is quoted from this edit: Looks great support, I shoved it straight in temporarily as it is better than that gaping hole in the article. Penyulap talk 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Even though it seems to have given others reason to view the edit negatively, and subsequently use it against him, it was after all just a more colorful description of boldness (if we consider the action rather than focus on the choice of words). I'm continuing to respond because I hope my own boldness won't be met with the same resistance in the future, and I'll surely choose my edit summary words carefully in consideration of my audience here. Hopefully this was just a misunderstanding. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:03, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Take this for what you will. In my somewhat considerable experience as an editor at controversial articles, "bold" is generally cited in connection with WP:BRD, and it's always been my impression that a big part of the purpose of the "bold" part in BRD is simply to get the attention of other editors. Once that has happened, the D part ("discuss") is of central importance. That's not policy but it is generally accepted practice, to my knowledge. I'm not following any of these discussions closely so perhaps the following doesn't apply, but here goes anyway: WP:BOLD is not a license to ignore consensus or avoid discussion, and excessive reliance on it can be disruptive if an article has reached a healthy state of stability. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a staunch believer in BRD, and have gotten into tiffs when it's ignored. Nevertheless, it should only be used when there are actual objections to the content that's being added. In this case, there was objection to the mere addition of content without demonstrated consensus -- this is a bastardization of BRD that nearly subverts live editing. Bold is not exclusively a part of BRD, but stands on its own, too, as an accepted editing practice. The mere use of B does not warrant an RD -- and that is what occurred here, to which I strongly object. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:22, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I almost think WP:BRD should be deleted. Too many editors are to attached to the essay and believe it is policy. It is not. Even the actual policy and guidelines of Wikipedia may be ignored if it is to improve the article or is the consensus of editors. Only brightline rules, that cannot be avoided or ignored stand.

You are going to have to accept an editor using the edit itself to dispute the content. There is a difference between "accepted practice"(what editors call "unwritten rules"), "guidelines and policy" (Wikipedia cummunity/foundation created and posted as Wikipedia articles themselves), "cummunity" (the overall community of editors) and "local" (the article's editors) consensus (what everyone can live with). "Bold" is NOT a practice...it is a guideline WP:BB and states "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a deletion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war.". It's first sub section is "But please be careful". It is not an unwritten rule or just part of an essay article (the opinion of one or more editor's interpretation of Guideline and policy). It is a true part of the editing cycle. It's only when used to simply revert good faith contributions because another dislikes it, or removes it before discussion themselves that it is being misused. If an editor makes a new section or creats new material, just deleting it is the first step in an edit war if your deletion has no logical reasoning and even then can still be seen as edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Centrify. Also, BRD is in fact policy, in that not adhering to its advice is against policy, specifically the policy on edit warring. B^e——C_ritical 20:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BRD agrees with policy by spelling out one way to avoid it, but there are many points during WP:3RR when one can be said to have started an edit war, and Amadscientist contends that it started here with the removal, rather than the reinsertion -- which is another way to agree with policy. Neither you or Centrify have actually addressed the fact that the content was removed in this case expressly due to the bold nature of the edit, and that's the point of contention here, because it's a bad reason. Arguing about what people did to try and remedy that behavior afterward doesn't eschew what started it. BRD can weigh heavily and unjustly on the side of those defending the status quo of an article, if they so choose to use it that way; which, I'd go as far as to say, is one reason it was never made a policy itself. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:50, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

BRD is indeed NOT policy and while it may agree with several points of actual policy it is just the interpretation of an editor or editors on actual policy and I agree most strongly with that. But...I never said an actual edit war has started, simply that when content is deleted without purpose or reasoning it is likely to be looked at as a first shot fired in an edit war. Simply ignoring it would put a stop to such. That or even copy editing the content and add supporting references, etc. is not an edit war. But on the flip of that there is now a newer form of wiki warrior practice and that's to take a dispute straight to DR without even attempting to collaborate with others who may be on your side and agree with the assement. I think it is better to ask what others want and if they refuse to asnwer, make your bold edit and when and if it goes to DR, at least you can show that others were not working together. DR is a great place if you can't get what you want, but it doesn't mean you will get what you want. Most know this and try very hard to work things out on the talk page. Perhaps the fact that these discussions can be so light and in many cases are just one editor asking "do you like that?" and when there are answers like, "Yes, I like that" with no further explanation or real discussion editors WILL use the DR process more. That is something we may not like but then it becomes a matter of whether or not the local community is able to come to a consensus or not. Seems to me DR may be the only way for this article to expand in almost anyway.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC){od}

Guys, if your arguing about BRD and , I mean arguing alot alot, or doing battle via DR (I haven't read any of the discussion, I just scanned the discussion and saw those acronyms peppered throughout), that's not good. Something has gone awry. I suggest sitting out two days or more. I've started doing this and it does wonders for equanimity, and the comity we would like on WP is easier to help bring about. The article will still be here. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

- About that block, just sayin' The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Establishing Standards in Handling This Article

Hello:

This is Centrist Fiasco and I'm a Political Science Major at Florida State College; I'm just wanted to address all of you that I've reworked the article but did not remove any information. All I've done is pay attention to clarity, detail and avoid political rhetorical terms as possible to inform the readers as if they're reading from an established encyclopedia like Britannica, if you will. If you've noticed I've reworked the grammar, capitalization and structure of the article as well because I felt that it needed to be done, for the sake of the article. I've recommend that you don't revert my edits but just do minor changes if you see fit. Reverting an entire person's work for biases or accusations of not following Wikipedia supposedly fascist standards is pushing it.

Thanks.

-Centrist Fiasco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.194.135 (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've written a overview/introduction for this article that has gotten reverted, and I explicitly told you guys to not do this. Overviews must be clear and clear cut but detailed, it's an abstract. This is the standards of an encyclopedia.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a phrase movement that may be considered to be a 'protest' to the common man; it all began on September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park which located in New York City, New York's Financial District. This movement has been initiated by the Canadian Activist Group, "Adbusters" that is investigated to have anarchist, anti-consumerist and alleged Communistic ties; it has played an important but not crucial role in the Occupy Movement in the United States. There have been protests sharing the same title in the Continent of Europe but shall not be associated with the movement present in the United States, due to conflicting natures of each protest movements. The Occupy Movement in the United States based upon investigated journalism, casual observance and critically analytic information gathering and inferring; this movement is strongly against the mixed economy that the United States of America currently has in place, which is a form of Social Democracy. This movement's slogan, We Are the 99% addresses the perceived and possibly growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the United States, after the Wall Street bailouts in the Year of 2008. This slogan is considered to be a public relations stunt where the originators, who remain to be anonymous, sole Intent and Purpose was to gather support for the movement to somewhat have a connection with the majority of the American People. The Occupy Movement is infamous in their "direct action" approach to raise awareness without addressing concise, clear and realistic demands in the form of a petition which is granted as a Right in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There has been increasing troubles within this movement from its peak in October of 2011 where the lack of leadership affected the movement's stability and "protection" from alleged radicals who are considered to be Marxist, who are looking to fulfill the second to last stage to a Communistic Utopia as introduced in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and Kas Capital.

-Centrist Fiasco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.194.135 (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, a policy, says wikipedia can't make it's own conclusions about groups and people like this, which seems to be wikipedia itself talking:

• that may be considered to be a
• that is investigated to have
• but shall not be associated with the movement present
• this movement is strongly against the
• This movement's slogan, We Are the 99% addresses the perceived and possibly growing inc
• This slogan is considered to be a public relations stunt where the originators, who remain to be anonymous, sole Intent and Purpose was to gather support for the movement to somewhat have a connection with the majority of the American People.
• The Occupy Movement is infamous in their "direct action" approach to raise awareness without addressing concise, clear and realistic demands in the form of a
• There has been increasing troubles within this movement from its peak in October of 2011 where the lack of leadership affected the movement's stability and "protection" from alleged radicals who are considered to be Marxist, who are looking to fulfill the second to last stage to a Communistic Utopia as introduced in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and Kas Capital.

All those statements need to be in the form of Group XYZ said "blah blah blah" and Jack Flash says "blah blah" or according to United states government blah blah and so on.

from the WP:MOSINTRO guide. "..avoid...over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

"In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. ... they conflict with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to locate a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it."

• phrase movement
• The Occupy Movement in the United States based upon investigated journalism, casual observance and critically analytic information gathering and inferring; this movement is strongly against the mixed economy that the United States of America currently has in place, which is a form of Social Democracy.
• the lack of leadership affected the movement's stability and "protection" from alleged radicals who are considered to be Marxist, who are looking to fulfill the second to last stage to a Communistic Utopia as introduced in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and Kas Capital.

Penyulap _talk 10:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd invite you to make some smaller edits to see what works and what doesn't, when you make larger edits, and one or two things are incorrect, other editors will revert you sometimes, rather than reverting the specific part of your work that is the problem. Penyulap _talk 10:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Penyulap. The proposed introduction above is heavily anti-OWS POV and thus unsuitable. It's also an example of poor writing, possibly by a non-native speaker -- since you brought up the fact that you're in school, I suggest you take a remedial English composition class or two. And check out Strunk & White's Elements of Style. Using more words doesn't necessarily mean better writing. 98.92.183.124 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys are falling behind like 2011 stragglers!

Hello new editors (and editors who know of my promotion through facebook activities within ows movement) and I'd like to lay down my intentions to help the article ingest a major update which has not gotten any love from editors:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203833004577249811049566178.html &
• http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-movement-plans-spring-surprises/story?id=15870450#.T1s11zE7WAg &
• http://www.npr.org/2012/03/03/147861379/ben-and-jerry-raise-dough-for-occupy-movement &
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-usa-occupy-funds-idUSBRE8281CM20120309

(Note! This contradiction is no accident!) and it needs to be "shoved" into the article or at least covered somehow. I would do it myself, but I'm currently under house arrest from amadscientist, so I'll do it in 24 hours if nobody else does. There is a funding section, but I also want to encourage you guys to realize ows is undergoing leadership changes, which I want everyone to be well aware of, especially as new information is disseminated from leaders of the occupy movement through our connections in press agencies such as new york times. I'll wait for others to chime in, because I have a very high level of respect for my fellow editors who do a great job on this article. I'm sorry a few weeks ago to anyone I may have "spooked" about my hinted premonition of the Feb 12th Nytimes article here which I'd happily explain again on my talk page to anyone who felt I was using it to infer a leadership role I had or may have had here at Wikipedia. Hopefully, I can be just an invisible editor again, with no secretive agenda other than to keep making sure that the 2012 information about the movement supplants the 2011 complacency some of our veteran editors may have had. We need to remove stupid stuff like greywater dishsoap recycling to water their plants, and we need to replace it with pertinent bombshells of information which fall upon deaf ears. 완젬스 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

House arrest? LOL! How about just telling the truth and admit you screamed your head off on mulitple threads, talkpages and here and admited to your conflict of interest and I suggested that perhaps you shouldn't be editing this page. It didn't take a brain surgeon to figure out who you are sir. You practicly told everyone your name and position within the group and your backing away from one particular section due to your admitted COI only made it even easier. Let's be honest about this, shall we? You really shouldn't be editing this page and you know it, most of us pretty much know who you are and why you are here. Your interest is with the organization and promoting it and not in a neutral encyclopedic article. I think you used a hell of a lot of people here sir and you have a lot of nerve making statements like being under house arrest by a single editor. You are stepping back because you are too close to the subject and not because anyone told you you can't edit...becuase NO ONE has told you that.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, while it's nice that you've pointed out the conflict of interest, it's good to avoid stirring up trouble. I would like to point out that anyone is welcome to make suggestions on the talkpage, and even with a conflict of interest it's cool for someone to both says so and pop whatever they feel would be helpful onto the talkpage for everyone to consider. Given there is very little going into the article at the moment, I think people besides myself are looking for any quick cut'n'paste jobs to improve the article. Editing is good, focusing discussion on editing is good, focusing discussion on editors rather than their edits is bad.

완젬스, would you like to rephrase your suggestions as a quick cut'n'paste, to assist anyone who thinks it's a good inclusion ? Penyulap _talk 08:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you may not want to comment Penyulap if you wish accuse me of stirring up trouble when I defend myself against the post of someone who mentiones me by name. Stay out of it, if you can't see where the trouble originates. If the editor wishes to continue to drag out old diffs why shouldn't I mention directly his own admited words on Wikipedia. Trouble? I didn't know there was trouble. The original post seems to be little more than an attack on me and accusing me of wrangling him into a corner. This editor is loudly self proclaimed as an OWS "insider" and admitting to some kind of off wiki actions that I'm not sure if we are to assume had anything to do with this page or not. I would be a little insulted, but I understand your good nature.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly jesting, Amadscientist. Yes, I mentioned you by name, and I am glad to see you show no signs of taking a wiki-break anytime soon! Indeed, "off-wiki" means facebook, and "insider" means I have been tapped into leadership roles within ows due to a nonexistent Korean presence within the movement. (the more diversity for the movement the better, right?) I plan to slowly incorporate the 2012 stuff into the article, starting with the "financial shortage" and the golden parachutes (Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield, Danny Goldberg, Norman Lear, and Terri Gardner) finally revealing themselves to the 99% right as angel investors were needed. With their money comes overdue leadership changes (will be in Nytimes this April, big story in the works) and the narrative will all play out by election time in November. The leaders of ows are very pleased with how their wikipedia page looks (mainly the antisemitism issue aptly whitewashed) and now that the protests are winding down, there is less risk of negative publicity and bad press taking our movement's weaknesses out of context. I'll start by adding the above 4 reliable sources into the funding section of our article. If anyone disagrees with my article edits, then feel free to challenge them and provide my edit diffs & adequate summary. Thanks! 완젬스 (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC) (will wait until article is taken off protection)

Penyulap, shown here, thinks it doesn't take a rocket scientist to improve this article, considering it's current crap state.

Amadscientist, I'm not trying to accuse you of stirring up trouble, except where you suggest that an editor shouldn't be editing wikipedia, that's a decision that the community makes. Everyone has something to offer, and including everyone and working together is a shortcut to success. The current shocking state of this article, that is, cut down with huge portions missing and lop-sided means it is attracting honest good faith editors who rightly believe that they can do a better job. Their interaction with the editors who put the article into it's current shocking state is like the blind leading the blind. Everyone ends up in a ditch. The best way forward is for everyone to be more open and inclusive of content and fellow editors, bulk the article up and then work on the small detail later, when it's out of it's deplorable state. The other option will be continued disharmony on the talkpage and multiple editors considering wikibreaks and so forth when asked to do so by the community. I don't want that to happen, I'd urge everyone to assist taking a break from their delete key for a month, rather than removing anything people put into the article, suggest better ways to write the same material, better citations for the same points, and discussing that with each other. It will keep everyone in a much more harmonious state. Penyulap _talk 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

LMAO @ the monkey pic--I was clicking the diff only, and had to scroll down to see the picture. I thought you were serious and the pic caught me by complete surprise, lol. Here is my contribution to this noble, simian discussion. ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's quite funny too, I like that. But my point about working together is very serious. we are all on the same side here, wanting to improve the article. It's an encyclopedia, not someone's facebook page, we have to include everyone's 'take' on the topic, not just our own. Penyulap _talk 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope this sentence isn't serious, "We are all on the same side here, wanting to improve the article." because I got some shocking news for you: You will turn cynical once you find out the real way Wikipedia operates! You're setting yourself up big-time for soul-crushing disillusionment once you notice the hypocrisy, bitter edit warring, and true nature of editors who dance around like wolves in sheep's clothing. I recommend picking up a good philosophy book on Epistemology which cuts through the bull sh*t and ingrains into you that scientific skepticism which clears the way for a mind to culminate the development of logic and reasoning. Consider this thought experiment:

Three Masters of Logic wanted to find out who was the wisest amongst them. So they turned to their Grand Master, asking to resolve their dispute. “Easy,” the old sage said. "I will blindfold you and paint either red, or blue dot on each man’s forehead. When I take your blindfolds off, if you see at least one red dot, raise your hand. The one, who guesses the color of the dot on his forehead first, wins." And so it was said, and so it was done. The Grand Master blindfolded the three contestants and painted red dots on every one. When he took their blindfolds off, all three men raised their hands as the rules required, and sat in silence pondering. Finally, one of them said: "I have a red dot on my forehead." How did he guess?

Extended content

The wisest one must have thought like this: I see all hands up and 2 red dots, so I can have either a blue or a red dot. If I had a blue one, the other 2 guys would see all hands up and one red and one blue dot. So they would have to think that if the second one of them (the other with red dot) sees the same blue dot, then he must see a red dot on the first one with red dot. However, they were both silent (and they are wise), so I have a red dot on my forehead. Here is another way to explain it: All three of us (A, B, and C (me)) see everyone's hand up, which means that everyone can see at least one red dot on someone's head. If C has a blue dot on his head then both A and B see three hands up, one red dot (the only way they can raise their hands), and one blue dot (on C's, my, head). Therefore, A and B would both think this way: if the other guys' hands are up, and I see one blue dot and one red dot, then the guy with the red dot must raise his hand because he sees a red dot somewhere, and that can only mean that he sees it on my head, which would mean that I have a red dot on my head. But neither A nor B say anything, which means that they cannot be so sure, as they would be if they saw a blue dot on my head. If they do not see a blue dot on my head, then they see a red dot. So I have a red dot on my forehead.

Unless you know the agenda of other editors, you have to assume good faith, and also hone in on the fact that others are wary about your agenda, and are blind to their own purposes of editing Wikipedia. A good discussion here basically ignores the premise of why we're all here. We're all meatpuppets in some way, shape, or form. Since most of us aren't getting paid, there are inherent reasons we all choose to edit Wikipedia. Some people's reasons are good, some people's reasons are bad. Some people wear their reasons on their sleeve (such as me) while others are in self-denial or are lied to about Wikipedia until the unyielding cognitive dissonance collapses their final attempt to bridge their own subconscious attempt to make Wikipedia fit their assumptions, expectations, and observations. Once a Wikipedian has gone through the disillusionment stage, they are then able to intuitively feel whether or not other Wikipedians have gone through it as well. To me, sir, I see you as also having a red dot on your forehead! If not, welcome to the politics of political articles, and enjoy the journey of unpredictable chaos and daily dramas made by Wikipedians to serve their own self-interests. It's the hot bed for controversy, duplicity, and Machiavellian intelligence tactics. Winnners win by indirect influence over the consensus process, just like how the 1% can hijack an explicitly democratic form of government through the use of lobbyists, power brokers, and the complicit mainstream media. 완젬스 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Still edit warring on the criticism section

I had hoped that the POV removals of some quotes and well-sourced characterization would have stopped by now, but the same editor came and removed it again. It is now on the DR noticeboard here. Please, this time do not ask that every word be sourced: actually read the sources. B^e——C_ritical 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Major Restructure of the Occupy Wall Street Article

Hello There:

As what you probably know by now I'm "Centrist Fiasco" or to better provide you with details, I'm the individual who edited this piece a couple of days ago heavily before it got reverted for violations. Anyway, I'm unblocked and decided to create an account in which now I'm a changed individual. Let's get down to the basics, I'm wanting to change this article to fit the standards of an encyclopedia with no favoring of the movement or disfavoring, we shall all be obligated to tell the truth with avoidance of rhetorical terminology, excessive use of HTML and lastly, poor use of the English Language when telling the Occupy Wall Street "story", if you will. We need solid transitions when we begin each paragraph and we need a balanced paragraph structure with parallel sentences. I'm going to lay down the ground work here to reach a consensus, for the first time, and hopefully we can all come to a reasonable compromise on how to write an article that can be featured. This section is to discuss the latest edit and I hope that we all come to come to an agreement and finalize this, then protect it against vandalism.

Update: It appears I've been reverted... Let's come to a consensus now! Look at the edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=481384172

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record:

• Lane's version
• Status quo

Your version seems more like a pro-OWS dissertation than a Wikipedia article, Lane. "...awareness movement that may be considered to be a 'protest' to the common man"? There's language similar to that throughout; it moves the article away from Wikipedia's standards, from my point of view. Your replacement infobox picture is also more original, while the present one is more the standard used by the movement. I have to agree that this isn't a beneficial change. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:54, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Equazcion. If it just the wording of that particular statement then you can edit that portion if you like.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's your source for their goal being Marxism? We don't take original research, you need sources specifically saying that OWS's own claimed goal is Marxism, not just select members' claims, outside criticism, or personal assertions.

What is your source for New York General Assembly being "an anarchic systemic mechanism," and what justification is there for pointing it out over and over and over?

There's also a lot of syntactic errors, unclear sentences, and Engfish floating about in the rewrite. For example:

• "The movement has attracted an Internet Advocacy Group namely, Anonymous, who lacks a central authority and is not necessarily an established group, encouraged its "followers" as in the Internet to take part in the movement for the cause." This would be better expressed as "The movement attracted the support of the similarly decentralized internet group Anonymous."
• "During the same time period, sixty percent of the American People, who are the middle of the income scale, saw their income rise by 40% which is a fairly a progression but neither the less, it does not take away from the movement's supposed cause." The use of "fairly" is ambiguous (is it a fair progression or is it hardly a progression?), and regardless of meaning it is awkward. It is "never the less," not "neither the less." You do not need to put "supposed" before every other noun in this article. It is unnecessary and pretentious. Find a source that presents the real cause or description, or whatever, and present that instead of alleged versions.
• "Prior to the park being closed because it's considered to be private property initially tents were not allowed nor excessive living in which the protesters were deliberately engaging in." This would far more clear as "Prior to the park's closure, tents were not allowed, though the protestors brought them anyway." That the park is considered private property was previously established.

That you are interested is nice, but as a Wikipedian I am concerned about your original research and as a future English teacher your writing makes me cringe.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street in the United States based upon their demands and observance through the media on the ground, it is a fact that the group holds to Marxist ideals on how a government should function and the like. There is not really a source out there that admits it point blank but it's pretty obvious when one uses their intellect in regards to their political knowledge. For the Prose, I write according to the English Standard taught at practically any University; the use of a comma to deliver clarity in a sentence like this, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a free encyclopedia, that can be edited by everyone" is correct. Using transitional words is a must when writing paragraphs, bro, you cannot start off a paragraph with "because", "and" or in right in the middle of an idea which was awfully prevalent in the previous edit.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. You need to source any claims you make, regardless of how obvious they are to you. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:06, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Read WP:CITE and WP:No original research. Provide any reliable source that says OWS has collectively claimed Marxism as their goal. It doesn't matter what any editor thinks are "facts" are here, this site is just a summary of reliable sources. Not all socialism is Marxism, not all left-wing politics are socialist, and not all dissatisfaction with mainstream right-wing politics is from the left. This is basic knowledge for anyone who takes any introductory classes on politics or philosophy.

I'm on last semester majoring in English, I can assure you that your writing would fail every professor I've taken. I recommend you look again at the horrible errors I pointed out, because you failed to address any of them with your elementary lecture on transitions and commas. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you even know what Marxism is, Equazcion? It's essentially the redistribution of wealth and where a central authority, the government, controls all means of production and industry. There are so many variations of Marxism or Marxist Theory, if you will and based off the movement's rhetoric they advocate such that. This isn't a personal opinion, this is critical thinking.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know what Marxism is. Regardless of how critically you're thinking, you need to source your claims. That's just how Wikipedia works. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:13, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing claims? I already sourced my claim on this matter if you actually read through the overview/introduction of my edit. It's at the bottom which I've stated that there are handful of individuals who advocate such views, I've given a credible source from Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Karl Marx's Entry and a source where the individual can read the writings of Marx that I explicitly referred to.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As I explained in my first post: "We don't take original research, you need sources specifically saying that OWS's own claimed goal is Marxism, not just select members' claims, outside criticism, or personal assertions." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read my edit? I've included sources for the reader to take a look at it, in the overview/introduction of the article. Have you clicked on the references and read through them? Have you even read about Marxism on Wikipedia itself? Marxism has so many variations, pal. If you feel deeply concern about this manner then I strongly suggest that you revert my edit then put in, "Socialists" since that word in particular in so vague, it has to get your attention and approval.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A handful of individuals sharing a view doesn't make it factual (especially not to the degree that it belongs in the infobox). "These supposed radicals are considered to be Marxists, who are looking to fulfill the second to last stage to a Communistic Utopia as introduced in Communist Manifesto and Capital" is another example of original research, sourced with information on Marxism rather than the appearance of the claim itself in reliable secondary sources (if it appeared anywhere it would be in opinion pieces anyway).

Echoing Ian above, the English in your version is also a big step back from the status quo article. "The Occupy Movement in the United States based upon investigated journalism, critical observance and critically analytic information gathering and inferring; this movement seem to be perceived strongly but factually moderately against the mixed economy that the United States of America currently has in place, which is a form of Social Democracy" -- This is a mess, but is just one example. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:27, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Your sources for the part calling OWS Marxist did not mention OWS at all. It was original research for you to use those sources to make statements about OWS when those sources did not mention OWS. How do you not get this? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's called critical thinking, Ian.

Have you ever read a more established encyclopedia in your life, Equazcion?

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's pretty irrelevant. Wikipedia has an established set of standards, and if you're not interested in following them, you have little chance of getting any of your edits to stick here. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:34, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Mr. J. Lane, your "critical thinking" is original research. There's no pretending it's anything but original research. We don't accept original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read any other Wikipedia Entries, Equazcion? There is absolutely nothing wrong with using such language in an overview for the sake of providing the reader, briefly about what something is about. An encyclopedia is meant to hold to Truth and Original Research as long as that original research comes with something to help others understand, and provide a little bit of backing. The original research rule that you speak of is taking out of context and as an human being, I feel obligated to educate you. Everything about encyclopedias are original research and if you take this crucial point of an encyclopedia out of the picture, it doesn't have any merit of being called an encyclopedia.

Ian, if that's the case then what you're attempting to do here is hiding the Truth and promoting opinions which as I recall, is against the rules of Wikipedia...

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is a rule. WP:No original research is a rule. WP:TRUTH is a joke essay you are fulfilling so much. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah you could say I've read other Wikipedia articles. I've been editing here for a number of years. Original research isn't allowed here, no matter how crucial you might think it is, nor how much you'd like to educate people about the "Truth". Again, see WP:V, as verifiability, rather than truth, is the standard for inclusion. Critical thinking is great for an essay, if you'd like to publish one off-site; but here it doesn't belong, as a result of long-standing rules. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:47, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I like the dialogue we're having and as I continue to write you folks, I'm beginning to notice something interesting... You're trying to "protest" the image through this Wikipedia Article and I've noticed that through your edits, and your past discussions. Also, I'm reverting back in a couple of hours because apparently, this article has been subjected to Occupy Wall Street insiders. Mr. J. Lane (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at WP:AGF and WP:3RR. You've already reverted enough to get blocked (again). Just a heads-up. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:55, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Lane's been blocked until 3/18, and he is also waiting judgement on a Sock puppet investigation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is located here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's officialIt's a done deal. , indefinite block. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

He's back as User:Encyclopedist J. I re-opened the sock investigation. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:27, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Just let him wear himself out. I'll revert him back in about 30 minutes. He used to be a good editor on this article until a few screws came loose, lol. (did any of you see the public masturbation manic episode from the guy who created the Kony 2012 internet film yesterday?)완젬스 (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at Lane's Version and I can see why it was reverted completely but at the same time, I feel that he's pretty correct on some of the points he's making. Now, we can make the exception of classifying this movement as Marxist, let's just call them something that is somewhat less defaming to the public but then again it makes perfect sense to classify them as Marxists on an Encyclopedia. They fit the right description as I read through Karl Marx's writings and I'm loving the introduction he added, it's quite spot on believe it or not. I think the original research guideline is a good guideline but it's often taken out of context by users. You can't possibly rely on mainstream sources to create an encyclopedia article, this is where most college and universities tend to dislike this entire site. Without using a bit of original research an article simply cannot be reliable at times. I've seen the sources that you guys had added and I'm concerned at the over use of articles coming supposedly leftist media outlets. Jr. Wikipedian, Jamal (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please propose an edit to illustrate your point. Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Anarchy (Part 3)

I have read the previous discussions saying that these Protests are based on the principals of Anarchy. I don't Necessarily believe that the protests are based on Anarchy. The things these protesters are demanding in my mind are, Equal share of wealth and reducing or ending Corporate Influence in the Government. However. I could be wrong

-MarcusPearl95, March 14th, 2012 (Pi Day), 20:59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusPearl95 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC) That is very much anarchist ideology. You are actualy wrong about the principles on which the protests are founded.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair, historical context

Intriguing piece in The Nation for anyone interested in giving these Occupy articles more historical context: "When Upton Sinclair's '99 Percent' Movement Sparked the Birth of the Modern Election Campaign" [6] about Upton Sinclair's political influence in the 1930's. El duderino (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Funding - removal of Terri Gardner & Norman Lear (section title edited by 완젬스)

I believe that this article has a serious COI problem caused by an editor that states he is involved with the OWS "inner group". I recently removed two names from the Funding section that he had recently edited in that were not in the sources and he returned them with the edit summary: donors demand their name be included or else they withhold $. I have a pretty relaxed attitude regarding unpaid editors who wish to improve articles in which they have interests and I'd be the last one to question their motives, but to insist on unsourced information because it promotes their pet interests goes way over the line, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"inner group" = on facebook, nothing's new. Why do you say not in the sources? Didn't Amadscientist pull that same line on you when he deleted your stuff? Just google "occupy firstname lastname" without quotes and you'll find my source you deleted. 완젬스 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should drop your sanctimonious attitude. It doesn't go very well with your pretentious section title accusing me of coi & questionable editing. Those 5 donors (members of the 1%) have given an unprecedented fortune to become members of the 99% (figuratively) to be like us. I think it's very clear that you are one of the editors hung up in a 2011 perception of the movement who I have referred to in my past motivational speeches here on the talk page. If we disagree, don't revert my edits & then come to the talk page on your high horse accusing me of bad things. Also, my edit summary is not reason enough for you to take issue with reverting my edits (which as of typing this, I have not been re-reverted yet, so I'm thankful) but from now on, let's get along even when we disagree, such as how I can have friendly jesting with Amadscientist or Becritical which helps keep the talk page friendly, positive, and light-hearted. We both know the ups & downs of editing on Wikipedia, so let's give each other a fair shake while we're bumping into each other, since we're both editing similar articles a lot these days. Thanks for your understanding, 완젬스 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide us with proper links to third-party sources that assert that these individuals have donated? Unless you can, it is a violation of WP:BLP policy (amongst other things) to make such statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Never mind - source provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear this up, I did not delete any sources. I deleted two people who were not included in the sources. This is per policy which insists we use extra caution when dealing with copy about living people. A source has now been supplied. Gandydancer (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So do you still stand behind the rest of your statement:

I believe that this article has a serious COI problem caused by an editor that states he is involved with the OWS "inner group". I recently removed two names from the Funding section that he had recently edited in that were not in the sources and he returned them with the edit summary: donors demand their name be included or else they withhold $. I have a pretty relaxed attitude regarding unpaid editors who wish to improve articles in which they have interests and I'd be the last one to question their motives, but to insist on unsourced information because it promotes their pet interests goes way over the line, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

because here are the sources I added on March 10th while the article was locked for 72h for edit warring:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203833004577249811049566178.html &
• http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-movement-plans-spring-surprises/story?id=15870450#.T1s11zE7WAg &
• http://www.npr.org/2012/03/03/147861379/ben-and-jerry-raise-dough-for-occupy-movement &
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-usa-occupy-funds-idUSBRE8281CM20120309

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other

Maybe you haven't learned anything about what is construed as edit warring after all. 완젬스 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience Gandy has had an excellent understanding of policies governing edit warring and just about anything else. The edit summary she quoted would, indeed, be an utterly inappropriate rationale for any edit on WP, and one that, in fairness, would seem to call into question whether you own admitted COI is interfering with your editing. Could we perhaps ratchet down the tone of this discussion? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Factchecker but you may be wrong about my knowledge about edit warring - see at the bottom of my talk page... Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes admins get blocked, too. Stuff happens. You're still an expert IMO. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am ready for a fresh start if Gandy is ready. 완젬스 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WTF

Anyone care to explain, in a Cliff's Notes version, what's going on with this edit? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mr. J. Lane attempted these changes against consensus and was blocked for edit warring and sockpuppeting. User:Encyclopedist J is likely the same user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco, and is attempting the same. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:34, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

LOL, give the guy some credit. He's definitely of the belief that Occupy Wall Street is something totally different than how we portray it. I wonder if he has ever been to New York? 완젬스 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Based off this dialogue, it seems that you individuals are set on a certain belief on what Occupy Wall Street shall be portrayed. This is against the WP:NPOV and with the sockpuppet investigation, there is no evidence and is a byproduct of your jealousy or agenda. Moreover, since when does Wikipedia apply to Occupy Wall Street's rules of consensus? Encyclopedist J (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We're obliged to portray OWS the way it is portrayed in mainstream discourse. If you've got an argument that the mainstream presents OWS as primarily a Marxist movement, let's hear it. Otherwise, you've got some WP policy to study up on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Like it or hate it, we can only report what gets reported first by reliable sources such as Nytimes. If you want to portray the truth then get a job in the New York Times or CNN. Until then, we have to trust that their journalists are portraying the movement accurately, fairly, and truthfully. No disrespect to you EJ, but if you find any stuff on cnn or nytimes or msnbc within the next hour or two, I'll happily add it to the article for you. 완젬스 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses

Citing examples to the contrary doesn't change the fact that the media was in fact criticized for blacking out the protests. In fact, using that rationale could be considered WP:SYN.

Cite someone that disagrees with Keith Olbermann's assessment, if you can find one, and ADD it in addition (rather than simply removing this).

And when you're dealing with a section that's been the subject of heated debate, don't make significant removals without an edit summary. This subject has proven controversial, so let's show some sensitivity. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:52, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It's already on the article which we split here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street#Media_response Like it or hate it, we can only report what gets reported first by reliable sources such as Nytimes. If you want to portray the truth then get a job in the New York Times or CNN. Until then, we have to trust that their journalists are portraying the movement accurately, fairly, and truthfully. 완젬스 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and this is a summary of that article, where significant information from it gets repeated. There's no reason to remove the media blackout claim as opposed to other elements of the summary. If you want to include a significant rebuttal to that claim, feel free, but there are no grounds to remove this. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:00, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

WP:Mainstream & WP:UNDUE & this would be a good place to start. I tried removing all but two paragraphs, but I backed off. Remember? (I think you were the one who reverted me, but I'm not 100% certain) 완젬스 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you also whined about deleting this part of the encyclopedia article:

Many protesters used the bathrooms of nearby business establishments. Some supporters donated use of their bathrooms for showers and the sanitary needs of protesters. -- Penyulap[88]

and you also tried to say something like "how about we all just add stuff for a few days and nobody delete anything until after the article is better" or something paraphrased like that. Listen, if you read the source accompanying the quote, you'll read that it talks about the "media problems" of occupy wall-street (such as their lack of a clear message) but I feel like you're an inclusionist, and I still feel the article is too long on the Origins section (which maybe we can take a look at after this, I will propose some deletions). 완젬스 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The alleged media blackout was significant, and mention of it is not undue weight. Olbermann's report garnered a lot of attention and he wasn't the only one commenting on this phenomenon. If it's not undue on the Reactions article, it's not undue here either. In fact it's right at the top of the Media section of that article. It should be in the summary here.

As for whatever you're bringing up from the past (even if they were relevant), I think you're thinking of someone else. I never suggested any such thing nor argued about that content you quoted. And if I were this person you're describing, I'd say kindly don't call me or anyone else a whiner, or any other name. They could easily throw further names back at you, and that's gets no one nowhere. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:15, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The whole point is not to repeat stuff twice. You have a very odd understanding of WP:Undue if you think that the olbermann quote doesn't belong on this article if it can't belong on the other article. Please re-elaborate what you meant to say in your top paragraph. 완젬스 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for thinking it was you. I will find who did it though while I await your reply. 완젬스 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC) (it was Penyulap, btw)

The nature of a summary (the section of this article that summarizes the Reactions article) is that information is indeed repeated. If you want to leave out specific mention of Olbermann's report, and just say "the media was criticized for an initial blackout regarding OWS in its early days", that would be a fine compromise by me, though. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:25, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you only repeat the most significant information--the same way you would summarize a lead. I have a sidebar question: do you believe there was a media blackout during Sept 17th thru Sept 20th? If you read the source (the observer article) accompanying the quote, you'll read that it talks about the "media problems" of occupy wall-street (such as their lack of a clear message) and I want to hear you explain this to me while I summarize WP:MAINSTREAM because if we have a split article and we want to duplicate some stuff from there to here, it definitely needs to be mainstream. The "lack of coverage" was a tactic deliberately put out by the nycga to get more coverage, but that's another topic for another day. 완젬스 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, you're fixing to find out Keith Olbermann is a liar. I just read the transcript and I hope you're not in his fan club. He blatantly must have been reading from a teleprompter or have awful staff writers. I'll await your reply to my top paragraph. 완젬스 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't matter whether I believe there was a media blackout (nor whether I'm "in his fan club"). You're making an original deduction based on a gathering of other sources taken together to support a claim, and asking for my personal opinion on it; that's not how we're supposed to decide on content here (WP:SYN). The media blackout allegations were significant, garnered a lot of attention, and I'd very well include that in the lead of the Reactions article (but we're talking about this article at the moment). Again, if you think mention of Keith Olbermann's name specifically constitutes undue weight, I could go along with that -- but media blackout allegations were significant and should be included. WP:MAINSTREAM isn't about excluding non-mainstream sources. There is no such practice. Allegations of a media blackout would by definition need to come from outside the mainstream, and they can and should indeed be included. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:47, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Just outta sidebar, may I ask again? Do you believe there was a media blackout during Sept 17th thru Sept 20th? 완젬스 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You're asking an irrelevant question, so yes, you can ask it as many times as you like; but I'm not addressing it. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:11, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The answer is obviously yes, I suppose. (correct me if I am wrong) I'll make my point: you have to tell me why it's sensible to have this questionable information appear on both articles. I'm agreeable to place it on the split article, but not on the parent article. I argue that it's not especially significant. It can ONLY be verified by non-mainstream sources (which I can't "go there" because you won't let me finish my point I was trying to make) so I'll leave the onus on you to explain why it's sensible to do your suggestion and not mine. Looking forward to your response, 완젬스 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded to it yet, and have instead chosen the guise of a "sidebar" (that I'm not interested in) to advance your position, I'll repeat: You're attempting to back up a claim that the blackout allegations were wrong, by bringing your own evidence to the contrary, in order to justify leaving out the allegations themselves. Right or wrong, though, those allegations are a significant part of the OWS story. It doesn't matter if the source cited is not mainstream; there is no requirement on Wikipedia that sources need to be. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:25, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

There is no question what so ever that there was a "media blackout". What little coverage it did get was nasty stuff suggesting that they were either unwashed hippies or spoiled students, etc. It is a very important aspect to the movement because to that point no one had ever heard of a protest without a demand and didn't know how to react. Gandydancer (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I reinserted the content. It's been 3 days since 완젬스 responded to this discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:31, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Content was removed again by 완젬스. I reverted, as 완젬스 didn't seem to care to discuss this further until the content was restored again. 완젬스 is in the minority on this anyway; there's no reason the content should default to the minority viewpoint while discussion takes place. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:23, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we have a couple of edit warriors on our hands. B^e——C_ritical 23:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wake up 2011 stragglers--is "May 1st general strike" a goal?

Should it be a sub-subsection under the "goals" section? Discuss! Here are two good articles for consideration:

• http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-movement-plans-spring-surprises/story?id=15870450#.T2T1wRE7WAg
• http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/news/scitech/occupy-protesters-go-high-tech-dpgonc-km-20120317_18620434

(also, get ready and be on the lookout for an April 2012 NYtimes article about a "fake crisis or scandal" which leads to "new leaders" or something like that--more later) 완젬스 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(bump) for anyone who hasn't skimmed these two forward-looking articles about OWS... 완젬스 (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

We are not here to explain we OWS is so butthurt about the 1% - though they have good cause - and justify their feelings with propaganda. In this case, refs that do not connect to OWS in a meaningful way. These ref were restored with the false rational that they were "unexplained", though the edit summaries are quiet clear in explanation. _ The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I already showed how they do discuss/connect to OWS. That's the BURDEN. So it's up to you to say why you don't think so. If I recall, you didn't acknowledge my explanation, so maybe you were just busy at the time.

By restoring you are the "they" now, and have taken on the obligation. Also, "Go find it yourself" is not a WP guideline or policy. A link to that discussion would help, and is also an obligation you have taken on by referring to it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your problem seems to be with the material not quite fitting the heading. I have suggested changing the heading below. B^e——C_ritical 01:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Posting text here:

Main article: We are the 99%

{{Infobox/OWS Wealth chart}} "Occupy" protesters' political slogan, We are the 99%, originally appeared on a Tumblr page in late August 2011. It asserts that the "99%" pay for the mistakes of the "1%". Paul Taylor of the Pew Research Center said the slogan is "arguably the most successful slogan since 'Hell no, we won't go,'" of Vietnam war era, and that the majority of Democrats, independents and Republicans see the income gap as causing friction.

The top 1 percent of income earners have more than doubled their income over the last thirty years according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. The report was released just as concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement were beginning to enter the national political debate. According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.

Chart sources

In 60 seconds, becritical restored a huge mess into the article. It is WP:OR & WP:Synth just look at the sources it cites compared to the stuff you reverted. What a careless way to change the article back & assume that Artist was wrong? The chart & its infobox underneath the chart hide behind 11 references, which are blended in such a way as to purport a synthesized conclusion. Heck, even putting the chart on top of an infobox combines a connection which isn't justified singly by any source in particular:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?_r=1
• http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3309
• http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm
• http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph (not rs)
• http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/12/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111012
• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/subscribe.jsp?art=2200223 (paywall)
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/obama-mlk-memorial-_b_1016077.html
• http://www.cfr.org/united-states/occupy-wall-streets-global-echo/p26216
• http://archive.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm (their chart stolen and is probably copyrighted)
• http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3309
• http://inequality.org/income-inequality/ (not rs)
• http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/#income

Try to explain why you added back the information so unthoroughly? 완젬스 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like synthesis to me. If one source claimed the income of the top 1% in 1928 and another claimed it for 2011, that would be synthesis. This looks like a bunch of sources all saying the same thing, though. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:09, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Did you compare the information to the source? This can't be a rushed vote. 완젬스 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Which information do you find to be in violation of WP:SYN? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:17, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

And why was sourced information removed along with what you purport to be unsourced? B^e——C_ritical 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I copied/pasted ALL the references under the infobox--number 42-53. Am I right? 완젬스 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Point out one of those that the CBO report to the formulation of "We are the 99%". If one exists, great. But if not, then it can't be in the article since it is POV to explain/justify OWS. Again per WP:BURDEN, the restoring editors have this obligation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's rather important to explain the origin of their primary slogan. It could in effect be described as "justify"ing, but then, lots of articles on controversial movements could be said to do that. In order to explain the 99% slogan, we need to explain the source of the notion of "the 1%", which these sources do. I'm not seeing the problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:31, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and per this section title, I remind you again that the chart's sources have nothing to do with their slogan. That was the crux of the argument late last year, but we lost due to a domineering editor. 완젬스 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If other parts of the article also have POV, it does not, nonetheless, make it excusable. Which of those sources connects OWS awareness and use of them in formulating the slogan. It could well exist, I just haven't seen it. We need an RS, not and editor supposing a connection. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

They don't, but not every source in a section needs to cite every statement in that section. In the course of explaining the slogan, we need to explain the notion of "the 1%", and these sources seem to accomplish that. I don't see the problem. Where does the synthesis come in? We're not using a combination of these sources to say "the movement is right"; we're just showing the statistics that originated the notions of "the 1%" and "the 99%". Equazcion ^(talk) 22:45, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

If you're squarely drawing the conclusion that these sources back up the origination of the slogan, then you do need to. Just because there are 11 sources, you can't just assume that 1 of them draws that link. 완젬스 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise, we can simply state that the rate of increase of the 1% has risen faster than the rate of increase of the 99% by making a qualitative statement rather than a quantitative statement which wreaks of WP:OR. 완젬스 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If nobody answers your question "Where does the synthesis come in" then I'll answer it tomorrow evening. This is my last post for 36 hours. I'm sorry to any of you who were perturbed by my discourse today--it's been rough & full of headaches, but now I'm about to go grab a 6-pack of guinness and free fries from burger king. 완젬스 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not saying any of them necessarily draw that link. Again, not every source in a section needs to cite every statement in that section. These sources do describe the assertion of "the 1%" that is the source of the slogan, though. Isn't that important? If we need a source that OWS used such stats in originating the slogan, fine, I suppose (though I don't see the need to challenge that) -- let's find one or tag the statement as unsourced. But why remove information and sources that that help explain it? The assertion that they don't source the entire explanation isn't a reason to remove them. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:01, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

AKA: "Point out one of those that the CBO report to the formulation of "We are the 99%"" we have this. As I recall, I at one point advocated calling the section "Economic background," which would mean we could include the economic information. This is, of course, the most relevant background there is for OWS, and absolutely must be in the article. And there are lots of sources for it. So I suggest just renaming the section and be done with it: how about "Economic background and slogan"?. Are there any other objections? B^e——C_ritical 23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution. Gandydancer (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:21, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Only an RS can explain or justify OWS; we can't. And the WaPo is not that RS. It only points to a coincidence. However, and this is crucial, the WaPo says this: The nation’s economic gains have been increasingly concentrated in the households of the top 1 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, echoing previous studies cited by Occupy Wall Street[emphasis added] Those "previous studies cited by Occupy Wall Street" are legit, will give background and explain OWS's slogan. The diligent editor has only to find them. Which can not be that hard to do. There is no need to compromise WP policies. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is obvious that the Washington Post is connecting the CBO report to OWS. There is nothing wrong here. Now, you are edit warring against the consensus of several people here, myself, Somedifferentstuff, Equazcion, Gandydancer. It's getting disruptive. To answer your specific objection, it does not matter what the protesters think, it only matters what RS say, and the Washington Post is an RS and makes the connection. We've been over this ground before. Also, I intend to expand the section a bit to give more economic background and statistics, as this is the most relevant background. B^e——C_ritical 20:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it is obvious that WaPo pointed out the coincidence, but they never said the CBO study was of consequence to OWS. And they did say it was earlier reports that factored in the slogan's creation. Why the avoidance of getting the refs that are actually significant and consequential? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The resistance is simply that I doubt that RS found them significant in relation to OWS; and it doesn't matter what the protesters think/thought. And if RS did find the reports significant to OWS, we'd still use the Washington Post article, because it relates the CBO to OWS. We went over this in previous discussions, remember? It does not matter a whit what is of consequence to the protesters. It matters only what RS say. We have an RS saying the CBO is of consequence, and that's all we need for inclusion. If you want to go dig up more, that's on you. B^e——C_ritical 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"I doubt that RS found them significant " is pure speculation, and the article itself rejects that supposition. The WaPo did think the previous studies "significant in relation to OWS"; they said so. They were, the WaPo said, "studies cited by Occupy Wall Street". Clearest statement of significance possible. Context has been lost or confused. The WaPo article is not about OWS, it is about the CBO report. Now, the studies exists. I can't understand an editor refusing to locate and use them. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a very silly discussion. AKA is saying he's sure there are sources that meet his criteria, and is demanding someone else find them -- but you're really only supposed to challenge info you find doubtful. If we all agree the information is sound, just leave it there. This isn't a legal document. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:25, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The obligation is not mine. Be restored the data, making the burden his. And his sole reliance seems to be one WaPa article the CBO report, which came out months after OWS started was not used by OWS, be it is chronologically impossible.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but whether or not the particular source is valid, you've still acknowledged that valid sources do exist yet are demanding someone find them. Challenging information so that people must insert citations is only for situations where you doubt the info they've added, not just for the sake of having everything documented beyond the shadow of a doubt. That's lawyering. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:03, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I found reliable sources. AKA is not challenging their reliability, or that they relate to OWS. He's not challenging anything. He's only saying that he thinks other sources should be used because the protesters think they are significant- and that other people should look those sources up. That's purely his POV since the protester's sense of significance is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with policy. If he wants things changed, he should change them, but meanwhile stop disrupting. Since AKA's position has nothing to do with policy, it's purely IDONTLIKIEIT edit warring. B^e——C_ritical 23:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, yes, but I'm taking it further. Even if his concern about the sources were valid, that's no reason to remove the content, since he agrees it's accurate. The the challenge is futile since he seems sure that sources that DO meet his criteria exist for this content. He just wants them found before the content is restored, and that's not how Wikipedia works. You challenge info when you doubt that info, not just for the sake of having sources. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:14, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Very true, yes. B^e——C_ritical 23:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Two of the RS's are used without breaking RS policy. Keep in mind that this section links to a bigger article on the meme. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice, but I would still restore the rest of the content. Since you agree the content itself is accurate, that should go back in. If you have a problem with certain sources, you should simply remove those alone for further discussion. I also think BeCrtical's section title was more useful to the article, as was settled on just before. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:57, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Are there sources we agree are bad for sourcing economic context of OWS? B^e——C_ritical 00:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Question for a question. Are the additional sources that relate coincidental economic data to OWS beyond coincidence? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. B^e——C_ritical 03:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that are not synth or OR. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AKA evidently sees the addition of sources that explain the economic issues the movement is concerned with as "backing up" the movement, but that's really just his issue, and completely off-topic. The argument over sources is a red herring.

The chart especially offers a better understanding of the slogan and since there's no contention over its relevance or accuracy, it should not have been removed. If you feel threatened by the fact that it has sources to back up its illustration, as if that somehow causes the article to validate the movement, that's really not a problem objectively, and you need to get over it.

Either way, when you come across content you don't disagree with but the source is misused, you remove the source (or better yet, you bring it up on the talk page). You don't remove the content out of some desire to keep the article from inadvertently justifying its subject. That's just wrong on all fronts. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:52, 19 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is specific reference to what sources being challenged are "red herrings" there is no way to answer that charge. It is unsubstantiated. Refs were removed for only one reason, they were not RS's or did not support the text. We shouldn't suppose what an editor feels. It has no point or good end to it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@ BeCritical: For the sake of putting the issue to rest--can't you just spend like 10 minutes trying to find it? (if you can't find it, then we'll go from there) Because I think until then, the only way you can add it, is if you cite the WaPo by name as the source who makes the claims. (I assume that would be fine with Artist) I spent about 15 min searching for it, but I give up because it's tiring & not really my cup of tea to go on a snipe hunt like that readily. 완젬스 (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the sources supported the text. I'm arguing that the text (and chart) shouldn't have been removed. You keep diverting this discussion onto the invalidity of the sources, when my point is that that's no reason to remove the content. Your insistence that others find the sources you're sure exist before the content is restored is frankly ridiculous. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:05, 19 Mar 2012 (UTC)

"can't you just spend like 10 minutes trying to find it?" Find what? The sources AKA says we should use? I doubt they exist, but if he wants them used, he can go find them. The sources we have are fine. BTW, I don't know much about the sources for the chart, but per consensus we're going to have an expanded section on the economic background and slogan. AND, OMG, I'm reviewing the chart sources , and the are truly excellent. I have no idea what problem anyone would have with them. They are extremely RS, and they directly relate the economic data to OWS. Has there been any explanation of what problem there might be with them? B^e——C_ritical 05:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's put it another way: I'm reviewing the sources on the chart here. Maybe the ones used are different. We have a major problem in this article that good sourcing gets subverted by further editing. B^e——C_ritical 05:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

section break

You are grouping me and Artist in the same boat. I am against the chart & infobox because it is unencyclopedic. We can cover everything under the sun about occupy wall street, but why not have an encyclopedic article? Artist wholly thinks that the way to go about this argument is for me to not participate in the discussion and keep hammering my fist on the table saying "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" but quite frankly I'm smarter than that obvious angle-shooting and I don't blame you for being angry at him--but click our talk page! He and I disagree on why it should be removed. I think it is synth & or, but not because the source wapo cites isn't available. Do you really defend the CBO report and posit that it supports the claim you want reinserted? (or hide behind 11 refs to remove the table & infobox) I'm straight out telling you that this is a clear issue regarding core WP:Policy and I will take a page from the "escalate playbook" to defend the deletion.

If you want the material added into the relevant section of the article, that's fine & I agree that makes sense. I'll help you take on that task. However, please make no mistake I have given up completely on entertaining Artist's suggestion about how to achieve persuasion. I was very busy this weekend with work, so I probably gave the editors an improper conclusion that I endorsed his reasoning, but it was really an issue of laziness & personal convenience. I'm ready to discuss this issue and speak eloquently so that we can wrap this discussion up as soon as possible. Until then, try to think of 5 things you like about Wikipedia. I don't like a toxic, talk page. The more quickly we can transition our attitudes back to March 1st, the less chances we have of giving each other heart attacks when we're 60. 완젬스 (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you say it is SYNTH and OR. Those have very specific definitions. It's a claim you have to defend, for example by saying "source X does not mention OWS," (OR) or by saying "no source draws conclusion X from fact Y" (SYNTH). As far as I can see, the sources directly support the material, with no synthesis or OR. However, as I said above, I was working with an older version[7] which might have been better. Let's go over this version then: where do you see SYNTH and OR? B^e——C_ritical 19:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The earlier version [8] is better. Let's just put it back in. B^e——C_ritical 19:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Which I will do if there are no further objections. B^e——C_ritical 02:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What are your views and opinions to what the occupy movement will do in 2012?

Anyone's views/opinions on how the occupy movement will spread its message and keep the fire alive throughout 2012? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardSerrano (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this isn't the place to ask, since Wikipedia isn't a forum. occupywallst.org has its own forum though, you might try there. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:53, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

We are the 99%

The slogan section with it's correct origin restored, (the baby got chucked out with the bathwater here, a little too careless, I think) We now have excellent sources used circumspectly to avoid synth to connect OWS to data and studies that show the truth of the meme. The chart was just a repetition of the text and visually noisy, which is probably why it has to repeat what the text says. What else do we need? We also have another article that piles on the details, where the interested reader can go and find out more. We also have an article that is getting way too long. This section is a great place to keep it briefer. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Most editors here seem to be in favor of this content, as evidenced by this talk page and the many people you keep reverting when they reinsert the chart and expanded content. Let's talk about the points you've brought up -- while the content stays up there now. There are no emergencies. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:15, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Talk is still ongoing, too soon the declare consensus (editors seem to be 2 to 3 at this point and other may chime in) . Once, or twice, again, false info restored though it was carefully explained as false. We need to keep article accurate per refs. Dead link was also restored and quote with no RS with it. The point of Talk is not to win, but to develop consensus, and if Talk discussions were given due attention, errors in revert could be avoided. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The expanded content being there doesn't prevent talk from happening. I see 4 for, 2 against - BeCrtical, Somedifferentstuff, Gandydancer, and myself vs you and 완젬스. In fact I'd go as far as to say what I see here is a consensus, with one or two who disagree with it.

It would be easier to listen thoughtfully to your points if you weren't so imposing with a blatant agenda to chop out the section out of concern that it supports the movement too much. You've been the sole reverter far too many times, and the fact that no one's complained about you for edit warring to any authority yet should be a testament to just how mature your opponents are trying to be in this. You're not making it easy though.

Generalizations about the section don't help, and neither do your continued direct content removals. If you have issues with the content, list them here in specific terms, and we'll discuss each one. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:46, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and I have not seen him explain: he makes assertions that there are problems, but doesn't say specifically what they are (see above post in this section). Or at other times, he says what's wrong specifically, but misunderstands the rules, such as saying that we need to find the reports which mattered to the protesters, when in reality we need only to relay what the RS say (he thinks the protester's ideas matter). I suggest he makes a list here of alleged problems, and we can see if there is even a consensus that they are problems. Otherwise, stop the edit war. B^e——C_ritical 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems AKA reverted yet again. He seems to be under the impression that because talk is ongoing, the article should default to his position, despite the fact that most people here are actually for the content. I'm not sure where that assumption comes from. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:14, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

And despite the fact that the longstanding version includes the info he's taken out. B^e——C_ritical 19:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

AKA, how can you even say that "the point of talk is not to win, but to develop consensus"? You've "declared victory" in discussions with other editors enough times on this talk page to make it a refrain of sorts. Do you take up this conciliatory praise of consensus only when there actually seems to be one against you? Sindinero (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're being a little too literal when I wasn't: I was using a joke Steve Balmer liked to make. Look around for it, the context will become clearer. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I re-inserted the expanded slogan content, for all the reasons already stated above. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:18, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, left out was the significance and oirgin of the slogan.

Perhaps it is not helpful to bring up old disagreements, but never the less... In my experience AKA couldn't care less about consensus. I remember many months ago in the very early days of this article, when the lede was just a few sentences, working long and hard on copy to add and I presented my suggestion here on the talk page. It sat there for several days without a peep from him and I added it. He immediately deleted it and added his own version without comment. That has been the norm rather than the exception for AKA. There has been some talk here about just "popping" stuff in! and just "chopping" stuff out! I don't think that that approach works very well with this article. Gandydancer (talk)

Can't remember what that was about, and would like to see the diffs alleging my bad behavior. And if I was at fault, an apology will be forthcoming. If the diffs don't materialize, I'll just regard it as an unfair and unsubstantiated charge. Regardless, this is all ad hominem AKA. I enjoy arguing over text, but I stay away from making suppositions about editors motives or intelligence. In this case, completely wrong stuff has been put back in. Why anyone would think tumblr is where the meme originally appeared, is beyond me. The ref makes no such claim. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You may review the incident at archive 11, #16. I am not complaining about your intelligence or your motives. I am complaining about how frustrating it can be to work with an editor that can sometimes be frustrating because he ignores consensus or discussion and edits in a rash manner. Gandydancer (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about my intelligence or motives either. Matter O' fact, I have a high regard for them. Also, what others think of me is none of my business. But if you were to acutally address the issues, and not personalities, progress may be possible. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please allow continued discussion before finalizing our consensus. I'm taking a steady read-through 3x on this debate. I'll probably reply tomorrow now that I'm on good terms with everyone here again, I believe. 완젬스 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Another source that might be useful

A lengthy Rolling Stone article from November 2011 that, as far as I can tell, we haven't used yet. It gives a close view into the dynamics of the movement last fall, and also has some more material on the Graeber/anarchism connection we were discussing a while back. [9] Sindinero (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There sources like that including one from Reason Magazine, I believe but it unfortunately got reverted. I believe it's still in the view history from last week. Jr. Wikipedian, Jamal (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Reworked the Entire Occupy Wall Street Encyclopedia Article

Hey, I've decided to create myself a sandbox to show you guys and girls what I've come up with the changes for this article.

The Sandbox for the Occupy Wall Street Movement

Also, I've reworked the info box after reading extensively on the Talk Page and viewing the past edits for the last five months.

removed suggested infobox for the sake of space, user is a blocked sockpuppet anyway Equazcion ^(talk) 21:25, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

What do you think? Jr. Wikipedian, Jamal (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't blanket the article with tags. Come here and discuss what you have a problem with. Can someone add a hidebox for the stuff on the right. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of the changes, bro? Jr. Wikipedian, Jamal (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of fundamental problems with what you are suggesting. Here's a few;

• The logo. Who did this and under what capacity? It's none that I've seen before. We also don't usually credit graphic artists in the article itself.
• Your version starts of with some weaselly statements; "an awareness movement that may be considered to be a 'protest' to most individuals.", "This slogan is considered to be". Who are the individuals doing the considering? Why are their views so significant that they appear in the lead?
• Your version is peppered with "supposed" labelling of people and events. This is a word to avoid, as it can be used to advance an opinion by casting doubt on what is being reported.

You'd be far better proposing changes to the existing article in a issue by issue basis, rather than asking approval for a complete re-write. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Escape Orbit. The writing style is non-encyclopedic, biased and generally overstuffed.

@Jr. Jamal -- Are you CentristFiasco?  The lead in your sandbox resembles the proposal in an earlier thread. El duderino (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco -- Yes, this is our old friend, and I've re-opened the sock investigation. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:16, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

...and now he's blocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:22, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Rfc regarding addition to the Criticism section of the article Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

Please come over to the talk page of the article. Here is a link to the section: Talk:Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street#RfC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor is adding non-notable filler material

Gandy is edit warring against me on this issue here. My point I'm trying to argue is that it is WP:NOTNEWS which is hardly encyclopedic at all that some protesters attempted to do something, but failed which falls upon deaf ears. I think she still wants the timeline/chronology section as that's basically what she's trying to turn this article back into. I've already added her sentence to the timeline article here and apparently that's not good enough. I'm always against adding garbage-filler & low-quality crap into an article which I have so much pride in here on Wikipedia and offline. 완젬스 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a fine and very subjective line between news and not-news. An attempt to re-occupy the place where it all started is pretty significant to the movement as a subject. Whetherit's something that can go in a timeline or not is no indication of whether it belongs here. There are lots of time-based events in the article, especially the zucotti park section. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:49, 28 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The reaction by police is significant- as significant as the attempt at re-occupation. This article is about ongoing events, and something like that should probably go in for a while and then be deleted if it turns out to have been only of temporary significance. With Occupy, I think we can't wait 6 months or however long to see if something is still significant. We have to keep it up to date on a weekly basis. B^e——C_ritical 04:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Npov / Globalize

Hi guys, I didn't want to template the article, as you guys are chatty enough and watching the page, so I shall explain.

The Responses section, besides being too short, violates policy, specifically, it's in a point of view of the United States of America. You can read the FAQ of the relevant policy here. I think I mentioned you may consider including a summary of the Occupy London (and others) as they are in direct response to OWS. That would help the article.

Otherwise, are you guys getting along much better talking things over ? I saw the article frozen when another editor came along, but you guys seem to be doing a bit better than that. Penyulap ☏ 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the responses section needs to be longer. We've encountered some resistance there. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:48, 19 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Those diffs have no issue with expanding the current section, and one directly suggests that the section should be bigger than it is. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like it if you were right, but it seems to me that 완젬스 has said there (quite blatantly) that he'd like the section to be shorter. He's demonstrated as much with his edits, too. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:21, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

완젬스 needs to stick to policy rather than what he thinks is good for the movement. B^e——C_ritical 03:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is specifically about Occupy Wall Street, and since it occurred in this country it would not be surprising that most of the coverage is here. However, linking in that section to the Occupy movement would give the jumping-off point for the international perspective. B^e——C_ritical 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it occurred geographically in the US, however that will not limit coverage within this article of it's effects outside the US, it violates a good few policies, and notability has no borders. The occupy London article can no more suggest that movement sprung up from nowhere than this article can ignore the reactions to ows overseas. The coverage of ows in comparison to Occupy London is more to do with demographics possibly, and less to do with geography, and the media coverage is again marginalized in western countries, which serves to distort coverage still further, it is an interesting subject that's for sure.

Anyhow, it's not possible to leave holes in this article and suggest it is ok because there is a link to another article. Each article must be self-contained and give a proper summary of it's subject by itself. You might get some guidance from Wikipedia:Summary style, I'm not sure, there is often room for improvement in documentation, it's often too long for many editors to wade through.

The length of the article is nothing to worry over, it's the gaping holes that are bringing down the quality, when an article is high quality, size and length have no meaning at all. Maybe we can ask 완젬스 to help here, here, here or on the Largest organisms article and then OWS won't look so big after all. Just cut'n'paste mostly from the lede of the other occupy articles into the reactions section, and tidy it up and it'll be looking better in 20 minutes. Try not to simply revert each other, or anyone, but try to edit, or work out what the editor was wanting to improve, and help them improve it, try to aim to edit their text, if you must, to leave your own edit green in the summary :) you'll be less likely to be having an edit war with them that way. Penyulap ☏ 05:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Love to see the text (: B^e——C_ritical 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

click the eye and your wish is granted. Penyulap ☏ 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, rather than frequently posting that you are unsatisfied with the article because it has big gaps, why don't you go ahead and write up a section that you feel the article needs to remedy your problems with the article. Place it here or in the article, whatever your desire. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Been there, done that, any other questions ? Penyulap ☏ 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I changed the title of this section to "Npov / Globalize". Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good Penyulap ☏

Trayvon Martin supplanting OWS from the "social issues" platform

Sadly, the whole "99% against 1%" issue has been hijacked by "white-hispanics against blacks" vis-à-vis the Trayvon Martin scandal & the proselytized media. This reaction (which is highly atypical from our ally the New York Times) is reflective of the general public at large. Sadly, the OWS movement is losing the "social issues" platform to the other minority group of the democratic party. The democrats, as we all know, are a coalition party, which means they represent the poor, the minorities, the LGBTQ, the atheists, the environmentalists, and the trial lawyers; but, the mainstream media has been our allies and have always been sympathetic to our cause of OWS.

A quick "inside bio" about me--I have roots into the OWS movement via facebook & email (owing to the fact I'm a minority since my ethnicity is Korean) and that has granted me "off the cuff," honest, and heartfelt advice which I have always shared with my fellow Wikipedians, such as here and here I "confirm" myself and who I really am through my confirmation about Ben Cohen & Jerry Greenfield being the two "we lost 2 multi-multi-millionaire investors who have net worth of ~$500 million" that OWS lost (but through concessions we won them back and the New York times article written by our fellow 99%er Erick Eckholm along with Jess Bidgood, Robbie Brown, Dan Frosch, Ian Lovett, Carol Pogash, Steven Yaccino, William Yardley, and Kitty Bennett (5 of 8 whom respond politely to our correspondence requests sent out by our media team).

So, with the "hijacking" by Trayvon Martin, I'm unsure of where to help you guys. I gave a lengthy heartfelt post here about where I stand, but the truth is that Trayvon Martin has stolen "airtime" from the limited social issues platform which we struggle to compete with against the Cindy Sheehans and the Sandra Flukes who all get their 15 minutes of fame; however, the Trayvon Martin scandal has eaten into our prelude of setting up Mayday (May 1st) which was supposed to be our monumental comeback. Here is a quote from the NYTimes piece:

*the movement needs to find new ways to gain attention or it will most likely fade to the edges of the political discourse, according to supporters and critics

They need to think of new ways to garner attention and connect with people around the country.”
the movement has seen a steep decline in visibility

activists have had less than a handful of marches this year and no longer have any encampments in Oakland, once a stronghold

the few protests in the past few weeks have been smaller than the ones last year

With less visibility, the movement has received less attention from the news media, taking away a national platform.

Occupy activists acknowledge that building and maintaining a populist movement is daunting

The movement’s staying power will depend on the success of several events planned for the coming weeks. Despite recent actions that have fizzled, including an Occupy Corporations day in February, organizers are planning a strike and demonstrations on May 1, International Labor Day

the lull in attention over the past few months was due to the group’s focus on building up capacity for larger events

Whether Occupy has a resurgence, it has already had a significant influence on American politics, making economic inequality — and specifically the top “1 percent” — a major issue in the national dialogue (no longer true, thanks to Trayvon Martin)

In December, 48 percent of Americans said they agreed with the concerns raised by Occupy, although only 29 percent approved of the way the protests were being conducted

“The movement was not in the news as much coming into 2012, and the nation’s focus and our polling turned to the Trayvon Martin,” said Michael Dimock, an associate director of research at Pew.

News coverage of Occupy has fallen off significantly since late last year, according to an analysis by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

In October, coverage of Occupy made up 6 percent of the news generated by news organizations in the United States. That number climbed to 14 percent in the middle of November and then slid to 1 percent in December. The number remained below 1 percent in January and February and has been so small this month that the Project for Excellence in Journalism said it was equivalent to no coverage.

That's all I can quote without gagging on my own vomit. (and one last mention for my credibility of who I am, I talked about the bomb threat here on the talk page regarding the Nov 17th day of mass action) so if anybody still doesn't believe me, I'm kinda/sorta ready to "come forward" and out myself so that I can be ready to lead on the 2012 development of the OWS article heading into Obama's reelection on Nov 3rd. I've always branded myself as the "most pro-OWS editor" here on the talk page, and that has given me incredible leeway to delete antisemitism, shrink irrelevant stuff, and expand the funding section to include all 5 names who demanded (on fb) that we do it! Now I'm ready to do more, but the only thing stopping me is the Trayvon Martin media frenzy which not even our NYTimes allies know how to shake off. It really proves that regular people are "news consumers" and readily act as "sheeple" because only Obama and Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are the only good politicians who are ready & willing to receive the support of the OWS movement.

I hereby call off my "leadership change predictions" which were to happen in April, and now (just as this article spells out, we're all left clueless & nobody knows what is going to happen next. As editors, I want to remind everybody to ignore fringe reports by the NYTimes by editors such as Michael S. Schmidt who no less authored his own "pet article" on Trayvon here. The media frenzy which the OWS media team was instructed to "build up" leading to a May 1st culmination looks clearly impossible thanks to Trayvon Martin. Sure there are linkages [10][11][12] of the occupy movement trying to cash in on the Trayvon Martin media maelstrom; but, we here at Wikipedia must realize how unpredictable our movement's position is in. We live in (and link to reliable sources of) a 24 hour news cycle, which means the occupy movement cannot take its existence for granted.

On the Wikipedia side of all this, we must rise above WP:Recentism even though I complain a lot about the 2011 stragglers. We must remain entrenched to preserve OWS's legacy as a historic social movement, perhaps the most momentous success since the civil rights movement. I find heartfelt truth in Van Jones's statement who perhaps said it best, "[The] Occupy movement pretty much saved the entire country from destruction." He also said (in his new book: Rebuild the American Dream) that we need more than just reelecting Obama--we need a head of state that’s willing to be moved, and a movement to do the moving,” said Jones, the former West Wing insider-turned-disillusioned outsider and a lightning rod for conservative critics who recently spoke at an Occupy rally (although perhaps to hawk his new book, I dunno).

In conclusion, this article needs to remain resilient for the long haul; yet, it must be willing & able to "pounce" on new 2012 stuff if it contradicts the old 2011 stuff. The movement is dynamic and it will culminate on May 1st and continue through this election season. If we as Wikipedians are to stay on top of conflicting news stories within the NYTimes, we should dismiss the fringe lunatic reporters such as Michael S. Schmidt and not let him supersede an upstanding, esteemed journalist such as Erick Eckholm. We must also commit as editors to keeping this article stable, accurate, and drama-free until early November. With tremendous appreciation and solidarity, 완젬스 (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Income inequality (and unemployment) verses wealth inequality

Let me take a quick straw poll. Is the movement against "wealth" inequality (the overall net worth of an individual?) or the "income" inequality (the yearly income including dividends, stock, real estate, and tax breaks?).

The separate NYCGA article

Does it hurt or help the movement to dive into detail about the "inner workings" about the NYCGA process, including such events as the expulsion of the 99_Percent_Declaration? I'd love to start that article but it would kinda/sorta dispel the whole "leaderless" facade which has kept the movement great, and provided some cover for us to duck into when questioned about "what are our concrete goals?"

Is our movement inclusive or exclusive to the Ron Paul faction of our movement?

Our article currently reflects an infinitesimal contribution by the undeniable "good conservatives" such as this kid who are undeniably a part of our movement. Thankfully, none of the main contributors of this article (equaczion, somedifferentstuff, NorthAmerica, BeCritical, Penyulap, Gandydaner, FactChecker, TheArtist, etc) are supporters of Ron Paul; but, a real (albeit inconsequential) part of our movement lies in the hands of Ron Paul tin-foil-hatters. Maybe we should balance our article with at least 1 pic of a ron paul supporter, or greater mention in the "demographics section"? Up to you guys, I dunno--this was just brought to my attention yesterday by a couple guys on facebook.

Should we create an article about the origins/leadup to the OWS movement?

There is tremendous academic research on this--way too much to ever read about. There are tons & tons of expert professors who chime in their 2 cents (basically their own TL;DR) about the movement, as well as books written about the movement (some of which I own and can attest to). So is this proposal a good idea?

The 99% declaration and the July 4th constitutional convention in Philly

This is a "3rd rail" of the occupy movement; but, at this point, I have no problems invoking WP:IAR. The question I have for you guys is: How much do we give credence to this notable, recognizable offshoot of OWS? Sure it ain't pretty, (and it was touched by Midas's golden meatpuppet Dualus, so it's stigmatized possibly beyond redemption) but I've been kindly introduced to more of this faction's agenda, some of which is a dealbreaker to me (such as term limits--if Russia can reelect Putin 3x, why can't we reelect Obama 3x?) and some of which are wholly inline with what our movement has been all about (such as glass steagall, free healthcare/medicare for all, and ending charter schools) so I'm 50/50 on this proposal, so I tacked it on last as my most mediocre suggestion. (simply a yes/no vote by the first two people gets my endorsement)

Other ideas

Does anyone else have broad, sweeping changes they want to propose and tack onto my short list of 5 proposals? Create a new subsection right below this area. 완젬스 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As usual, I don't doubt your good intentions, dude, but's it's really sounding like you are campaigning to be the OWS Official Embedded PR Guy At Wikipedia and, among other things, need to give WP:COI and WP:NOTFORUM a careful read. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing Vital External Link...

Missing External Link: Purchased on July 20th, 2011, Occupywallstreet.com was the first site up subsequent to Adbusters, and it utilized facebook forums and twitter feeds. Some would say that it was instrumental in the first 8 weeks in getting the message out across the nation via facebook, twitter and the internet social networks.

You can find more information on the origins of occupywallstreet.com here: http://takethesquare.net/2011/08/15/what-is-the-nyc-assembly-to-occupywallstreet-on-sept17-and-who-is-behind-it-notes-from-august-13-nyc-antibanks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Occupywallstreetcom (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Project Occupy

WP:OWS--Amadscientist (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Goals" should be "Issues and goals"...

....and expanded appropriatly to include the economic issues as researched and referenced to wikipedia guidelines along witht the other main issues?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Economic Background

This section is indeed OR and has almost no context to the subject but is simply back filling a section as if it is a part of the subject and not just the opinion of the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a talk citation] to say this had been resolved otherwise. Problem is, I don't see any such consensus as alleged. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I checked that and indeed there seems to be no consensus formed with that discussion for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_28#We are the 99% -- We can have another discussion but I'm not sure why you guys are removing the section based on your own minority opinion, yet again. I'll say it again: Even if there were no established consensus (there was) you don't get to war in your preferred article state in the meantime. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:20, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No, I removed it because you had reverted what I percieved as a logical and well worded explanation using Wikipedia policy as the basis for the opinion and edit by AKA. I believe you returned it for the reason you stated.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And it is not "warring" to remove content reverted by another editor who has not established either a consensus or referred to a discussion that shows consensus. Please review what consensus is, as defined for Wikipedia...it is not a majority rule sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What's striking is that no one has denied that it is OR. That's the ignored elephant in the room. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The OR is hereby denied. Anyway, AKA is under the impression that the opinions of the protesters matter, as opposed to the RS. Of course if there is any slight bit of OR in it, point that out and we will discuss how to fix it. But it is disruption to remove whole sections for generalized, unstated claims. If you have problems first be specific about them, and second, when your claims are refuted by multiple editors, don't edit war. The POV tag is for removing one of the most most highly relevant and well-sourced parts of the article, without which the article does not give the full reason behind the protest. B^e——C_ritical 05:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak. We are not here to explain OWS, we are here to use RSs, and all the better if they provide background without being OR or SYNTH. Now, please, name one ref connects the economic background to OWS's awareness of that specific nugget of background. I extracted the only two that did make the connection in a meaningful way for the We Are the 99% section. Also, let's not forget the burden to justify the restoration lies with the would be restorers. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually disruption when more than one editor agrees and only two reverts have been made-one from each. As for the POV tag, it is surely needed for more than AKA removing a section and my revert to keep it out for now. It is OR. There is nothing in the references that show that this wasn't a reaction by others after the fact as the CBO report came out in October. The information is relevent in other areas but is not a section titled "Economic background"...that is OR. I added the only real link (and even that was small and simply removed). There is no real context to the movement and protest in this manner. Again, mention the report, but in chronological order and with due weight to the information. The first protest was planned from August and took place on Sept 17, 2011. The section was based on the CBO report that came out in October. Undue weight and original research to claim as economic background. For this to have a proper reference it would not mention the CBO report and be about the things mentioned by Adbusters or other organizers as to exactly what economic background led them there.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that instead of removing the section, you could have merely asked for a source stating that this is indeed the economic background for OWS? If you want better or more specific sources, that's fine, but just removing stuff instead of discussing and being specific is not fine. What I would like is for people to look at the links in this article. The sourcing is an interconnected web. Just for example, this links to this, thus allowing us to use the latter. And there are other sources. But without specific objections it is impossible to see exactly where anyone would feel the sourcing needs to be improved. Further, it is impossible to work with people who merely edit war out entire sections and rather than attempt to work together. Again, please be SPECIFIC about your objections, and we can deal with that. Just to demonstrate, here is a quote showing the economics of the CBO report are the economic background for OWS.

In the 1990s, economists began producing a string of studies documenting rising income inequality in the United States... But the idea did not take a central place on the national stage until the fall of 2011, when it was championed by a diffuse group of activists who began a protest called Occupy Wall Street. Their demonstrations were aimed at corporate greed, the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations and, especially, income inequality in America...The debate took on greater specificity with the release of a report in October 2011 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirming that income inequality had grown in the United States. According to the report, the top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the previous three decades.

B^e——C_ritical 06:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, in Oct 2011, OWS could not have had the benefit of CBO's research. It's impossible to be background. I think economic foreground is another section, perhaps.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So why remove the section rather than renaming "economic context of OWS?" And no one said that the CBO report was economic background, rather that the data inside of the report detailed the economic background of OWS, see the quote below. B^e——C_ritical 07:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from your perceptions of what is or is not acceptable, the fact remains that there are two editors that again bring up that this section fails to be what the section is claiming...economis background. It has been edited down to nearly nothing, and wasn't much to begin with. If the CBO report showed a direct link to the occupy movement that would be acceptable but it is not. It is refering to economists. It's synthesis to state this is about the Occupy Wall Street protests in this manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record I did link to a discussion in my revert [13], which basically did show consensus (6 to 2), not that majority rules in general but that's nevertheless a pretty clear consensus. Certainly no justification for cutting out the section when you're clearly in the minority, even assuming there "is no consensus" as you claim -- "no consensus" doesn't equal exclusion, especially if you're in the minority. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:50, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"6 to 2" is false. Who are the six ? I can't find that many, and I haven't done drugs in years. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to point out specific facts that need to be looked at, rather than giving a general 'this is simply all ____' (which might fly when nearly everyone is in agreement, but not when there's significant contention -- that requires specifics). Also if you guys are going to keep on cutting out entire sections for drafting here this is going to continue being a mess of a situation and a tl;dr talk page. The beauty of a wiki is we can edit this stuff while it's live in the article and save this talk space for... well, talk. You need to lose the all-or-nothing mentality and start collaborating. You make an edit, we make an edit, we gradually come to agreement. That's a wiki. This talk page draft thing is just not efficient. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:50, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

What is MadSci not hearing? The source above, among others, makes a direct connection between the report and OWS, and I even got one stating that the data in the report is the background for OWS. Or are they actually removing the section because of some caveat about the title relative to the text? How about "Economic context?" Or, MadSci, are you saying that someone stated that the report is "about OWS" as in "The CBO report on OWS?" Rather, our sources state that the CBO report detailed the economic situation that OWS was complaining about (but was not "about OWS"). B^e——C_ritical 06:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a repetition of old discussions. Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_28#Chart sources -- AKA also held the mantra that we're "not here to explain/justify OWS" and demanded sources connecting the financial stats to the movement. He acknowledged that the information was the basis for the movement and refs saying so must exist, but demanded someone else find them before the material was placed in the article. It was similarly explained to him there that if he acknowledges accurate information, demanding refs as a bar to adding content is just lawyering. You challenge content when you doubt it, not merely because no ref is actually there. If you want a ref, go find it. Don't remove content you agree is accurate. It's ridiculous to have to repeat this same exact discussion and I'll be replacing the section soon. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:07, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Look, I hate to seem like I'm bragging, but I know that there is research relied upon by OWS, or at least I'm buying the line of the ref that says, I added that to the article. And I didn't do any OR. Sorry, I do seem like I'm braggging. But, oh well. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, you know there's research relied upon by OWS. That's not the standard for inclusion though. An article on a subject can use sources that don't mention that subject. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:17, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting it. I put it the article, and I did it w/o OR or SYNTH. Try doing the same. The article is about OWS, and the correctness of its meme is established. No more needs to be done. So, about that gang of six, who are they, that is by name? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole economic background section is still gone, as far as I can see, so the financial statistics that led to the meme are still missing, even if its first uses are there. That section wasn't OR or SYNTH. If the movement is based on the 1% vs. 99% economic imbalance, and we have reliable sources showing that imbalance, that's enough. You're basing your SYNTH claim on your own criteria that the sources must mention OWS. There is no such requirement. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:40, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm all ears. What "financial statistics led to the meme"? Not the one you think did, but you can not- because you have not -produced refs for. Still waiting on that gang of six list too, while you're on that so far an unsubstantiated assertion kick of late, well maybe of earlier too. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Any statistics that show the 1% vs. 99% economic imbalance in the US. If you accept that the meme is based on that imbalance, we just need refs that show the existence of said imbalance. Again, refs that don't mention the connection to the article's subject in order to support its surrounding facts are perfectly acceptable. Articles do that. You haven't provided any support for this claim that such refs would equal OR or SYNTH, except a vague notion. I'm all ears. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:27, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

We're not about truth here. You gotta show that OWS was aware of them, not you think they were aware of them. Have a look at WP:SYNTH. No acting like that policy doesn't exist. Gang of six? How's that tally coming around. I'll keep an eye out for it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said I thought they were aware of them. It doesn't matter if OWS was aware of the particular referenced stats we use in this article. The movement is based on the economic imbalance, and we can show the economic imbalance. If a movement is against ritual killings in Africa we could bring references showing that those killings occurred, even if the movement wasn't aware of those particular references. You're applying your own special criteria here that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's requirements. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:38, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Done, like weeks ago. So gang of six now. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that such refs are fine, since you think it's been done already. Though the imbalance is pivotal to this subject and isn't adequately summarized here with due weight. The removed section accomplishes this. Can I assume you support its re-insertion then? Equazcion ^(talk) 08:51, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait til tomorrow before re-inserting the section, at which point I'll take a lack of objection as consensus. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:13, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was a gang of six backing you up. And, really, presuming a "lack of objection". Don't be silly. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Then please take my objection in advance and save some time. There is no consensus for this material and concerns have been raised before. I can re add the image as that does have consensus for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you object then please state why. The section is relevant and sourced. Why should it not be included? Equazcion ^(talk) 09:38, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Merely stating "I object" doesn't equal an argument, so again, I'll take lack of one as consensus to re-insert tomorrow. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:13, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, with a boatload of primary sources. Not cool. Gang of six? Gang of six? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Note for perusal of mediators/DR helpers: the section has I think two primary sources, which were referenced by reliable secondary sources. I don't even think they are necessary to the section at all, but it is nice to have them there for the reader. B^e——C_ritical 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You may take whatever you wish, its actions that need consensus and explanation. One editor has expressed his opinion with a bold edit that was reverted, but that revert was reverted by another editor. We don't have an edit war, we have a temporary consensus on exclusion until an argument can be made to include. I see no argument that sways me yet to alter my opinion. The section is something the Occupy movement article would have with better references perhaps and better context with titling and wiki naration/prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. If it did, whoever made the first edit would always get to require burden of proof from the other side. This isn't first-come, first-served. When there's an edit war, both sides are required to discuss (unless you can point out your version in some policy).

I've presented my argument, but here it is again: The economic imbalance is pivotal to this subject, and currently isn't summarized with due weight. The argument against has thus far been that the removed section's refs don't state a connection to OWS, but that is not the standard on Wikipedia -- refs supporting the facts surrounding an article's subject don't need to mention that subject. If the movement is based on economic imbalance, we can provide refs that show that imbalance without them needing to mention OWS itself.

As in my example above, a movement calling attention to genocide in Africa can have refs in its article that report on those deaths without referring to the movement. The standard being applied here, by AKA and Amadscientist, is original and not Wikipedia's. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:30, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Once you said there was a gang of six? Gang of six? Gang of six? Gang of six? Gang of six? Number nine? I'm really want to know who they are. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're mischaracterising this as an edit war. It's not. A revert is not always an edit war and neither is the removal of content. You are edit counting and starting from the wrong spot at that. "The first one"? Who is the first one? There are two editors who agree with it's exclusion and two that disagree. If one editor makes a deletion and it is reverted but the reverting editor fails to make a convincing argument another editor may revert that decision. This is a collaboration. I understand what Becritical is arguing even if he doesn't understand me, but I don't understand your argument as you seem to be mistakeing a few things. I took a look and this argument goes back to November and both AKA and myself have raised it. There has been no clear consensus for inclusion and some good arguments made for exclusion for coatracking and some argument for keeping and detailed explanation as an examination of the issue. I still have a problem with the title of "Economic background", as well as the CBO information itself as it is not background if it came out two weeks after the protests had been ongoing. What it is, is an economic issue being raised as part of the protests and I believe AKA has stated we have established this much in the article and this information is being presented in a manner that is OR. Just mentioning Occupy Wall Street does not mean a reference supports the claims being made fully. This is synthesis by claims not supporting references in the manner written and titled and is undue weight for that reason and that, even though economic issues may be central, this should be addressed with a section like "Issues of concern"-"Protester concerns" etc.. The economic side is unduly over weighted with no other issue getting this attention. Perhaps they should be covered but with a much better section with better references and subject context to this as the "Occupy Protest" in New york and not the movement which started later.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay guys, time to bring in the DR process again. Let me first say that I'm sure the section sourcing could be improved, but there is no real motivation to improve it since there are no specific objections to the sourcing. There is also a complete lack of collaborative spirit on the part of those removing content. If you don't want to go through this long process, please bring up specifics now. I think it has been made clear that by whatever title, and whatever form it may take, one side here thinks that the information on economic trends is essential. Perhaps it is not given enough weight, even with the disputed section, in my opinion. But we definitely need outside help, and I will be arguing that the sources clearly call for a section just like the one removed, given the above quotation. Equizon says above that the objection is that the sources don't state connection to OWS, but that is not true, as I've already said to no response. B^e——C_ritical 13:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with DR, should fly like a lead baloon. I won't be part of it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to collegiality

I think if there are very specific objections to any text, we will be able to deal with them. I'm talking something along the lines of sentence "X" says Y, but the source for X does not say Y. Very specific. I'm very open to changing the text based on such feedback, or to getting better sourcing, or explaining how current sourcing is sufficient. I would be glad to go over it line by line with anyone willing to engage at that level. B^e——C_ritical 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reset

Ok, so from here I believe the section "economic background is unjustifyed by content that is original research. I feel the section first should be renamed "Main issues" and it be expanded and copy edited to be withing guidelines for OR and synthesis and that we not extrapolate past what the reference or the article is about. To claim the CBO as background is disingenuous in my opinion as the CBO report is after the fact, but still more needs to be done to have better direct context to this subject and not make bold claims that are clearly disputed. Let us take baby steps.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's take baby steps. I would like to get your reaction to the quote (repasted from above) which says that the data within the CBO report gives details of the economics behind OWS:

In the 1990s, economists began producing a string of studies documenting rising income inequality in the United States... But the idea did not take a central place on the national stage until the fall of 2011, when it was championed by a diffuse group of activists who began a protest called Occupy Wall Street. Their demonstrations were aimed at corporate greed, the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations and, especially, income inequality in America...The debate took on greater specificity with the release of a report in October 2011 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirming that income inequality had grown in the United States. According to the report, the top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the previous three decades.

To me, having read that quote, it looks like you're the one doing original research by saying we shouldn't make the connection between OWS and the CBO report. Also there are quite a few other very good sourcing making that same connection. It seems you are disputing the sources on this point. Is that not so? B^e——C_ritical 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Who said that? I said it isn't "Economic background" and just because a reference mentions OWS doesn't mean it supports a claim being made. I said the CBO report has a connection, but it came out after and may well be "reaction" to. References must have a direct context to the subject and references must support claims. Issues and goals have been combined but there and some issues have been found. Further cleaning up is required.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are copy pasting the work of others here to make a point, could you at attribute the quote. It just makes it easier to understand your point better.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You can use that reference to cite a claim but certainly not to justify the use of references that have no context to OWS. That reference also cannot be used to claim the CBO report as economic background, just that economic inequality was not championed or supported on the national stage until Occupy, It does not establish the un-named economists or their reports as the actual background and speaks in general terms with no mention of how it relates directly to the NYC protest and not just the overall movement. It's pretty broad strokes to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the quote is from here. We will simply have to disagree that the quote above does not say that the CBO report shows what Occupy was reacting to in the economy. How many sources on this do you need? This? this? this? this? Are those enough to convince you that the CBO report needs to be discussed relative to OWS? You removed a source from the economics section. It would be very helpful to me if you would paste material here along with objections, and allow me to try to source it more specifically or modify it, instead of removing sources and text. Or better yet put tags and put objections on the talk page. I might just replace stuff with something else from a more specific source, or fix it some other way. B^e——C_ritical 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are great suggestions. But I don't need to paste material here for you to source it. Why was this not sourced properly to begin with, with prose and claims that are supported by references that have direct context to the NYC Occupy protets? I have not looked at all your links as yet but will. I think you misunderstand me as you are defending something I make no claim against...the CBO report surely can be discussed in context to OWS.....just not as economic background as that is a contentious claim for such a report and references need to discuss the subject of the CBO report with context directly relating to the article subject. You can't just use any reference that discusses the CBO report.....it must have context to the article subject as related to the claim it is citing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree "it must have context to the article subject as related to the claim it is citing". The source you removed is kind of a different case. I'm not sure it matters, but this links to it, and it seems to me that, especially given the graphic, such linkage is clearly meant to make the connection. But it really doesn't matter, there are a lot of sources. I am happy enough with the headings as you have them now, so if you feel that the data now belong in the article when they are under the heading of "Economic issues," that's all that's important to me. I will make an effort to rewrite the section using somewhat different sourcing and make other improvements. B^e——C_ritical 23:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep that image as an example of the data in general and try not to use it as justification for prose. Wikipedia allows OR in images and the work has been discussed as being such. This is why the image is referenced with the citations but they are not expanded on in prose. A huge debate and much discussion has long held that the image should be included but how much from the image sources to be used as references in prose has never been looked into to my knowledge.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, I have no problem with the report itself used as a primary source but lets always have a secondary source to accompany any claims that are likey to be disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, well with that I'm not sure we disagree on anything. I think the section needs expansion and revision, and I have more sources to do that. Do you see any particularly bad problems with the text now? B^e——C_ritical 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but very specific claims...just a sec.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[38

(I think I had an edit conflict and realised this was missing when rereading) This seems to be referenced with a chart. Which one, This is tertiary. The charts here are all linked to the source. We should use that as the reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

This is using a primary source to make a claim. This needs a secondary published source that makes this claim in context to OWS.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive.

What is the source for this claim? Is this extrapolated from the CBO report or is this somehow related to the reference of collected charts?

I think that's pretty much my only other concerns with that section.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That was the source you removed, here. It is a very useful source, and I hate to lose it. It's the only secondary source relating those specific stats to OWS. We can either decide that the material is sufficiently relevant and use that source, or I can substitute other stats which say basically the same thing from other sources. I have this source, which gives a lot of data we could use. I think I already checked it out as good on the RS/N. Do you see any problems with using it? B^e——C_ritical 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's place that in the article to-do list as needing secondary sourcing with direct context and comment out (<!) for now with that indirect source added back in. When a direct source is found as the main citation we add it and uncomment. Is that agreeable? (What this does is preserve the information and refs until properly sourced to a published claim that says basicly the same thing on top of the secondary source that has no context to OWS but is relevent and the primary ref tha needs proper context for claim etc.)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Commenting out is cool. I think I know what you mean about the sources but let me repeat it: we comment out till we can find secondary RS that make the various claims? And you're okay with the Guardian source, right? B^e——C_ritical 03:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it was the consensus that Gaurdian should be treated as opinion and attributed to them and the author of the piece so please use if no other choice is there, but it would work for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And we should use other sources as much as reasonably possible. B^e——C_ritical 05:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

References

NPOV tag

Where is the discussion about this article tag? El duderino (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I put it on because of some disruption, but it is no longer needed. B^e——C_ritical 03:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012

Missing Vital External Link Purchased on July 20th, 2011, http://occupywallstreet.com/ was the first site subsequent to Adbusters. Utilizing social network feeds and facebook forums, the domain was vital to spreading the initial call to action on Sept. 17th, and subsequent. I think you should add it as an external link.

References

Occupywallstreetcom (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please read our policy on external links. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the objection to it's inclusion ? Penyulap ☏

For one thing, inclusion would seem to reflect original research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Goals and section apprpriateness - don't trip (:--}>

Don't trip, I took out the following in hopes it can be placed in sections besides "Goals" since this stuff has very little to do with goals. You got from Rushkoff media reception and OWS leadership structural uniqueness. Then there's some news about what happened to OWS in the winter. Let's see if we can sinuate it all into existing sections, or find new sections if needed. Finally, the goals section is now about goals.

This is a, stale, news update

On March 17th, Occupy leaders declared the six-month birthday from the moment their movement started with a bold Twitter message, “In our first 6 months we changed the national conversation. In the next 6 months we will change the world.” The movement was mostly dormant during the winter months but avows renewed enthusiasm, larger demonstrations, and a general strike all leading into the 2012 election season.

Television reporters reception

Douglas Rushkoff said mainstream news reporters on television, who he said were failing to "accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence", have wrongly presented the protesters as an incoherent "random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos".

Rushkoff said "... we are witnessing America's first true Internet-era movement, which – unlike civil rights protests, labor marches, or even the Obama campaign – does not take its cue from a charismatic leader, express itself in bumper-sticker-length goals and understand itself as having a particular endpoint

This is opinion, pure and simple, but not necessarily goals

Are they ready to articulate exactly what that problem is and how to address it? No, not yet. But neither are Congress or the president..."</ref>

Yes, people keep adding and subtracting things, and we have to keep track and put the good stuff back in and prune out the unnecessary or outdated. B^e——C_ritical 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not liking the section headers or the order. Goals must come after issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Rushkoff the participant/propogandist

He's leading a teach in here. It shouldn't be hard to find an RS saying the same stuff, but one who is not part of the solution, as it were. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Goals section removals

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=487794058&oldid=487776941

Since AKA doesn't seem to subscribe to WP:BRD and reverts until other people start discussions, here I go again. AKA says the ref doesn't support the text. I see everything there though. Note: This diff now includes other substantial removals that basically whiddled the Goals section down completely. I originally struck this out because I was mistaken, but now AKA has did indeed reverted me again without discussion, along with BeCritical's reverts/fixes too. I've now restored the removed content. As with all controversial edits, AKA needs to discuss these major chop-outs before making them, rather than bullying his way into imposing his version of the article. I'm close to opening an WP:RFC/U. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:03, 17 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration you must feel in seeing edits removed, but I see nothing anyone has done to begin limiting how they edit except in cases of clear edit warring. You have made a revert but have failed to justify it with much more than "you don't see it". OK...I'll look at it, but what if I see it. AKA does't actually need to discuss his edits before he makes them. He just should discuss them as he makes them if there is an actual need. It's up to him really, unless it crosses into edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He has crossed into edit warring, over and over again. Controversial edits should be discussed in the first place beforehand, but failing that, if reverted, he should be discussing then rather than reverting again as he did. That's edit warring. WP:BRD is there to outline in practice how policy should be followed. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:BRD is not policy and you need to show with diffs how he reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hr period or how the amount he did revert was edit warring. Your last edit made some changes that go against the current consensus and did not say anything about the use of a forum post from the OWS website as a reference. That is unacceptable, sorry. You also changed the Goals header with no discussion at all in all of this and I didn't even see the ref you placed in your above post in the dif.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring is not 3RR. You can edit war without reverting 3 times, and even be blocked for it. See User_talk:MikeWazowski#April 2012 for example. When your edit is reverted and you revert again, it is indeed edit warring. If a forum post was being used as a reference, that particular bit could be removed without reverting the entire thing. I changed the header because others had already changed it 3 times, and I was attempting compromise wording. Note that Amadscientist has now again chopped out the content, which I expected, as AKA and Amadscientist seem to be tag-teaming this article. With his edit summary of simply "Unconstructive edit", we still have no rationale for the removal as a whole. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:07, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I note that you are stating conflicting information about 3RR, but again....you still need to show with difs how the amount of reverts he made amount to edit warring. Any claim without a reference or referenced in an unacceptable way may be removed. You made a post to complain about another editor's edits, but said absolutely nothing about your own until they were reverted and still do not justify why they should be included but complain about the removal. I am sorry. Now get over it or simply seek dispute resolution, but your bold edit on the header was unconstructive and had no consensus and I don't agree with using your header for a number of reasons including.... that it was not very encyclopedic in tone.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I put the 99% Declaration information back in. That does seem to pretty much state what the Salon.com refernce is saying. This had been a much longer line that was not supported by the reference but it seems OK now.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to run, but BRD is a description of what one does if one is not violating policy... and is therefore a description of policy. I'll be able to edit again soon and read up on this. Cheers B^e——C_ritical 09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of BRD here was simply attempting to "direct" another editor's behavior. If there are infractions then BRD need not apply but Wikipedia:Edit warring. If we are to truly follow WP:BRD than we would want to pay close attention to WP:BRD-NOT which states:

BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

and

BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so. Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding the shortcut "WP:BRD" at the front of their edit summary. This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes. In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve.

I suggest we look very closely at the entire page and see BRD as just a "method" of trying to work in a similar manner and remember this is something that is in no way required as it can be very difficult to achieve on these types of pages. This page has always had the same basic editors working on it since almost the day it started and they are of varying levels of experiance as Wikipedia editors. When BRD is applied or invoked, I would hope those doing so would strictly adhere to:

...provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

I know that when the little tact is used and nothing provided based on policy and guidelines is given, any discussion would go awry.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the series of edits you're defending began with User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous changing the "Issues and goals" section title unilaterally himself, to simply "Goals", and then removed everything that didn't fit that description alone. You're now berating others for changing it back and replacing that content ("your bold edit on the header was unconstructive and had no consensus", when AKA's edit was actually the bold one, and I see no discussion regarding it). Furthermore the section title he changed was originally your own proposed section title, when you also proposed expanding the section to include the content AKA removed. I'll also note that AKA has thus far made no attempt whatsoever to discuss these concerns. I'm beginning an RFC below to get more opinions on this. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:33, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

And AKA continues, still no participation in this discussion: [14]. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:46, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Er? Could you rephrase that, shorten it or explain further? I apologise, but I have a hard time understanding what you're saying sometimes. Seriously. But the Goals section header is a very old header, and if my edit was to change the header to Issues and Goals and he makes it Goals and I don't make a fuss like you....so? What? What are you saying man? Spit it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Per What to do if you see edit warring behavior, I've begun this RFC to request opinions on the disagreement above regarding what constitutes edit warring. Take a look through that discussion and offer your thoughts. The edits being discussed occurred within this section of article history. Advice regarding the particular content being disputed is also welcome. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:33, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The edits themselves have not been discussed - the D part of BRD, the way they were made is EQ's only issue. My summaries, as MadSci noted, give good explanations for reverts. Now, if those summaries, and thereby the actual edits were addressed, we would have something of substance-not form-to talk about. Wikilawyering is not a first option, but in this case it seems to have been the only one taken. Also amusing is the term "unilateral": all edits are unilateral, the very essence of BOLD. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for others to comment rather than repel them by getting into another back-and-forth here with the involved editors, but just a note on my use of "unilateral": That was in response to Amadscientist's claim above that my change to the section header was done without discussion (ie. unilaterally). I was pointing out that AKA's original header change was just as undiscussed, if not more so. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:25, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

That would be BOLD in effect. As for staying out of "back and forth", is the ping pong champ retiring? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So you made an RFC for a definition of Edit Warring on this talk page....for what reason? I know what edit warring is and have made no bold claims. You invoke the advice of WP:BRD against the very spirit of the essay and collaboration, by using it as a way to make demands on the behavior of another editor. That's just not reasonable. You use the blanket term "edit" warring as your complaint but I am not sure if your have even really laid out your actual dispute in difs properly. I respect that you discuss and that you encourage discussion, but please remember this is an actively edited article that does have issues and is part of at least one current project call for editor collaboration. There are administrators (our elders council-so to speak) that you can seek advice and council from. Sounds so old world...but it worked for the Roman's and is working well for Wikipedia. But this seems to be a bit of a distraction and almost seems to be seeking answers to questions that, while you have the right to seek....doesn't seem to have the tone I would expect from a side on the right in this issue. I hope we can work out the differences from all editors but if you decide to take these routes just remember your own actions and words. AKA and I barely get along most of the time and yet you had to throw in the "ever popular" "Tag team" accusation. Good lord...I have been accused of tag teaming with so many people I have lost count. Yeah, you're not standing on the most solid ground with this RFC but knock yourself out.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been equally frustrated by AKA's editing practices. I don't think this RfC is going to get us anywhere... it is a community wide problem and shouldn't be addressed here. What do you do about aggressive editing practices coupled with ignoring other editors, and insistence on misinterpretation of policy in the face of correction? There should be some better mechanism for dealing with this. As it is, such practices are either effective, or else they require extreme dedication from other editors. Those editors have to waste MOST of their editing time trying to deal with the low-level disruption. That is the case on this article. And it is worse because some of AKA's edits are just fine, and some of his understanding of policy is also fine. It's just that not all of his practices and understandings are okay, and they seem impossible to correct. Then again, I thought the same about MadSci, and we're getting along at the moment (: So perhaps there is a possibility of working things out here. In the last round with AKA, I did get an administrator's opinion, who called it low-level disruption, and another threatened to block if the edit war continued. You don't see it on his talk page because he blanked the warnings[15]. B^e——C_ritical 21:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That idiot admin thought I was edit warring over edits that no one had yet objected to. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That is why it is always best to have the difs on hand for this sort of thing. Make the 3RR or Edit Warring report and/or seek advice from a third party. We all have something unique to contribute, its just getting past how much we don't like of each others opinion, style and methods! LOL!.....no seriously. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2012‎

As some of you know I am unable to get much involved right now, but I do continue to read everything on the talk page. As usual I am in complete agrement with Be. MadSci and I have our ins and outs but I know he's a good editor. As for AKA, he is so eratic I never know what to expect next. If ever I thought an editor was PWD, it would be this editor. Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Shucks, nah (:--}> — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). Penyulap ☏ 03:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence/source in "Participation and organization" section

The first sentence of this section contains generic, outdated info, and cites to a piece that actually contains only criticism of OWS/NYGA. The outdated info (e.g. meetings every Thursday at 7pm in Zucotti Park!) should be removed, and a generic source should be found for the generic information.

And let me just add that I am shocked, shocked, that all mention of the criticism contained in the piece has been removed from both this article and the "reactions" article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this edit address your concern?[16]. And that reminds me, to get to work on the criticism section at the reactions article. B^e——C_ritical 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Rushkoff

Rushkoff is an OWS activist. Besides being a minor intellect, Chris Hedges or Matt Taibbi are way above his league, can he be a RS too? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not mainly about people, but about the publication. CNN is a good source. So I can't answer that, I'd have to see where the articles are published. B^e——C_ritical 23:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So if CNN, or some other big news operation, wasn't the source, it would not a RS? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the exception for well known experts, but generally yes it is about the publisher. That applies to all our sourcing. B^e——C_ritical 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a look the bottom of the Rushkoff piece. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What is it you see there? B^e——C_ritical 01:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A very clear statement disclaimer. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think it is less reliable than the usual opinion piece in an RS, then you should take it to the RS/N and see if others think you're right, and we can adjust any text accordingly. As it is, this seems a fine source if attributed, as with other opinion pieces in RS. B^e——C_ritical 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to "it is about the publisher"? Your latest says nothing "about the publisher". Has a goal post just moved? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. RS = publisher. B^e——C_ritical 05:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a reliable source an opinion. Yes, as long as the opinion is from a reputable journalist/academic from a secondary published source. So you need both the reputable author and the published source. Most publishers will not publish the opinion of un-notable figures and we do not accept self published sources even if they are notable and reputable authors. But when writing an encyclopedia we would identify any connections the author has to the subject. So if you are using such opinion and not having identified the author as having a connection to the subject in some form, it could be a problem for some or most. Journalist have become as much of the subject in many cases and require secondary sourcing at times. In other words...is this something Rushkoff is saying or something someone else is stateing he has said. If written as his opinion is it attributed to the author as an OWS supporter who actively takes part in demonstrations in some form etc.? This is kind of a weight issue. How much do we use of known supportive journalist and how are they being attributed. Are we just using their names and the publication...or are we also mentioning them as an "OWS participant/speaker/writer/journalist". Knowing who is writing from within the subject and who is writing from outside looking in, is important.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Media theorist and OWS participant[32] Douglas Rushkoff. OK...but is he just participating. Showing up is participating, listening is participating...so, while I even made the suggestion above, with Rushkoff I would be more specific. Perhaps OWS lecturer/author would be more accurate and encyclopedic?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We can do waay better than Rushkoff. Chomsky, or Hedges are two that come to mind. Musn't aim low. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Media theorist and OWS participant[32] Douglas Rushkoff. OK...but is he just participating. Showing up is participating, listening is participating...so, while I even made the suggestion above, with Rushkoff I would be more specific. Perhaps OWS lecturer/author would be more accurate and encyclopedic?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment he's being used to source that they are concerned about collapsing environment and World Bank lending practices. Otherwise he is not even necessary- see edit to follow. B^e——C_ritical 07:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, we can state what they want in Wikipedia's voice, because we have sufficiently good sources to do so: The Christian Science Monitor and Businessweek. B^e——C_ritical 07:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the voice thing, but the vimeo video can't be used to reference his credintials like this.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

He lead a teach in, what else do you need to show anyone beyond a doubt that he is a participant. There is no way to view/interpret it otherwise. Variability is satisfied. But shoot, here it is from the horses mouth. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You mistake my intent or I mistake yours. You seem to be justifying him as a participant as if I refused to believe so. I feel he is more than a participant and you show it here yet say "There is no way to view/interpret it otherwise". Of course there is. Be specific, as there are passive particpants and active participants and we could sound more encyclopedic when speaking of a notable figure to the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you passively participate? Hug a crystal and send good vibes is all I come up with, and that is my construct because a Google on "OWS passively participate" (w/o quotes) didn't draw jack. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Um... guys, I took him out entirely a while ago... B^e——C_ritical 07:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood Becritical, but it is an important point that AKA makes. When we do attribute a figure within the protest as defining OWS in some manner, how do we present that figure in the article. Don't worry. This isn't a dispute. Just Him expressing his doubts to the need to attribute a lecturer of the movement as anything more than a participant. Something that can be defined of even those that are listening to him. Yes, in a protest there are passive and active participants. There are two sides to a conflict and there are organizers if not leaders within the movement itself. It is unavoidable, but consensus determines just how we present each person with whatever level of either expertise or involvment.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Trout, trout tout To everyone involved! Just cool it and let's take a step back and meditate for 30 minutes or whatever and refocus. We all know where this type of unraveling pre-drama discussion leads us to in the end so let me be a passive forum moderator and deliver the utmost whacking of these three trout that can be conjured as hypothetically possible. (giving everyone 2 black eyes, and broken jaws) Carry on, 완젬스 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Passive participation is not a contradiction ( the term is used on a number of Wiki articles) or an oxymoron as passive does not contradict participation. It simply means "the condition of submitting to the espoused, legitimate influence of one's superior or superiors.". So, as a passive participant one would "submit' themselves to either influence or a percieved superiority ( like listening to a lecturer with expertise). When we use a specific individual to use for their over arching opinion and name them in the article (any article) we would determine who they are in context to the subject. An Academic who is known for their published work and research on a specific period of history within a wikipedia article would be introduced within the prose with their level of expertise and how it relates to the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have that in English, please. Now that the theoretical parameters have been attempted -something about submission to "superior" entities, real weird for a profoundly anarchist influenced movement. But never mind, I could do without an attempted clarification of that. But we still don't know what they do and what they can't do to keep from going active in the whole shebang. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually we do. While OWS as a movement is new...protests and demonstrations are not. We know there are active participants who organize and take an "active" part in the occupation in terms that are more precise than just being there and occupying the space. Some will take a stronger and more active part in the protests. Facilitators are active participants. Workshop memebers in the NYCGA and leaders and organizers from those are active participants. While supporters who stay at home are not even participating at all in the actual demaonstration...they may be active in other areas that define them as participating at a lower level. Let's look at it this way. Who are the active participants in any demonstration? We are not even confined to just the demonstrators, because they are only one side of a conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

AKA has the right to discuss his concerns and we all have the right to a civil discussion. No harm no foul. Lets not get carried away with trouts. They should not be used to disrupt a conversation that is not heated and please don't accuse others of wikidrama in the middle of the discussion you are not part of. It's a little incivil.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you know I'm just trying to disarm the "talk page negativity" from possible emotional escalation. Carry on the conversations, and treat all my friends with proper courtesy--just as they will treat you. I'm humbly eyeing my goal I have set forth for this weekend, :-). Good riddance, 완젬스 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know who your friends are...but that has nothing to do with this site nor does a pledge to treat any of your them any differently than anyone else. Of course they will be treated with respect...if they are respectful. If they act as you do..I have to wonder how civil they may be. but "they" can prove themselves as individuals here as you do. Try not to go overboard like starting a Wikipedia Project someone else had proposed without discussion. There is incivility on many levels. You start that project without discussion of naming when you didn't propose it or add to the discussion OR join it. I have to say...that's pretty rude.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is that cryptic message about eyeing your goal linked to a video of a physical fight. This concerns me greatly.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why most editors frown on external links in posts on talk pages. They are seldom fully explained and leave the recipiant more confused than before the post. It amounts to little more than chat and doesn't work towards improving the article. Wikipedia is not a social network and many people misunderstand the need to keep posts on individual articles to the subject at hand , which is the improvement of the article...not the subject of the article. I think your intentions must be considered good faith at the moment as in looking at the video it seems to be about the chip eating man who walked inbetween the conflict. So I will take the meaning as such and simply ask that you please consider waiting longer before stating an opinion that the discussion has degenerated into a fight. AKA has a very unusual form of communication just as you seem to have. But inbetween the lines one can see what he is saying the longer one is in contact with his style of posting. As for external links in talk page discussions. It's best not to redirect editors off site and best to keep links to wikipedia article and discussions. Since many external links are not being set up by yourself 완젬스(Wanjemseu), it is possible you may mistakingly lead someone to a bad link with malicious malware. Most people will not use these links for this reason so you are pretty much wasting a good amount of effort for something that is not a clear form of communication.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Now you may slap me with a trout...just one please. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, there is a relevant discussion at WP:ANI / User promoting a movement about this article and possible COI/other issues with User:완젬스 (Wanjemseu). El duderino ^(abides) 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Goals expansion

I think the goals section could use expanding. I specifically notice the Federal Reserve isn't mentioned at all, and in the main OWS article, that seems like a blatant hole. While goals are currently summarized fairly well, that's pretty much all that's present right now -- a summary. This is the Occupy Wall Street article, so this is the place where the details should go. Each goal currently listed could have a paragraph. The csmonitor.com ref has a pretty succinct rundown. What does everyone think of summarizing that here?

I'm suggesting this here first since the Goals section has been the subject of so much contention, and I don't want to start expanding it just to go through another round of reverts. Hopefully we can establish some consensus here first and avoid that. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:14, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Definitely support this. It is needed per WEIGHT. B^e——C_ritical 20:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I believe that the recent edits to the Goals section caused one of the errors you just corrected. I think it used to read "more equal distribution of income." B^e——C_ritical 20:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The goals section has always been a huge problem by containing more information then the actual goals of the movement. I think it's time to talk about what is the encyclopedic way to cover the subsection. Who are the references we go to and why? Is there some counter information to consider and of what weight should it be given and why? Etc.. First, who's goals should be mentioned in this section? There are many. Lets see what the ones who started it say at the top of the section starting with the Two Adbusters personalities we see mentioned in "Origins" as well as David Graeber. That's three people to check and see what secondary, published sources show they see as "Goals" of the protest. Also see what is on the two official sites, NYCGA and OWS.org. The last thing to look at would be the crowd and the goals they seem to be expressing. So I would like to outline an expansion of the goals section, not by actual subjects...but by the secondary, published information we find from:

• Kalle Lasn

• Micca White

• David Graeber

• The NYCGA Official site

• The OWS Official site

• The protesters on the street

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why I pointed out a specific reference above to use. I think steering relatively clear from primary sources might prevent problems. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:48, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I have had my problems with that as synthesis of "goals" from a list not stated as "goals" but targets. Primary sources have their place, behind secondary sources that make claims about the primary one. We can avoid OR by sticking to the basics of the goals per "origins' and then a subsection for "shift in goals" or something similar if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As BeCritical has pointed out, the focus shouldn't be on adhering to the section title. We want to detail the movement's motivation, so let's decide on what should go in such a section first and worry about what to call the section later. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:07, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No. Focus should be on goals and we should not be deciing what goes in it but attempting to set some perameters as suggestions. But I guess you just want to dispute resolution your way into the article. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the problems with AKA here, just the content. Why exactly do you think focus should be on goals alone? If most of the secondary sources focus on targets or issues instead, why not focus our section thusly to avoid the synth problems you've described? Equazcion ^(talk) 08:48, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

So we want to describe what the protesters see as the problem. For that we have the economic information, primarily. We maybe should do more to describe what they see as the political and social problems. Then we want to describe how they think the problem should/could be solved. That's currently the "Goals" section. We are trying to describe the entire viewpoint of OWS, and especially with this holistic movement that will not lend itself to easy section titles. MadSci has a plan of action above which looks pretty good as far as I see. I looks like it would cover their solutions and their analysis of the problems. Equazcion, do you like it? Does it require something? B^e——C_ritical 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My primary concern here is to make everything rock-solid verifiable and not include content that can be argued down later as undue opinion. Amadscientist's suggestion seems fine in terms of organization, ie. first stating the AdBusters version etc. But I think it would help the problems we've been having if we start from secondary sources that have run through the goals/targets/viewpoints/etc and summarize them, rather than start from primary sources and then pick and choose bits from secondary sources that back those up (as is my understanding of Amadscient's suggestion). The former seems less likely to invite arguable POV and weight concerns -- we'd leave it up to the agreed-upon secondary sources to determine what gets included, that way we have the best shot at avoiding those questions. The contentious topic and resulting messy editing history here calls for an extra-sensitive approach to avoid more problems, in my opinion. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:23, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

If you say so. I didn't use primary sources on the economic stuff. B^e——C_ritical 20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you did; but aside from that, what's your opinion of my suggestion? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:21, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Oh, definitely use secondary sources, and only use primary ones to flesh out a little. B^e——C_ritical 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I might not be expressing myself clearly. Many of the content removals in the history of this article were done because this-or-that person's opinion shouldn't be here, this info isn't important enough, etc etc. I'm seeking to avoid this by coming to an agreement on a couple of secondary sources that run through the goals/viewpoints of the movement themselves with some degree of completeness, and basing our section off them to determine inclusion -- rather than leaving it up to our own judgment, and risking inviting more removals. I think my suggestion differs significantly from Amadscientist's above, so please express your thoughts on this. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:36, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

In other words, he wants to start with people we know are significant and then go to the sources, you want to agree on the sources and then produce the content. Your way sounds like it would indeed be better for producing content which would be unassailable. I do doubt, however, that the removals will stop just because we do an exemplary job of sourcing. But it's still a good idea. B^e——C_ritical 20:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm AGF'ing even though I have the same doubts. But I think if the removals do indeed continue, this will give us an added leg to stand on later. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:51, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

True. B^e——C_ritical 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion's explanation of my idea are offbase and incorrect. It is difficult to have a discussion with someone i can niether understand or understands what i am saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

BeCritical re-stated my suggestion, so perhaps reading that would help you understand what I'm proposing. Or do you not understand either of us? If there's anything in particular you'd like clarified, please tell us what it is specifically. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Question

What are we going to do about AKA's continued disruption? B^e——C_ritical 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

First, how is it defined as disruption and by who or whom? I know I have made major changes and some stood and some didn't as have most of us. What is disruptive exactly? The constant changes, or changes to material you want included? if it is the latter just try putting it back and see what happens or just keep talking about it here. Let's face it the article is only seven months old and if we are already tired of discussing the same thing over and over just say what your willing to live with. Right now I see no huge problem with letting him edit and then looing over the whole subject again in light of the changes and see how claose they are, make changes where mot and listen to the argument. If I am just putting something back because there was a silent consensus or a previous consensus and he explains himself in the revert and I agree with it I am not going to fight to put it back in. The 99 Percent Declaration mention seemd OK, but he took it out and i put it back in and he took it out. I am still OK with that as I did not think it even deserved the mention but i gave it a shot putting it back in to see what would happen. It was taken out and I agree with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried an RFC which went nowhere, so next we could compile diffs and post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- but this is a difficult problem to illustrate, since AKA's disruption is so... "quiet". It might be best to get an admin or two involved here first (again)? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:08, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Well...there is another option and if Becritical would like to give it a try it might work. Project OWS has peer review, I just haven't set it up yet. But this might be a way to solve the immediate problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think all the OWS peers are here at this talk page where we've been discussing AKA's issues for quiet some time, and that hasn't yielded any progress. I think we need an uninvolved audience rather than merely a different page to discuss on. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:20, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. That may be true but something tells me they are not answering your quest here, good sir knight.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are here and you didn't get an audience by request. So is this just an a general announcement?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe the correct process is wp:RfC/U. That gives the user the best chance of actually learning and responding. The requirements have to be met, not sure if they already have been, like the requirement of trying to work things out on the user's talk page. For me, what is most disruptive is that he edit wars his changes in (as even MadSci mentions above) instead of discussing on the talk page when reverted. A close second is he does not understand things which are basic around here, like sourcing policy, but does not accept correction even when backed by consensus of others. The most recent edits seem to be making up rules about what is or is not an RS, and he does not review the sources (apparently). I think this is also a matter of POV, as I've noticed his edits on Allan Greenspan, as well as here seem to be pushing in one direction [17]Yeah, he supported that one, so another reason why he was such a fuck up who had to repudiate his ideology to MR Waxman. MadSci, not sure what you mean by peer review, or specifically how it would work here? B^e——C_ritical 03:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting the problem with the Alan Greenspan edit, did he, in fact opposed the legislation at issue? I rest my case. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Deal with the D of BRD, and address the merits or lack of merits of the edits. Somebody defend, if they can, and this I have to see, using as an RS on micro economic theory Deborah L Jacobs, a lawyer who writes on how to write tips updating Linkedin after getting fired, or, and this one takes the cake "You Can Get Richer Pinching Pennies Like Warren Buffett", and the others, such as "5 Career Lessons From The 2012 Academy Awards", are typical of her output. Using her as a source for defining economic terms is inexcusable. Try Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Paul Volker or even the disgraced Alan Greenspan (the devil still gets his due), and I will have no problem excepting the source. But a lightweight, in every sense of the word, and who seems more devoted to SEO bait than anything else is bottom feeding. And we don't have to sink so low. Also, when a section is titled Income inequality, no editor has any business inserting food insecurity or health insurance matters, unless there is a good source (I really shouldn't have to spec "good", but I do) that says that the two are directly related. This was not done. Intuitively it would seem to be correct, but a source is needed to make the connection otherwise SYNTH is in play. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is great, but it would be helpful if you'd describe concerns like these at the time of the reverts, rather than waiting until people are ready to take you to noticeboards and RFC/U. You need to discuss when someone reverts you, and you need to do it no matter how obviously correct you believe you are. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:50, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll be glad that I did explain edits in edit summaries. There is no obligation to clear every edit in talk, but there is every obligation per BURDEN to explain why Jacobs is being accepted as an RS. She is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 April 2012‎

No, not every edit. Just those that come after a revert. Otherwise it's edit warring. Edit summaries don't count as discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:22, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Something I got from Dispute resolution was seperating what is an editors behavior from the edits they make on top of whatever is being discussed on the talk pages. Peer review would be for content disputes but if behavior from another editor is a problem you can always start a converastion at the project talk page asking how to deal with a difficult issue to seek the opinion of those who may have similar interests. Other than a straight 3RR or Edit Warring report you would have to use the Dispute Resolution board or Wikipedia:Community sanction.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of changing the name of the section to meet little caveats about what can go in a section with a particular name. The section is supposed to be about what the protesters are mad about re economic related conditions. Name it whatever you want but stop taking out relevant information because it doesn't meet the new current title we tried to satisfy you with this time 'round. And questioning the source for that is fine. We can argue and discuss it and improve it. No problem there. But discuss, per Equazcion. I think one principle which needs to be discussed here is that obvious things should not be questioned. Was the definition obviously right? Of course it is. That's how the protesters define the situation, whatever the source. Sources here aren't even necessary if the information isn't challenged. So the question is, why are you challenging? Challenging the obvious is just making trouble for editors. If you truly challenge the facts, then that is a different story. And I see no reason that Forbes would be non-RS. Whatever you may think of her, that is your original research. Are you saying that Forbes has no editorial oversight? No, Forbes is a perfect source for the claim. B^e——C_ritical 04:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then a compromise would be to have a section about what the protesters are mad about, titled appropriatly and a seperate section on the "aims" or "goals" of the protest. But we have to stop using references and sources that do not support claims directly. And if we are using sources to make economic claims we really should be using reputable and known, mainstream academic sources and not just any article that suits our needs for the moment and never when it is not the exact intent of the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the titles: I think it's entirely appropriate to have a broad interpretation of a heading, but whatever people want. You are also right that sources should support claims directly, and wherever it is pointed out to me that they do not I agree they should be changed. This doesn't mean we can't summarize in our own words though. I disagree that we must use academic sources for economic claims. That isn't how sourcing works on an article like this. What you are suggesting would entail either silence, or original research. If we were able, for example, to cite the CBO report directly to illustrate what OWS is mad about, then you would be right. But since we can only use sources which are about the article subject, OWS, we have to use the sources we have. Forbes, for example, is a good source for economic claims. Let's use a little common sense, too: the claims which AKA constantly tries to remove are claims we know are true. You know, I could wikilawyer everything you put in that I know to be right, or I too could make up my own rules like AKA. But I don't challenge unless I feel there is something truly objectionable which does not serve the reader. B^e——C_ritical 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe all economic claims must have academic sources. That does not mean that the Goals of the protests that are economic concerns cannot be referenced. All claims, regardless of whether they be summarries of our own beliefs or words, that are likely to be challenged must have secondary reliable sources to make claims of fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the claim of that requirement is coming from, unless it's just personal opinion. To say that Forbes isn't a reliable source for economics is odd. Is there some policy you could refer us to where you're getting this from? It similarly doesn't matter if people think they're "likely" to be challenged -- only if they actually are challenged. Again I'm not sure where that's coming from. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:52, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, these are made-up rules. B^e——C_ritical 05:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Puzzlement is impossible to affect if the edit summaries were read. WP:RS directly addresses how opinion pieces can by RSs, and it was rightly used to get rid of an English Professor's micro economic theorizing, yet there is a false denial of that having happened. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Income inequality

OK, it's time to deal with this per Wikipedia policy and not just because editors feel it is a part of the subject. We need more than references with titles that mention OWS to include this income inequality information in this manner. There is no context to the subject. If the reference makes no claim of connection or context to OWS then why are we using it. It's synthesis to pull facts from sources, but if there are no facts to pull then what is the source being used for but illustrative purposes. We need secondary sources to verify but they must also make direct claims to facts in relationship to the subject. All this stuff is puffery in it's own section and is undue weight. I have expressed concern above and i was allowing editors to deal with my concerns without urgency but it is clear now that at least one editor is claiming disruption by changing deleteing disputed material, but have as yet not deat at all with concerns and disputes to inclusion I brought up. I feel it is best to remove this section again as the last revert failed to discuss in detail what their reasoning was for returning the information. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original research: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First, if the article is to mention Income Inequality it must have direct context to OWS and it must have a secondary RS to support ALL claims of fact and or opinion in one manner or another. This is not the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It is disputed, has been disputed and needs referencing within policy. So here is what I propose:

We stick to what the secondary primary sources are saying with DIRECT context to OWS AS THE SECONDARY SOURCE claims...not us as editors. For example.

..the question of who’s to blame for the unprecedented levels of income inequality we’re currently seeing in America is an important one for Occupy Wall Street.

There. Direct context from PBS So use it to say that "Record high levels of income inequality and who is to blame for it, is of great importance to OWS protesters.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Say what you want about it, but the Occupy Wall Street movement does have one thing right: It's made headlines pointing out the income inequality of the last three decades. According to a Congressional Budget Office study that came out in October, income grew for the top 1 percent of households by 275 percent over the last 30 years, while the middle 60 percent of households saw their income grow by just under 40 percent. "We Are the 99 Percent" resonates with a lot of voters in the middle.

from [18]. It can be used to source the next line such as:

"The movement's has gained the attention of newspaper and televsion news for drawing attention to 30 years of inequality."."--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I will go through these refernces and see where direct context is used.

37.^ a b c Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality Forbes November 1, 2011 by Deborah L. Jacobs

38.^ a b c d Occupy protestors say it is 99% v 1%. Are they right? The Guardian Data Blog, by Simon Rogers, Wednesday 16 November

39.^ Cozy relationships and ‘peer benchmarking’ send CEOs’ pay soaring The Washington Post with Bloomberg, special report on Breakaway Wealth, By Peter Whoriskey, October 3, 2011

40.^ Ratcheting up pay with peer comparison The Washington Post with Bloomberg, October 3, 2011.

41.^ Income Inequality The New York Times March 22, 2012

42.^ Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011 "the vast majority [of Americans] seem to share the protesters' sense that the economic deck is stacked"

43.^ United in Our Delusion By David Cay Johnston October 11, 2010, as cited by The Guardian Data Blog

44.^ "Financial wealth" is defined by economists as "total net worth minus the value of one's home," including investments and other liquid assets.

45.^ Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010

46.^ Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your references to policy are of course correct, but you imply that they are being broken. I do not think that they are. I'd like for you to say specifically which source(s) is not adequate. Did you do that above and I missed it in all the hassle? If so just tell me and I'll go try and find it, or maybe you can paste it here. I'm not aware that there are needed sources being used which merely reference OWS in the title. For example, this source is highly related to OWS, not just the title. B^e——C_ritical 02:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anything really ever "broken" on Wikipedia? Perhaps, but that is not my implication. Simply that there was no direct context in the prose to the information as it relates to OWS. How the sources were used in direct context to OWS was non existent. It was just statistical data and did not have any real relationship to OWS. The prose didn't even bother to try and set up the concept of income inequality in context to the protest. It just starts despensing facts from a different subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing is ever truly "broken", but you started this with "it's time to deal with this per Wikipedia policy and not just because editors feel it is a part of the subject" so I think you should show how policy is being violated, because otherwise this is just another discussion about what we "feel" is right. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

He started it by blanking the section! And MadSci per your response above, if it's not sufficient to have the economic data be given context by the rest of the article, then a sentence or two of introduction would be sufficient, and no need to blank the section. B^e——C_ritical 04:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I love it. "He started it". Did "he"? As I recall this is the subject that we discussed above and we were supposed to be finding context to the subject. No work was ever been accomplished and someone removes it and another editor (Equazcion) returns it but fails his burden of proof so I remove it as OR and state exactly why I see it as such in detail to policy and discuss examples of what I mean and...of course Equazcion just ignores it and demands I show how policy was violated when i already did.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't say "he started it". That was BeCritical. I'm the guy above him, who said you started "this" section of discussion, with a quote. I'm not demanding anything you didn't claime to be providing yet now say you don't think is necessary: You wanted to hold everything and go back to policy rather than "feel"ings. You now say it "is not your implication" that anything is "broken" -- So, if the content doesn't violate policy, what exactly is your argument? Back to the "feel"ings? Equazcion ^(talk) 05:51, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Who said I was talking to you Equaz? OH...that's right you have to keep distracting the discussion so you don't ever have to justify your revert of returning information and yet NOT meeting your burden to explain why it was returned.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps no one, not that that was the point. So back to it: What exactly is your argument against the content, since we seem to have abandoned the "deal with this per Wikipedia policy" sentiment? If it doesn't violate policy, as you say, why exactly is it being removed? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:00, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Burden met below. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:14, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The income inequality information is not "off limits", there are just "limits" to how the information pertains to the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. While income inequaltiy relates to OWS it does not do so on it's own. Statistical data does not have relevence unless a secondary, published source makes it directly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're referring to weight, it seems, and income inequality is what OWS is all about. So it seems to pertain to the subject rather drastically. And, again, this rule that a source must mention a connection to the topic is made up. Articles contain sources that back up surrounding facts without making such connections all the time. If you're getting this requirement from some policy, which one is it? Equazcion ^(talk) 05:56, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You can say "income inequality is what OWS is all about" but that is original research. You would need a secondary, published source making the claim to use it in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually disagreeing that income inequality is fundamental to OWS? Or just requesting a source regardless? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:01, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this point could possibly be challenged, but here's a source: [19]. Page 2 describes the economic gap. So, shall we restore the section? More: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:28, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Now, being that we are most definitely allowed to use sources that don't connect to the topic in order to back up its surrounding facts (unless a policy can be provided that says otherwise, but none has been forthcoming), and we have reliable secondary sources that back up the claim that economic inequality is at the forefront of Occupy Wall Street, I think we can now restore the section. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:40, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No, you have proven nothing. You are just throwing out sources for no apparent reason. Where is the policy to support the use of this information in this manner? Income inequality is indeed an important issue to OWS but that does not mean we detail statistic from the reports. They were not made as part of the protest. They exist seperate from the protests and the detail needs to be in direct context to reliable secondary sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason was that you asked for them. If you're going back to the weight argument now, economic inequality is fundamental to the movement, so it deserves a lot of weight in the article. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:46, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Again you're referring to this quite original rule that the statistics need to be in the sources connecting to OWS. They don't. The movement's basis is largely economic inequality. Just because protesters don't carry signs detailing the stats of income inequality doesn't mean that stuff gets left out of the article. It's like my earlier example of a movement protesting genocide in Africa. Such an article would contain information showing the death toll and circumstances surrounding the killings, using sources that don't necessarily connect to the movement itself. There just is no such requirement. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:52, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original research: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

...only this isn't a novel position. SYN is about original claims. These claims are backed up by secondary reliable sources (listed above), while the details of them are also sourced -- although independently of the claim of a connection to the movement, which is fine. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:07, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Equaz, you are defining and assuming far too much. It isn't about what you think is the 'Truth". You can't just assume what are the absolutes of the movement or the article. The sources can be used to make the claim, they cannot be used to prove the truth. You believe that a particular part of the issues of the protests are so important and valued that any reference can be used to state almost anything as long as it has the title OWS and is the subject you are looking for. You think all information from the source can then be used in the article. It cannot. Direct context. Everything else is OR.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And where in policy does it say that direct context is required? A rough search for political movements yielded an article on the Jewish ones, so: Jewish Autonomism, Territorialism, Jewish emancipation. Check through the refs that back up the issues those movements fought against. Many if not most don't connect back to the movements themselves. I could find more if you want. This section agrees with practice and policy. There is no basis for its removal, and every reason to include it. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:13, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Another: Affirmative action in the United States. Just take a look through some refs from the intro. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:16, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Those examples do not support your position.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you support your position with lesser quality articles, the last of which has a neutrality dispute tag directly above it, then you are NOT attempting to improve the article but just trying to get your way.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They contain refs, used to support the existence and details of issues the respective movements fought for/against, that do not make a connection to the movements themselves. Many articles on contentious topics have permatags (these are from 07-09). These are just the very first articles that came up in a search; they're a product of my doing this quickly rather than of me "just trying to get my way", and this is about the sixth time during a content discussion that you've resorted to quipping about my motivations. And, they do indeed support my position. I should say "our" position, because there is already a third opinion here. I'm actually going to revert your removal now (I haven't even done so once yet). Equazcion ^(talk) 07:33, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The blanking of sections instead of discussion, and the misinterpretation of policy or creation of policy out of wholecloth is getting to be a habit at this article. We DO need more eyes on this, and I'm not sure how to get them. We need to solicit some more editors who would be willing to regularly drop by and cut the impasses. I believe that both of the economics sections I wrote are well sourced, and the last one particularly so. There is no reason not to go to various sources for some details, such as the CBO report, because the secondary sources refer to it as detailing the basis for OWS's complaints. But that is actually not even necessary: we have very good secondary sources, such as Forbes and the Guardian, which give us all the details we need, and connect them to OWS. But everything is attacked and the goal posts moved further away every time. B^e——C_ritical 07:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We definitely need more eyes here. Apparently RFC doesn't work for that. We could try to find uninvolved people and request their attention individually, or just hit dispute resolution. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:06, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

BeCritical: you reverted my removal of the Guardian data blog, and changing of a couple of stats relating to people's reported "ideal" income distribution, saying it needed discussing first. I am removing them again because the reason I did so in the first place are they are straightforwardly wrong: the Guardian article's source is the Johnston article, which states that the bottom 40 per cent should own around a quarter, not 10% - the Guardian misreported. Check the figure yourself - it's unambiguous. Changing the 40% figure for the top fifth was because it's drifted - the overall figure is about a third, reported (based on preferences from different groups) in the Johnston article as 30-40%, then by the Guardian as "up to 40%", then by Wiki as "as much as 40%" - increasingly pushing the implied figure higher. No information is lost by only linking the Johnston article. Mlleangelique (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your edits got caught up in the revert. But you were wrong to delete a source. For one thing, that is the "named" version[29], which caused all other uses of that source to be broken. For another, the Johnston article does not mention OWS directly, if I recall, which means that we can't use it on its own. B^e——C_ritical 18:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include this information. Equazion is edit warring by continueing to simply add it all back in and not even be bothered to discuss his reasoning for returning the information with SOLID policy to back up his assessment and stop readding it with the excuse of majority rule. I have real concerns and expressed in detail my reasoning with policy to why it does not belong. The burden is on those that return it to expalian in detail why they have returned it and saying the article mentions the link between the two subjects is not enough to begin making ANY claims without direct correlation. Two editors dispute the use of the information and two editors support it's exclusion on the basis that it is what the movement is about. Yet, that claim alone is what can be referenced and not the CBO statistic in the article. Again, the author of the primary source (the CBO report) makes no mention to OWS. The author of the reference does. But he does not make any direct context to the individual statistical information within it. To pull up bits and peices of this information in this manner is synthesis and original research. You cannot make claims, statement or add information not directly mentioned in the source. It is a manipulation of the facts. If income inequality is indeed the center of OWS (or at least one of the main issues...and niether is in dispute) then secondary, published sources will make that claim, not us (Wkipedia editors) as the voice of authority. This is not reporting. This is recording. It'a an encyclopedic article. It's a Wikipedia, encyclopedic article. We have wikilinks to direct the reader to these details for this very reason. We can explain what it is and use a reference with no direct context but every thing else is a claim with context to OWS and that requires sourcing in that context for all material in dispute or likely to be in dispute. I think Becritical may simply not see it and I may not have been able to explain to him enough. But we tried to work this out and I was in no hurry to see what could be done to change the section to meet the standards I was explaining. Look...Wikipedia uses a ratings system for articles in order to guage the improvement of content. Equazion gives only poorer quality examples, so my assumption is that he cares little for that aspect. It's the content he wants not improvement of the article. But Becritical wants the article to improve and I have tried to work with him but he does not seem to understand this portion of policy. I may be mistaken. He is a reasonable editor, doesn't seem to be on a manhunt and tries to actually discuss, not just the content, but the process and policy. To be clear, we have had a struggle, not just with content, but with editors not understanding or acknowledging that much of what they want is not acceptable to advance the article towards even a B rating, let alone ever making GA or Feature status. These are my goals with any article I contribute to. Is this article merely a pamphlet to promote the issues of OWS or is it an encyclopedic article with editors trying to improve it. And when I say "Improve it", I mean using the policies and guidelines as written.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have to claim tl;dr, but a skim tells me this is basically a "my reasons are good and yours are bad, so mine count as discussion and yours don't" claim. Someone making an argument isn't in any position to say it's more valid than their opponent's. You're far from an objective judge there. I disagree with you but wouldn't say such a thing to you. When we have a situation where two people disagree, we would usually get a third opinion; but we have one already.
• As I stated in my edit summary, there isn't enough participation here to say a consensus exists, but there is at least a majority opinion. While consensus would be better, it still doesn't seem like the minority opinion is the one to enact til we get there...
• As for edit warring, when you make an edit and someone reverts it, that is not edit warring. It's interesting that you call this edit warring but not several other actions which reverted reverts, and did so with no discussion. You should really think about how you tend to define edit warring, and possibly read over the policies again. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:40, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons other than your made-up sourcing policy and incorrect assertions for keeping it out? Consensus is not a vote count: you have to have reasons. Can you for instance tell us what is actually wrong with the Forbes source, under the actual sourcing policy? Your objections above are simply incorrect. The link between OWS and the stats in the article is sufficiently direct. In addition, there are plenty of other sources making the link, you don't have to disrupt by blanking sections. Also, have some common sense: if you know it's right, don't question it. B^e——C_ritical 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

break 1

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with the attempt to use original research by adding up vaious facts to fit the outcome in the article you want. Niether of you are working within consensus and both are edit warring at this point. You just don't care about the article you care about the subject. You are both disruptive and use policy ONLY to get your way and dispute the behavior of others. You ignore the discussions and I can no oonger assume good faith with either of you.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Another post... but please give us your reasons for your assertion of original research. So far, I have not seen any support for that assertion. Okay, let me tell you exactly how to do it: paste a sentence, say why it is original research. Then allow us to respond. Then, if the consensus is that there's a problem, allow us time to properly source it. If that is impossible, then you will have consensus to remove the material. B^e——C_ritical 23:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're referring to WP:SYN, which means adding up refs to make original claim, but as I pointed out, this isn't an original claim. The claim is verified with reliable secondary sources. If we're not working within consensus, you're doing even worse -- demanding that your singular opinion be enacted despite a majority feeling otherwise. If a clear consensus isn't present, we should default to your singular view? How does that make sense? And you keep saying we're edit warring, but you haven't backed that up at all. I reverted you. Not edit warring. Reverting a previous revert -- that's edit warring. And you shouldn't speculate about other editors' motivations during a content dispute. You may think you know, but you don't. I want this article to convey the topic with completeness and quality. There is no political interest motivating me. Please don't tell other editors what they're thinking. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:11, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I point back to the beginning of this thread where I spell it out in detail. It's OR and should be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeating that doesn't make it any more true. I refer you back to the comment I just posted above. It's not OR at all. It's very well sourced. You've got your own OR definition that doesn't jive with Wikipedia's. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:18, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

...and despite being in the minority, Amadscientist has reverted the section again. I'll be restoring it tomorrow, assuming no one else comes forward in defense of this removal. We pretty much have a consensus here, even though it's not a terribly strong consensus due to lack of participation here. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:23, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Show through Wikipedia policy and guidelines, how your claim is true or even remotely interpreted.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already, and so has another editor. I'm bewildered, though, as to how you can possibly defend implementing your preferred article version when you're in the minority. I understand and agree that the consensus in this discussion is not strong since we only have three participating editors, but why would you declare your own stance to be the consensus option when the other two people here are against it? I'm just not getting that. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:28, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not majority rule. Am I in the minority? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)