Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Removed sources

Good sources which added to the verifiability of the article and helped the reader, were removed without consensus. I'm pasting a master copy of the section here so nothing will be lost as it has been on other occasions: as I remember it, sources were removed, then complaints were brought that there were no sources and I was engaging in original research. B^e——C_ritical 18:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a B in BRD, we are not a democracy. There is also a D in BRD, but Be will not engage, i.e., explain what an English professor is a a good ref for micro economic theory. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

BeCritical has engaged here. You replied to his "D". If you expected him to engage in discussing your particular problem with one source -- your edit removed several sources, with a summary of "1 ref will do", which doesn't give him much to say except what he has said. Could you post the particular link you're referring to about the English professor, and which text it's sourcing, along with what was wrong with the others? It might make this easier to discuss. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:25, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I already gave you the explanation "for why an English professor i aa good ref for micro economic theory." It's because Mickey Mouse would be a good source for microeconomic theory if printed in Forbes. It's called editorial oversight and most of WP:V is based on it. Even if you didn't like the word definition I used, that word could have been changed. Instead, you decided to blank. Do you need the input of others? Already given. B^e——C_ritical 17:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I left a message for AKA. This really needs to stop. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:14, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

He's since removed the message from his talk page. I won't be reverting. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:40, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. Let me know if he persists in disrupting this article. Dreadstar ☥ 18:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Master copy of economics section

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States. Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters.

Income inequality, a focal point of the Occupy Wall Street protests and defined as a wealthy upper class with economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s. In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line. Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less. During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations.

A 2010 poll by Prof. Dan Ariely of Duke University found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth. According to the poll Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own around a third of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million (40%) should own about a quarter. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%. According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%. Taxes paid by the wealthy are less than taxes paid by those making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%.

References

Agreed, there was no reason to remove those refs. AKA's edit summary read "1 ref will do", but that's no reason to remove the others. I've reverted. AKA can discuss this here first and determine if there's consensus for such a removal. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:37, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Everything from "A 2010 poll by Prof. Dan Ariely" down needs to go or be referenced with something that shows context. Then the other references that show detail of that poll etc, may be used after.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, where's this policy that "context" needs to be shown in a source? Equazcion ^(talk) 17:35, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSTS.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And how does that policy apply to this content removal? Equazcion ^(talk) 17:49, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided."--Amadscientist (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Again how does that apply here? These claims are based on the numerous secondary sources we've shown you. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:28, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No, the claims are not in any context to subject but are secondary to Income inequality not secondary to the subject of OWS. This is stretching.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So this assertion that sources must include a context to the article subject -- can you show a policy that contains such a requirement? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:21, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

He's right that sources need to be about the subject of the article. Per NOR "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." But the source was relating the info to OWS, and there are others for the same info. B^e——C_ritical 20:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A Mickey Mouse argument, literally

This is a RS argument just made by an editor on this talk pagein all seriousness: Here is the actual wording of it "Mickey Mouse would be a good source for microeconomic theory if printed in Forbes? The issue at hand is whether to accept an English professor's definition of income inequality. In a "guest post", edited by a Deborah L Jacobs, a Senior Editor at Forbes who, in her words, covers "personal finance for baby boomers". Jacobs' articles have been titled "What To Say On LinkedIn When You've Been Laid Off" and "You Can Get Richer Pinching Pennies Like Warren Buffett", Deborah Mutnick, a professor of English at Long Island University.Prof Mutnick defined income inequality. The definition is not in dispute, but the Mutnick appears unqualified to postulate one. Her definition was found in her guest post" Are Prof Mutnick -and by extension, Mickey Mouse - to be accepted as RSs for WP on topics unrelated to Minnie Mouse's person? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you've frequently made the argument that after researching the authors of secondary sources we can then say things like "this person isn't qualified enough on this topic", but I'm thinking policy doesn't agree there. That's why we use WP:RS's: they're subject to editorial review. An article in Forbes is a reliable source on economics because on Wikipedia we operate on the standard that the publication is responsible for its content being accurate, so that we don't need to research columnists ourselves to make such a determination.

I'll also point out that you haven't actually challenged the information from this source (you've all but said you agree with it outright), but you're saying it shouldn't be included merely because you don't trust the source. This is a lawyering argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:55, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I believe the definition is correct, but we're not about truth here. We are a bout RSs. If it were not an opinion piece, but serious reporting, I could accept the def. But this one is. It's an English professor guest posting. We could settle for "citation needed".The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you post the URL and the text it sources from the article, so we can discuss this more easily? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"An article in Forbes is a reliable source on economics because on Wikipedia we operate on the standard that the publication is responsible for its content being accurate, so that we don't need to research columnists ourselves to make such a determination". I don't think so. At least...that is such an over simplification of policy as to avoid, skip or miss some rather important and lengthy points of [1], mainly which states: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors".--Amadscientist (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case, Forbes wouldn't be a Primary source, but good thought.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Sorry, was just replying to that one portion...edit conflict getting to the rest. I'm a bit slower these days).--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But, the main issue is indeed also the AUTHOR and not just the publication. Is the claim being referenced one of an economic nature or of an English lit nature? Is there proper context to the subject or is this just fill for something tertiary in nature to the subject itself? This sounds like the publication used a non-expert and AKA is right, it shouldn't be included to reference a claim of fact. If it is an opinion why use an English proffesor and not an economics professor?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And of course we research the authors of the references! If we don't know who is making the claim and we're just using any old person who writes an article, then we're not looking into the reference enough to know if it can be used. We need to know if this is a journalist or a academic or if they are posting opinion or stating fact, if they are staing fact and they themselves are not actualy the journalist but a guest writer and has no journalistic background that amounts to an opinion piece or blog, whether he's an English professor or ecomiics expert. At minimum it would need to be attributed to him as the author. But that all depends on the context of what is being said and how and why and if it is even pertinent to the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"An article in Forbes is a reliable source on economics because on Wikipedia we operate on the standard that the publication is responsible for its content being accurate, so that we don't need to research columnists ourselves to make such a determination." Exactly right. I don't see anything in the section of NOR mentioned which even talks about evaluating sources based on what we think about the authors, which is in fact original research on AKA's part. AKA, in fact, is doing original research here, and trying to wikilawyer content out on that basis. And again: there are other ways to put the info, and there are other sources. Blanking and edit warring instead of tagging and discussing was disruption. B^e——C_ritical 19:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research is allowed on talkpages. Just because it is not there at the link you provided does not mean there is no policy or guideline. It is "common sense".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, because if it's OR it is irrelevant, just using WP as a forum. Making policy out of his OR, as he is doing, is also not allowed. So it's irrelevant or OR, one or the other. B^e——C_ritical 20:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go that far. OR doesn't apply to talk pages, it's not like we have to reference what we talk about here. However, backing up an argument with "common sense" is rickety. We have policies here because that generally isn't enough, and it's been demonstrated often that "sense" is actually far less "common" than one might think. If you can't find this in a policy then it really is no argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:24, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

We have a logic discussion now it seems. The question is simple. Is an English Professor's article in Forbes magazine (I'll bet it was all glossy and pretty and neatly stacked next to the many other pretty magazines) appropriate as a reference for the claim or statement being made. So...what's the statement?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No. I don't know about AKA, but it's not about not seeing the connection. Sir, I have stated there is a connection. I have even provided refernces in the discussion that I believe it is one of the main or central issues. However...I take issue to the use of references with no direct context to OWS to make ANY claims. I also take issue with the use of statistical data in the manner it was. I believe Becritical to be saying that it is obvious so we do not need to spell it out. It is not as simple as that. What is being said to be obvious is a connection to OWS as an issue. Statistical data in this manner not sourced to secondary references but directly to primary ones speaking only about a certain report or specific statistic as Wikipedia as the voice of authority is innappropriate and amounts to original research. It only need be referenced with a secondary source where it makes these claims and then the statistical references have merit.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because Forbes is a reliable source for economic information. We don't need to validate the particular columnist's background. If policy were to suddenly include that caveat, it would actually be massively permeating and change the way a lot of things work around here. But currently, it's not there, and Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. There may be a good argument for it, if it is "common sense" as you claim, and you might want to suggest adding it at the policy talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:39, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Editors research all the time but that's not what OR means. OR refers to the way in which content is created not in the way editors research. Content that is created but is not sourced that is, has not previously been published in a RS is considered OR or the end result of new, non previously published sources. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is based on published information. A RS has oversight, and part of that oversight is control of who its authors are. If Forbes is RS for the content in the article then in general we don't dig around seeing if the author is reliable for the content in the magazine and that we want to add. Most editors don't have the expertise to make those kinds of judgments or to put their opinions ahead of an editorial board of a RS. Its just not our job to make those kinds of judgment calls. If editors agree something is contentious even though RS content, inline cite it, and let the reader decide.(olive (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC))

Actually, we have to "dig around" to see at minimum a number of things and who is writing it is one of them. The author information is important for a number of reasons and varifiablity is one. Context another. So it is not as cut and dry as you state.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is the threshold policy that refers to the point at which sources can be designated as reliable and reliable for specific content in one of our articles. I am talking about a source that has already been vetted as reliable for the content.Only in a very few instances would an author in a R source be considered a problem and then only with editor discussion and consensus.(olive (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC))

Also, we have to know who is writing so that we may know if the author is writing a column as a reproter or as an expert in a journal. In this case we have to know if the author is a journalist writing a column or an opinion piece or blog, we would need to know if this author was just posting a reply or a letter to the editor. No, it matters more than just that the SOURCE be reliable the author and how they are being published.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not from any policy. You're making it up - under the guise that it's "common sense", which we can't exactly verify. Either way, no. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:52, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so objection #1, that the author is not good enough, is original research and not a valid argument for Wikipedia. Going on to the objection that there is no connection between OWS and the source material, I don't understand the objection. Here is the source text (not that there aren't other sources too):

In an article in the second issue of the Occupy Wall Street Journal entitled “What Liberty Square Means: The Progress of Revolutions,” Rebecca Manski joins the debate from Zuccotti Park, renamed Liberty Square. Manski argues:

Liberty Square is the twenty-first century Liberty Tree. If you want to understand what is happening there, imagine: Under the Liberty Tree that stood in Boston Common, early in the first American Revolution, any and all could come to air their grievances and hammer out solutions collectively, and it was there the promise of American democracy first took root. We are reclaiming a democratic practice in Liberty Square.

Since 2008, national unemployment rates have remained above 9% with much higher rates for African Americans and youth—16% and 24.6% respectively. An estimated 10.4 million mortgages could default this year. Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s. The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.[2]

I draw a line directly from Liberty Square (that is OWS) to saying that the next paragraph is an explanation of OWS's grievances. I believe that is a direct connection. The connection is even more obvious if you read a few paragraphs in either direction. B^e——C_ritical 21:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Give me a minute to go through it. Spouse is walking thorugh door and dogs going crazy!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, could you post the information that was deleted or is in the article that this is being used to reference please?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist and a previous comment: No, in fact I disagree. A blog has no oversight and is in generally not considered a RS. An opinion piece if published by an in house author with a source that is considered reliable is different than an opinion piece that isn't. The issue is the source more so than the author. I'll pull out of this discussion. This is a sidetrack into another discussion.(olive (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC))

Olive, that is not entirely correct. A perfectly acceptable RS can have a blog or a comment section or editorial section etc. There is no one part of that policy that is more important than than the other. It's about context-who is doing the writing and why. A personal blog has no oversight...but a blog at an RS source such as a news agency, or financial magazine online can be used as opinion if attributed per Wikipedia policy and we have to look close enough to distinguish. It really doesn't take much looking to make the claims AKA did. They are on the source page as well. He didn't have to research further. Although I have seen discussions that people dug deep to prove the validity of a journalist's credential here. This is simply the source being open.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

One way of dealing with this Becritical is to inline cite, and simply say, according to the source and the author.

The information is basic, its accuracy is not even contested. We should be able to do it in Wikipedia's voice. The source in question should be sufficient, but there are others. The main issue here is not actually the sourcing, but the editing practices. Per MadSci's request, here is the text removed:

"Income inequality, defined as a wealthy upper class with economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s."

B^e——C_ritical 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, thank you. One thing I can say is that the source, as used is a tertiary source.(edit) this seems like opinion to me. Not the strongest reference you could use. The author (regardless of profession) is only quoting a linked source herself. But I am also uncomfortable with "Income inequality, defined as" from the reference as it does not seem to be defining income inequality. This seems to be an opinion of the author based on the information she is reading and linked to. Why not use the source the author does and attribute this as opinion? This is under the section of Personal finance at the Forbes site but I am not sure it should be used to refernece fact in either this being the definition of "income inequality" as I do not believe the source supports that or as fact for the statement: "a wealthy upper class with economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s.". Is there a way this can be posed differently?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We really need more people here. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:54, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"Not the strongest reference you could use." Sure, granted, but not worthy of the fuss here, nor of blanking. Nor of removal of the source. A request for a stronger source if it so happens that you doubt the fact which no one does, would be appropriate. Especially in light of the fact that no one questions the validity of the text, I call the whole affair disruption. I didn't use the source the author uses because that would be OR, since it's not linked directly to OWS. I understand that you don't like the word "definition," possibly with good reason so how about simply:

"Income inequality in the United States, with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits and economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s."

Using the terms "upper class" and "economic stagnation" is within editorial prerogative, and serves to make the text more technical and encyclopedic, as well as lending itself to linking. Again, there was never anything so bad as to merit blanking. Other additional sources can be found... but there's nothing wrong with Forbes. B^e——C_ritical 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with those terms. It's about "defined as" and then the entire statement being the opinion of the auther in a peice that AKA, I believe was pointing out, was not strong enough for the claim as a fact. I believe it warrented the removal originaly and of course should not have been edit warred out or back in without really discussin it like this. At least on other editor has mentioned that this could just be attributed as opinion, but I think you feel strongly about something along these lines. I think the line needs to be changed to attribute this as opinion as well. Can this be referenced stronger?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Referenced stronger? Are you going to object to using primary sources which back up the Forbes article? In reality here, the strongest sourcing for that very statement is the source the author uses in Forbes, and the CBO report. They both back it up. There are also secondary sources. Here is one:

The Occupy movement has, according to recent polling, significantly more general support than the Tea Party, and its specific demands are highly popular. Huge majorities agree that corporate special interests have too much clout in Washington, that inequality has gotten out of control, that taxes can and should be raised on the successful, that the gamblers of Wall Street deserve some direct comeuppance for the wreckage they have bestowed on the rest of us. Polling data do not show a salient cultural split between blue-collar whites and the countercultural drum circles in dozens of cities around America. And the facts are behind the majority position. Social and economic inequality is higher than it has been since the 1920s, and is showing no signs of declining.

Sure, multinational corporations have rescued millions from poverty in the developing world in the last decade. But they have also outsourced more and more blue- and white-collar jobs away from the West, pioneered technological innovation that has made entire professions—remember travel agents? librarians? secretaries?—redundant, and rewarded the brilliant and driven at the expense of the middle class and the job security it once enjoyed. Even great Western products like the iPhone now actually employ more Chinese than Americans in their manufacturing. People rightly wonder how they can ever master these powerful forces again. And, yes, the income numbers are staggering by any measure. From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the median American household saw its income double. Since then: a screeching halt, or barely a 5 percent rise in incomes for the less-affluent 90 percent of Americans. But between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent saw their incomes soar by 281 percent. Add to that the collapse in home values, and soaring costs for health insurance and college, and it becomes remarkable that we haven’t seen much more unrest. I believe the man who posted the following statement online: “I work 3 jobs. None which provide health insurance. My son is on Medicaid. We are on W.I.C. We’re 1 paycheck from disaster. I am the 99 percent.” Do we not all know someone like him?[2]

Occupy Wall Street and its coast-to-coast spinoffs captured the headlines in 2011, but the economic debate it helped trigger should reverberate deep into 2012.

That's the debate over the future of the American middle class....

There isn't any question that income inequality has increased over the last three decades or so, despite a conservative campaign to discredit the notion. A straightforward description of the trend was issued in October by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, which determined that for the highest-income 1% of the population, average after-tax household income almost quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while income for the 60% of Americans in the middle of the scale grew by just over one-third. (Both figures are adjusted for inflation; in 2007, that middle group comprised households with earnings between about $15,000 and $70,000.) As a consequence of this trend, the CBO says, the share of after-tax household income collected by the top 20% of income earners grew to 53% in 2007 from 43% in 1979. Everyone else fell....

And ends the article with:

One message of the Occupy movement is that the trend to deliver wealth to those at the top of the economic pyramid undervalues the contributions made by everyone else. This is not merely an important cause of our economic malaise, but a moral and political failing too. [3]

B^e——C_ritical 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

"Are you going to object to using primary sources which back up the Forbes article?" No, becuase that's how it's done if used behind the attrubuted reference to the author as opinion because AKA is correct even if he was disruptive by edit warring (which is kind of out of character for him. He goes long periods in lengthy discussions). The author is wrting in the finance "Advice" section of Forbes and that amounts to opinion to me. Why not this:

Deborah L. Jacobs, writing in the Personal Finance section of Forbes writes: "Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s."

Then add both the other secondary source and the primary sources as convenience references if they fit accordingly.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We would of course have to quote or attribute if there were something fishy about the sources. But there isn't. They are solid, so let's just write a summary of what they say without quotes or attribution. There's no need to write the text based on objections which have no grounding in policy. B^e——C_ritical 03:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Attribution to source is not about "Fishy". It's about opinion. If fact, we need an article that is a better source than what I see as an opinion peice. It's an "editorial".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if you wanted to say that, the particular statement we're using isn't an opinion, but a statement of fact, and would've been fact-checked by the editors. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:54, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

And again I have to point out that you're not challenging this fact, but demanding a source anyway, which is lawyering. I'm not sure why you're making this demand. Just for the hell of it? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:56, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Right, it is a fact and should be stated as one. No one disputes the fact. And if anyone wanted to check it out further -if they weren't satisfied with the combined testimony of Forbes and LA Times, they could go right to the primary sources. Facts do not need attribution. B^e——C_ritical 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

An interpretation of the statistics is opinion based on the primary source information. If it undisputed fact then there would be no dispute. This is disputed by two editors.

"Income inequality has increased since the 1960s." These are the facts you can pull from the source. "with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population" is opinion and "precipitously" is POV. Used like that I would have no problem with the source used to reference fact, because those are the facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"If it undisputed fact then there would be no dispute. This is disputed by two editors." -- Is it really, though? Are you disputing this assessment? Do you think this is inaccurate? Equazcion ^(talk) 05:25, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for being specific! This is what I mean when I ask you for specifics. Because now it is possible to address your concerns directly. So:

with concentrated wealth at the top'

This is fact: backed up by the best of RS, the CBO report.

flat incomes

This is also backed up by highly reliable sources, incomes have declined for most of the population on average, with slight gains for the middle class and less income for the poor.

That's where this comes in:

or impoverishment

Impoverishment is also backed up by fact, as per the Guardian source, about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.

So either economic stagnation or impoverishment. This is simple fact.

Thus, you may be saying that reciting all these indisputable facts together in the same sentence is POV. But since they are facts, since the sources themselves put them all together, and since that is what OWS is upset about, I see nothing POV about it.

In actuality, the sources would paint a starker picture than the sentence discussed above: I left out that the country's economy has been growing, but that income only went to the top. That also needs to be put in. I don't see the POV in the statement. What I do see is some stark and obvious statistics which when you simply state them together in a neutral way sound POV because they lead the reader to an obvious conclusion. But giving the reader the facts is not what Wikipedia means by POV. B^e——C_ritical 05:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The CBO is not the best of reliable sources...it's a primary source. The best relaible source would actually be a journal or book reference from a mainstream expert on the subject who claims it as fact. This Secondary RS would comment on the primary reference, the CBO report. This is not that.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you seriously just say that? B^e——C_ritical 05:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is opinion mixed with fact. Cite a source for the facts within the opinion. Dont treat the whole opinion as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd. I'll take it to DR or the RS/N tomorrow. I wish you didn't push things so far. B^e——C_ritical 06:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Push things? Dude....I didn't make this thread and an administrator more than suggested we discuss this. Absurd is making the accusation. Did you expect me to just throw my hands up and just agree to everything you say?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been taken to the Dispute Resolution Notice board.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A thought

In considering my counter-example of an article on an anti-genocide movement:

• We could use sources there that purely show the details of the genocide;
• ...so here (in an article on an anti-income-inequality movement), we should be able to use sources that purely show the details of income inequality.

However, genocide is more of a one-sided issue -- everyone agrees it's happening (except maybe for the people who commit it), whereas income inequality might be a two-sided issue.

In addition to an "Income inequality" section, I think it would serve the balance here if we also had a section for criticism of income inequality arguments, where similarly no connect-back to OWS is required for its sources (though I'd say this is never a requirement so long as the connection is already established in other sources, I'm stating this explicitly so there's no confusion). If there are no good sources that make such claims, the section could be about criticisms showing that income inequality, though it exists, is inevitable/not a bad thing/etc.

Of course the caveat would be, then, restoration of the Inequality section to its previous length, with no further complaints about sources that don't show "context". Thoughts? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:54, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I do think that a connect-back is necessary per policy. Without that requirement, everyone would have too much freedom, and the articles would be POV. The disagreement above is about whether such connection is established. I have no real trouble finding sources which connect, as long as one can see with common sense that a connection is being drawn and not have to have a source say "We are in general discussing the context of OWS, and this particular statement that we are about to make, yes, it actually is about the context of OWS." The problems we are actually having are 1) edit warring 2) aggressive editing and blanking without any recourse to discussion 3) refusal to give specifics of objections/not discussing 4) making up policy 4) doing original research to support made-up policy and yes 5) refusing to see the connection between OWS and source text, when it is definitely there. But we aren't having any real trouble finding source text which connects to OWS. B^e——C_ritical 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I meant a connect-back for every source. I know we have sources that show a connect back, but the argument is that we're also using sources that don't connect back. Are you saying you agree there, but that all the sources we're using actually do connect back? Sorry just confused here. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:08, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes use sources which do not connect back in the references, but I don't use them to source the text. I just include them for the reader's convenience. I don't see any need here to use sources which don't connect back, even if that were okay under policy. But of course, one of the problems here is that they refuse to see the connection, even when it's obvious. B^e——C_ritical 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede "general assembly" mention

This portion: "Protesters engage in "direct action" with consensus-based decisions through a general assembly of participants instead of petitioning authorities."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://chronicle.com/article/Intellectual-Roots-of-Wall/129428/| title=Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe — Movement's principles arise from scholarship on anarchy| accessdate=2012-23-2| publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education}}</ref>, was changed to:

"To achieve their goals protesters act on consensus-based decisions to affect "direct action" instead of petitioning authorities for redress."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://chronicle.com/article/Intellectual-Roots-of-Wall/129428/| title=Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe — Movement's principles arise from scholarship on anarchy| accessdate=2012-23-2| publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education}}</ref>

The RS makes specfic the claim that we are speaking in general terms not in specifics. In other words this is not about a specific named general assembly but the way the protest was originaly set up using this as a concept. It is important to the overall coverage of the historic facts of the protests and is extremly important to the article and is in the body. Is there some way we might salvage and rescue what I see as a legitimate and proper claim with due weight?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My issue is that general assembly is two things: 1) an OWS brand and 2) a generic term. My latest edit tries to reconcile the two w/o confusing or conflating the two. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That works. I can see what you are saying. I believe the term is in reference to "anarchy" in it's "classic" definition, although I can't remember exactly how much detail the reference uses on this I do believe it is brought up in reference to the anarchist belief in general assemblies. This is a classic definition in terms of the people's right to form such "general assemblies" since ancient times. The most notable such "general" assembly being the Curiate assembly. Without at least some reference to the term we are left without the key point of the protest which is to assemble to address grievences in a "general assembly" of the people. The US laws in regards to assembly are spoken to (or were at some point) in the article and how the protest are, or can be percieved as being legitimate in this manner. In this particular article it holds strong historic significants to events that will be looked at somewhat seperately than the movement. Thanks for adding the mention back. I think there is more to the subject that can be expanded on in some small detail without losing focus later in the article. There are some reliable sources that detail some of this.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How's My Overview Point of View?

I've been reverted for taking the initiative in providing better readability for the "overview" or "introduction" of this article. The individual who reverted my contribution has stated that I have to discuss this matter on the talk page, and he claimed that it was a point of view overview. This is where I'm confused because as I re-read my overview with open eyes, I couldn't find a single thing that had a point of view. My intention in writing the overview was to provide better readability by correcting grammar inconsistencies, over-explanatory terminology and details that, quite frankly, was heavy retold in the overview before I revisited it. Could you explain to me how this is a point of view when the entire article before I contributed is flagged for being a point of view, itself? My Contribution to the Overview Joshua the Patriot (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your changes were POV in that you altered the meaning of claims and restated fact as opinion. You can't do that as these statements are based on reliable sources that support the claims as they are written without being a copyright infringment etc.. You also made other changes that are consensus decisions already in place that make the edit somewaht contentious.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I never intended to state my opinion by any means. I was simply going by what it written throughout the article, the main themes, and providing a short but accessible overview for the article. I think what you're claiming of are the very claims that you should addressing towards the main contributors who wrote up the article, itself. How did I alter the meaning of anything? Are you referring to the "awareness movement" part? I put that in there based off the data that other contributors provided; this isn't your typical movement that is often practiced in the United States. The participants made it very clear that this movement isn't what most movements are about; they made it increasingly clear through their unofficial motto which I checked on the Occupy Wall Street's homepage. This is an awareness movement that doesn't necessarily want to evoke change in the system, immediately. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit didn't improve the article. "Awareness movement"? And this sentence,

"This movement often engages in what is called, "Direct Action" in a variety of ways that often includes the use of violence but some incompetent participants"--

doesn't make sense. Dave Dial (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of standard encyclopedic writing? You have to go by what's known and what is known is that this movement is indeed, an awareness movement to solely address an issue but not to make any change. I believe this is a best phrase that one can describe the movement, do you have anything better? I've read through the info box and it clearly stated that the movement uses direct action as a tactic, and based off reading the article and other articles in relation to Occupy Wall Street; there are some anarchic elements that tend to abuse the use of direct action, I just had to put that in there in some way instead of ending it with "engages in direct action." Joshua the Patriot (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That is POV and original research as synthesized from information you are gleeming from the article, not the sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that I used original research by using the research from this very Wikipedia Article, in which the data is from sources from other contributors? Really? In all respect, you just lost the game, pal. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco reopened. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? This is unbelievable. Was this even necessary? This isn't worth my time, let's get back to the article, now. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Show a reliable source for this "awareness movement" classification you've chosen. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How about you show a contribution to provide a neutral point of view for the article, itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua the Patriot (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 May 2012‎

If you want to make a change that appears to be unsupported by any other editors here, you'll have to bring sources that change their minds. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A copy edit to the article can't change the basic information. You cannot take a fact that was attributed to a reliable source and write it as supposition.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What POV dispute?

Who is disputing, what is disputed, and when has it been disputed - is it stale? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's getting there.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Income inequality" section being discussed extensively and actively above, and constantly being reverted, is in dispute. Although sourcing has been cited (no pun intended) as the source of the issues with this content, it seems (to me at least) like POV is the real issue here. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:48, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The real issue here is collaboration, discussion and trying to work within guidelines to improve the article. It is past the content dispute alone and has reached to a point of whether or not we are trying to work together within a set framework or if we are attempting to use novel interpretations of policy on a controversial artile in order to push a POV, which is my guess that Equaz is attempting. Not Becritical, I just piss him off. Equaz has shown a desire to flaunt policy in my opinion just to be incivil as he did when i was setting up WP:OWS and he decided that joining was not something he cared to do, but messing with the logo of a project he refused to join even after a good faith attempt to address his concerns on the project talk page and invite himpersonally to join the project to add to the consensus of the logo the project uses. He finaly had to be asked not to bother the project in that manner as all decisions for such are decided by consensus of project members. I do doubt his good faith but do apologize to becritical for say I doubted his. We have a rough time with it but we do try to work together and his opinion of the content dispute is not a question of his good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you had actually suggested that I wasn't allowed to participate in consensus there unless I joined the project. Could you point that one out in some policy? Not that I care much, which is why I never responded, but that was frankly ridiculous. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:17, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can discuss, but who is part of a consensus of strictly project concern does require, at minimum, you show a collaborative effort by joining a project before your input is considered as part of the consensus towards which logo to use. The one a member designed and uploaded or the one someone outside the project copied without proper attibution, showing further example of behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Anyone can discuss, but who is part of a consensus of strictly project concern does require, at minimum, you show a collaborative effort by joining a project before your input is considered" -- Yeah that would be an example of a made-up rule. Unless you can show me a policy. Again, though, I don't care much, it was just a picture I was trying to improve. But it's a good example of the kind of policy fabrication that you've otherwise engaged in here. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:34, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

It's time to stop asking everyone to do the research for you sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you claim there's a rule, you can reasonably be requested to back it up yourself. I'm not asking you to do my research, just yours. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:38, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion is disruptive, this is way beyond WP:BRD. I'd suggest much discussion on content here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Deadstar, if you haven't noticed, I am attemptin to engage in discussion in this section. So who are you talking to? Also, there is no POV dispute. Find me one to prove me false, otherwise I'd advise not getting in the mustard before you ketchup. BTW, since we have you here, would Mickey Mouse be a RS on income inequality if he wrote a guest post for Forbes? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Discussion....much discussion. I believe I can move forward in assumming good faith of Equaz if he can extend the same. I have become very uncomfortable with some of the accusations by and behavior of many editors on this page and subject and I try to address them where necessary, but I always discuss. It still doesn't make it easy....but we still discuss.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I've been discussing my brains out. I think Dreadstar was referring to AKA. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:25, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, and perhaps it is meant for anyone who is also reading it so they don't copy the behavior?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

reactions to ows

the reactions to ows section is still violating NPOV, in as far as it is still written from a United states-centric point of view. It was interesting watching the title of that section change, which, if it was to remain changed, would simply make the whole article require a global perspective.

Unless there is some reason as to why reactions to ows outside of the US aren't notable of course, for which I'm all ears, although, if they aren't notable then I guess we can AFD most of the other occupy articles. shrug. Penyulap ☏ 10:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have removed the word "American" from that section title here while performing a mistaken edit (implementing the result of an RFC for the Reactions article, accidentally inserted here). When I fixed it I never changed the title back. Anyone can feel free to replace the word (title was "Notable American responses").

Being that this is the Occupy Wall Street article as opposed to the more global Occupy movement article, it seems appropriate to have national responses take their own section. If someone wants to add some international responses (I don't think anyone has a problem with that?), both could be subsections under the common "Notable responses" heading. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistical information

Lets discuss what to use from the CBO report and other sources to expand the "Income inequality" section with solid RS where needed and appropriate. I think it is possible to collaborate on these issues in good faith if all parties attempt to see the other side. I did not bring this up in my dispute, however, another editor has in response. We can either continue the discussion here or, if the compromise prose does not hold continue both discussions at Dr. If the prose does hold then we can still discuss the use of statistical information at the DR if the editor wishes or attempt to work things out here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's OR to use the CBO, but an alleged consensus seems to disagrees. (I'm still skeptical about that, though.) I while back I declared to myself victory and moved on. A main concern with the income inequality is that it is too noisy: too many stats. The reader will have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. Better to find the fewest stats that make the point. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So would you agree then, that a few statistics from the CBO report, referenced with secondary RS for claims in direct context to OWS could be used on a case by case nature?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That seem like a good approach, if there has to be an income inequality section. And, in that case, I can't think of any objections. Still, I don't agree with using the CBO report in the income inequality section, but I stepping away from that one. It's already used correctly in the We are the 99% section with a good secondary source that does link it to OWS. (I'm the one that squared away getting it attached to OWS, so no I'm not apposed to any inclusion of it.) How much after that do we have to repeat the same thing over and over? There is income inequality, it is an OWS issue and the CBO validated the meme. Enough said. The reader got it the first time. Piling on food insecurity and health insurance issues are better placed in the goals section, if there are refs linking those issues to OWS and income inquality. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would say that you could always reference the CBO report to different areas but then yes, that is my point as well. To much of something of this nature can be overwhelming and unencyclopedic. In a neutral representation of this information "goals" would have better context to the subject. As the Income inequality section is weaker by comparison. To site such statistical information the true context and how it relates to that information seems to be a part of the goal to overcome those statistics and improve them. It could be percieved that citing of statistics in the Income inequalty section would amount to OR even with RS if the RS has no direct bearing to OWS, so we have to really be careful what we use.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Per consensus at least we can use the CBO report if we want to. But it would be appropriate to seek further community input on this question. I have been strict in my interpretation of OR, but certainly if the community thinks we can use primary sources which our secondaries tell us how to use that would help. For instance the information on income inequality in the CBO report has been pointed out by our secondary sources to be relevant to OWS.

About the food insecurity, poverty, and health insurance issues, these are directly linked to OWS from the Guardian source. I think they are part of the entire picture of inequality which OWS is concerned about and which we should portray. Also the contrast between what people in general want re income and wealth distribution and what actually exists. B^e——C_ritical 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that is what the consensus is for statistical information. What was reached on my side of the DR discussion was that the CBO report as interpreted by the references for a specific claim are now supported with RS through a compromise on prose and a change in the sourcing. The statistical information I agreed could be used on a case by case basis depending on it's use and context. That is per policy as well. I am not saying I am disputing the use of statistics, just that each use have a formed consensus and not just the overall use as that would not be to guidelines and I wouldn't agree to that, I don't know about others. The rest is a point of view that needs direct context from a solid source in reference to OWS in my opinion to use, where to use and how to use and needs specifics to understand what you want to include.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your input on the DR noticeboard. B^e——C_ritical 20:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually meant, if you had a case you wanted to discuss in relation to my DR that was an issue...not every case in the whole section that was about the data. If you wish to dispute the use of all the data at once that would need to be a seperate DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try being bold and edit one of the claims in with a reference you feel supports the use and see where it goes?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in taking the text which came out of the former disruption as a basis for further editing. We went to the DR/N to work out an agreement on the section, and we should get a compromise text there... or go to mediation. B^e——C_ritical 01:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, see....that was not my dispute. That's yours. If you don't want to discuss the issues here, and don't want to edit boldly one at a time to see where it goes, don't want a case by case discussion and just want to use the dispute over that single line and single reference as a launch pad to push through a single discussion for an "everything at once" consensus....I would have to disagree with that being the proper process, but if DR decides to go that route perhaps we can just have a full discussion of the entire article and every single claim being made and every single reference being used. I mean, why stop at just that section when there is so much more that is really disputed? How about it? Community wide call on sign post, the Village Pump and every project related to the article and the Project Council to be notified? A straw poll can be taken to guage the community about the issues to create an RFC to discuss every claim, every link, every reference, all formatting, headers and MOS issues. If you are ready for this I can seek advice on the proper way to start this unless you prefer to do it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I wouldn't mind, but I doubt that kind of huge process over this article would fly... not exactly sure what they would say. I would think that the proper process is either you say you don't mind the section I wrote on the DR/N, or use the DR/N to hash out any problems you see with it, or else we go to mediation and hash out any concerns you have. I think if you don't want to say what problems you have with that section, that mediation would be the proper next step. But try to start whatever process you think will fly. B^e——C_ritical 23:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have properly justified inclusion at this point for mediation. DR/N is a perfectly good place to discuss this if you have a problem for it's exclusion and want it included you may begin a DR filing. It is an awful lot of information for a single dispute in my opinion, but you make the dispute however you want if you have a dispute. But going to mediation at this point seems seems like fighting for a version your prefer other than working together with the involved editors to address all concerns.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I keep trying to work with you, but you won't even tell me if you have concerns. Seems like stonewalling to me. B^e——C_ritical 01:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh "stonewalling" - how helpful. Jesus, now wonder these talk discussions are so windy. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I know the discussion has been a long one and it is possibel you simply forgot but, at the time I made the BOLD edit to remove the material, I immediately DISCUSSED and defended my actions, explained my positiion and included additonal references and prose as examples of what my concerns addressed...here [4]!.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and make an edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage

This hasn't been discussed. Thoughts? Input?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not clear why we have a "media" section. If no one has a good argument I feel it should be merged to the reaction article.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am removing it as very POV, possible OR and as a focus issue. Its about the movement in general and not about the New York protests and it isn't encyclopedic, almost at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a bold edit and removed the section. There were multiple issues of POV and very unencyclopedic prose and unsourced speculation and a heck of a lot of puffery and fill. I don't understand the point. Undue weight to academic sources is surely not going to give that much room and the media is part of reactions and this is consensus and no argument or discussion seems to have altered that or been extended to alter that.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK...how about a new section...."Post occupation activity" or some such title...

Discuss if so inclined and if no interest appears we can move on. If so...let us collaborate!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea. B^e——C_ritical 23:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

I don't see any POV on anyone's part, or any ongoing POV discussion. Time to remove it for being stale and inapplicable. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this article suffers from a POV problem. Much of the contentious removals, as much they've been defended with policy or some bastardization thereof, were actually done because "we're not here to 'justify' the movement". That's a POV argument and I'm on the other side of it -- not that I think we should justify the movement, but that the removals are an attempt to POV-push the article towards disqualifying the movement more than a pure NPOV report of it. Tag stays. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any current discussion revolving around whether we are here to "to 'justify' the movement" or not. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because the content you used that argument to justify removing is still out due to your opponent editors not wanting to engage in edit warring the way you did. The content removals are still in dispute. The mediation request should indicate that well enough. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken and have given me more credit than I am due. The current edit is not mine, and it includes stuff I have vociferously oppose as issues beyond the scope of a income inequality section, i.e, food insecurity and health insurance. I have also been absent for some time from discussions of that section. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know you've been absent from discussion. That unfortunately didn't stop you from reverting. Regardless, if things appear to have stabilized, it's more because of a stalemate. Whether you're predominately involved at this particular moment is of no consequence. The reason for the content removals is a POV issue, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got it very backwards. My last edit of the income inequality section ended days before this comment. I suggest checking the record before launching accusations. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not idea what my POV is. Please explain or drop it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe edits that Amadscientist and AKA implemented removed content that would keep the article NPOV. Those edits shifted POV unduly towards removing explanation for the movement's necessity to advance the position that it is unnecessary (not necessarily with intent of the editors). Clear enough? Equazcion ^(talk) 21:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Admitting that your edits have been made to prove "the movements necessity" is a confession of POV. I still have no idea what my POV is. Again, please explain. Also, please correct your error about my nonexistent reverts of the income inequality section after my exit from the discussions.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I made no admission that my edits were made to prove anything. If that's your interpretation, then the POV tag should still stay I guess. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll extend the benefit of the doubt good faith suggests, and assume you have no POV and did not admit to it. I'd like to know which edits were made to make OWS seem unnecessary. Saying I have a POV that I have no awareness of is just weird. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is POV because it lacks sufficient explanation per WEIGHT of the economic statistics and other underlying motivations of OWS, per your and Amadscientist's edits. B^e——C_ritical 23:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that isn't a POV issue I would say that is simply YOUR point of view and doesn't rquire a tag.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is just our view, but that's generally how it works. Some editors see a POV issue while others may think it's all NPOV. The POV tag doesn't have to describe everyone's assessment -- it just means neutrality is "disputed". We dispute it. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh this article is far from a neutral point of view. But you are holding the article hostage with your tag as part of a content dispute that others feel is advocacy.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you feel it's advocacy then the POV tag is even justified from your perspective. As for "holding the article hostage", I guess can call it what you like. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I could care less if it stays or goes, but the very reason it is there is not for NPOV its to maintain a POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal quarrel
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
EQ, withdraw the false accusation, as requested before, and then I will believe intellectual honesty is a consideration of yours. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC) AKA, you're more than a couple tweaks away from a level of responsiveness to the requests of others that could seriously make you think your own requests carry this much weight based merely on our desire to be seen as ideal editors in your eyes. Save yourself some time: don't bother demanding retractions. Your behavior has been appalling, content is absent now and this page's conflicts escalated to obscene levels due in no small part to your actions -- no matter when they occurred. You haven't even shown that you care about rectifying the situation. The question of whether or not you perceive me as "intellectually honest" is of so little consequence as to be frankly laughable, and I'm surprised you'd see that, of all things, as any sort of incentive for me to comply. Equazcion (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC) The false accusation is still there, and I am no excuse to stick to it. Make a good faith gesture and acknowledge the mistake. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Whatever is there is no mistake, so it of course still there. Equazcion (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC) No, not whatever. You said this falsely on "I know you've been absent from discussion. That unfortunately didn't stop you from reverting". And I prove it wrong with "My last edit of the income inequality section ended days before this comment. If you can't acknowledge that mistake, then you can't you handle any contrary argument on its merits.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC) When your last comment occurred has little to do with the fact that you spent a significant amount of time abstaining from discussion while reverting. See these edits that spawned this discussion where your signature's appearance is nearly absent. You performed bold contentious edits, reverted to keep them in, and abstained from the discussion where others tried to figure out what to do with them. This is just one example. You've been addressed about this on numerous occasions by several editors, and until this poor excuse, were altogether unwilling to discuss your editing practices in any way. Until you acknowledge your own mistakes, I won't be retracting my comments referring to them (although even in that event there would be no reason for me to do so). Equazcion (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC) PS. Feel free to address me regarding further non-content concerns on my talk page. Equazcion (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Okay, I think this is ready for the next stage. But let's not get angry here, it's useless and will just make everything more difficult. I suggest just dropping these things for now. Be——Critical 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought...

There is a good deal of different and vastly varying ideals and approaches being looked at and deleted. On one side there is concern that the "undisputed" facts of the anarchist roots that Occupy Wall Street has and anarchism as an approach it had taken original is being buried, ignored or just copyedited down to little less than a single line. Fully reliable sources have been brought forward and many more are available, I have heard editors say that this was just the begining of the whole protest and is ancient history now. Uhm....yeah, OK....and this is an encyclopedia. There is no reason we can't expand in a number of areas. The Black Bloc is not a part of OWS. As I understand it, in every case this group was seperate and never a part of an Occupy event ever planned. The group themselves believe they are defending the protesters against the police violence and real perception of attempts they think are meant to harm them with no regard. OK...but they are not part of Occupy Wall Street.

So we have established that anarchy is indeed a part of the protest as concieved. Income Inequality and much of its effect on America is also undisputed. So I would like to propose "Anarchism concepts" and really let us get to this portion of this subject in a subsection to origins. If this much detail were allowed with clearly reliable sources then why wouldn't the CBO report and refernences for that much detail be used. It's some sort of compromise ....I just don't know who will agree to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris Hedges will disagree; to him Black Bloc groups "Black Blocs" were threatening OWS. The argument in return was that Black Bloc groups don't exist, which is ridiculous. Can Black Blocs be claimed to represent the true faith of OWS is difficult to discuss of a movement dedicated to avoiding hierarchies. Anarchism is at the heart of OWS, but the movement itself has not claimed anarchy, it has instead, adopted anarchist tactics. That's why it's dicey to put the loaded word "anarchy" or its variants in the lead, and it's better left to the body where it should be given it's due through good secondary sources, which I think have been found. Maybe a section title Anarchist roots should be developed. The whole CBO thing is that it is barely within the scope of OWS, was no factor in its formation-it didn't exist then-and it over explains that the 1% exist. The reader gets it, there is income inequality, it is growing, and it is a major OWS issue. The repetitious barrage of stats on income inequality dilutes this, and is just not needed. It will only lose the reader and fail to keep their interests focused on OWS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary of Graeber's response to Hedges at all... Sindinero (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Anarchist roots" works for me as a section or subsection and I agree the term in the lead need not be used..--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Case

I'm posting an extra reminder here that the formal mediation proceeding involving this article has opened. If you are a party to the case, please read the welcome message on the case's talk page, and be sure to watchlist it for future updates. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Judith Butler

Inflammatory and does not serve to move the discussion forward. Dreadstar ☥ 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Judith Butler, an expert on queer theory - is a not an RS for OWS, and this self published - it seems - article is not about OWS, it is about the movement. It can not be used for a OWS article. It makes almost no reference at all to OWS The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC) It's not self-published. It's from a magazine called Tidal. It doesn't really matter what her qualifications are, but she's a PhD and prominent figure in political movements. Her statements regarded the concept of demands in movements in general rather than something for which she'd need to be qualified in OWS' particulars. It's not like we're using her as a source for economics. As for no reference to OWS, the article is all about OWS. It's even in the title. [5]. And this is presented as an opinion piece. Equazcion (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Odd to pick "Queer theory" as the qualitfication to be mentioned here....why not mention her political philosophy contributions?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Nah, no diabolical intentions in play, and the insinuation or "odd' is baseless. Queer Theory shows how ironic it is to rely on her as an authority since she is so far afield she from her field. She's as funky a ref as you can get: we're asked call an RS a manifesto exhorting the movement at large for OWS in particular. Even funkier, Tidal, sis a self-described "arts and photography" publication of a certain Craig Cirby published, it says, "between the sun and the moon". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC) And yet, it's still not self-published by the author, presented as an opinion piece, and the statements we include don't imply reliance on her for economic data et al, but on her political movement experience and political philosophy knowledge. Equazcion (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I would think that if an author had multiple expertise we would not disqualify them on th basis that one area is "far afield" from the other. The point is, the Wikipedia article you took the reference to "Queer theory" also shows she does have the qualification. It was odd that you did not see that. I see no irony, just that you feel she is not specialized.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

From Her article:

She is a professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature departments at the University of California, Berkeley. Butler received her Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University in 1984, for a dissertation subsequently published as Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France. In the late-1980s she held several teaching/research appointments, and was involved in "post-structuralist" efforts within Western feminist theory to question the "presuppositional terms" of feminism. Her research ranges from literary theory, modern philosophical fiction, feminist and sexuality studies, to 19th- and 20th-century European literature and philosophy, Kafka and loss, mourning and war. Her most recent work focuses on Jewish philosophy, exploring pre- and post-Zionist criticisms of state violence. Politically, she is a strong supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel.

Seems to be a reasonable expert to use on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I find that claim pretty laughable. In any event, if anywhere, her commentary belongs in obscurity at Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, like everyone else's. She doesn't get a ticket to the main article just because she's said positive things about OWS that can be tenuously linked to something in the main article. The same rationale would justify importing about 5000 words from the Reactions article. Additionally, if the piece is not published in an RS it doesn't get onto WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The section isn't about reactions, but about goals. One of the prominent views on goals from within the movement is that there should be no concrete demands, and this statement supports that. It's not being included as a reaction, and the source really doesn't describe a reaction anyway. The source is reliable for opinion pieces per WP:RSOPINION -- it's a magazine with an editorial staff, not self-published, and we're not adding it to back up statements of fact. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Her manifesto is about the Occupy Movement, which is not a monolith of conformity by any stretch of the imagination. She does not address the goals of OWS in particular. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

...which is why your complaint about her credentials is of no consequence. It is, however, about the way OWS has been expected to present goals, and her (prominently shared) stance on why OWS shouldn't cater to them. Seems like valid "Goals" section material. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you had read what I said, and her article, the near unreadable mess that it is though, you would know she was not exhorting OWS, but the movement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I read what you said. OWS is inclusive of "the movement", assuming you mean the "occupy movement". The goals she's referring to are by definition OWS'. Please sign the mediation request you were notified about. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:21, 3 May 2012

I'll think about the mediation. Now, by what definition: do you have a RS for it, or is it yours? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends why you're asking. Do you challenge the assertion that OWS' ideals don't differ substantially from Occupy's? As you say, we're not using her to source particular goals. If you're not challenging, there's no reason to demand sources. That bogus rationale has been used too many times here to lawyer content out of this article. And I'm not interested in a for-arguments'-sake discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the issue, your definition and your refs for it are. Again, by what definition and by what refs for that definition for your conflation. Assertions just can't be made, they need substance. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No answer, as usual. I figured as much. This isn't even likely to be challenged, because people know Occupy and OWS have the same basic ideals -- one is the global version of the other. So, unless you're actually challenging this, don't ask me for refs. That's not how it works. You can repeat it all you want, and it still won't be how it works. If someone actually doubts this assertion and comes to challenge it, we'll deal with it then. That's how this works. If you think I'm wrong, let's get to that mediation. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did directly challenge the assertion. What would make you think I didn't?

Strongly agree with Equazcion and Amadscientist on this one. Butler's view on the questions of demands is both notable in its own right and representative of significant tendencies within the movement. As a procedural note, I find it unproductive to carp on the writing style or difficulty of our various sources -- that seems beyond our scope here, to say the least. AKA, if you find Butler's essay "near unreadable," you might consider that the problem's on your end, and you should maybe brush up on WP:COMPETENCE. Not every text that makes a point comes neatly packaged in Cliff's Notes-type-prose. I (and surely others here) find Butler's writing in this piece lucid and actually quite straightforward. If you can't understand the sources used, please don't (implicitly) shift the burden of explanation onto other editors; that's disruptive and distracting. I ask this because you've done it before, with Graeber's open letter to Hedges. Sindinero (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For two editors intent on ignoring core WP policy on sourcing, Equazcion and Sindinero sure are delivering some pretty pious and incorrect lectures on policy, along with inappropriate, insulting comments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Somebody please substantiate the following statement: "it's a magazine with an editorial staff, not self-published, and we're not adding it to back up statements of fact." If this can't be given acceptable sourcing, it doesn't go up on WP.

And if it can be acceptably sourced, it belongs at the Reactions article. If editors insist on repeating a rationale that it belongs here because it discusses the goals of OWS, we'll be seeing Douglas Schoen's account of OWS goals restored to this article as well, among plenty of other sources that have been moved to Reactions. Food for thought. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have only disputed a mention from AKA about a Wikipedia article that shows her as being diverse in expertise. What is the exact reference being used that is in dispute?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No clue. The source for the Judith Butler article is not provided. Enlighten me? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Checking. As this is included I assumed it had nothing to do with previous discussion, but i forgot it is what started it. LOL! [6]. OK. The reference link is to a scribd. [7]. The Magazine in question seems to be "tidal Occupy Theory, Occupy Strategy • Issue 2 • March 2012" the question is whther the reference used is a reliable source as a published opinion in a magazine. Who publishes the magazine would answer the question.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If the magazine is an "Occupy magazine" that changes my perception a bit. Although, it does seem to be an actual publication with a separate editor staff. Since this is an opinion piece, does it matter if the publication is non-neutral? I'm not sure myself on that question. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems this "reference" is on Wikipedia's black list and an attempt I just made to quote a description and links from thenorthstar triggered an automated refusal to post the reply. I suggest this be looked into further to see exactly why the site is blacklisted and if it's use in this manner (using Scribd) is acceptable. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since my posting the Scribd ref didn't trigger the blacklist, I assume you mean the magazine's home page did it? Or what was it? Equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Just the website iself triggered the black list warning, but it blacklists all reference to the url of the site itself not the mention of the name. I would have to say using scribd is inappropriate for the content itself is merely hosted there and scribd is not the source so it isn't used in a reliable manner. At least show in notes that the source is actually the titled "magazin: so that it may be verified. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The site used to store it doesn't matter, it's a PDF of a magazine article. It's still not self-published, because for Wikipedia's purposes, self-published means the author can publish whatever they want without it passing through editorial review, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. The question I see is whether non-neutral publications are okay for opinion pieces, and RS doesn't seem to address that. I'd ask for other comments but no one's really here. The mediation will likely give us an answer. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dang...even the sources I am finding on it are black listed. LOL! When did we black list the Examiner? Woohoo! That site so needed to be blocked. I believe the source is self published and should be removed as it site for the publication may be blocked for either being self published or for being an unacceptable source for Wikipedia. At this point I am for loosing it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Without a link to some credentials, "magazine" could just mean two college/grad students soliciting contributions on a listserv and web-publishing a PDF. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed Judith Butler until that can be determined, or another source is found. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also there are some issues with the use of Scribd, some pertaining to the redistribution of copyright material without the exress permission of the copyright holder it seems and the fact that it's a social reading club by their own definition may be part of it. It is a host site and is not the actual source. It is not considered RS in itself. It certtainly isn't the actual source but is used as a tertiary source, but... its YOUTUBE for publications. Anyway, I dispute the use of a publication directly from the movement to source comments about the movement or protests whether its self published or not, but the facts are pointing to self published at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's not self-published according to WP:RS. And where source material has been uploaded doesn't matter. The particular web address doesn't need to point to a website actually run by the source. Unless you can point out a policy for that one. Either way it's moot, I removed the source and statement. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I will not address your policy interpretations. You have not proven that the magazine is within criteria for relaible sources to make any such claims to begin with. First establish what criteria it meets and state them. I would ask that your future contributions for referencing be done with proper formatting consistent with the article, please. There are many reasons for this but I think it is a reasonable to expect experianced editors to not use bare urls when trying to improve the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it's a reliable source -- otherwise I wouldn't have removed it. I'm just arguing that it doesn't meet the criteria for being self-published in particular. There's no requirement that refs are formatted with {{cite}}. Since the link goes directly to the relevant article, there's no particular need for page info. Though if you see a ref I've added that you'd like formatted a certain way, I wouldn't object if you formatted it accordingly. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hatting accusations, etc. that don't move the conversation forward. Focus on content, not each other. Dreadstar ☥ 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are a number of policies about consistant formatting in articles, but I am asking that you use the accepted citation formatting instaed of using bare urls. They create more work for others and do not improve the article and your use of bare urls and relaible sources, possibly gaming the system to use a black listed source, has called into question your specific use of bare urls in this article. Again, I ask that you please refrain from using bare urls and format all future references you cite in the consistant way this article has been historicly attempting. Many editors and administrators have tried many times to repair bare urls here and the consistant addition goes against current consensus. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC) No problem. If you see URLs I've added and neglected to format, you may feel free to format them as you see fit. Since you did defend this ref above, I might accuse you of "gaming the system" too, but there's no reason to assume bad intentions. We're supposed to do the opposite, and your neglecting this is against WP:AGF. Keep that in mind. Equazcion (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Testing URLs: Tidal magazine (appears to be unrelated) Occuworld.com Scribd.com Occupytheory.org (the magazine site) Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Not sure which you tried, but these seem to work, including the Tidal magazine site. Equazcion (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC) It's the magazine itself as a PDF form that is blacklisted. The website, occupytheory.org is not the magazine and is not blacklisted. The article used was from the blacklisted source itself...the magazine that is self published by the movement itself and has no formal journalistic editorial oversite and is biased in its intent to speak directly about the concerns of the movement. It is not an appropriate publication to use to cite an opinion about the movement or the protest because it was published by the movement and protesters.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC) The only PDF links on the site (as far as I can see) are to a Google Docs PDF reader [8]. You may have been trying to post a URL to a third-party file store that you found via search. Understandably some of those are blacklisted (if not most). So far I don't see anything blacklisted from the magazine itself. No further comment regarding self-publishing, it's moot til we can verify other info about the supposed magazine. Equazcion (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC) OK...there we go. It isn't the PDF that is black listed or the magazine as a source but the url of the third party host. That makes sense and shows us the actual source is not black listed and there is no gaming of the system. I apologize for the mention of possible gaming of the system. This at least illustrates the difficulty that bare urls present when combined with a hosting site of questionable use on Wikipedia in this manner. A reference should provide all the information needed to verify and making the reader figure out what the source is, is certainly a good argument against using it as a bare url and without reference from a secondary published source. You weren't gaming the system, you were just using a bare url with a hosting site for reference to opinion from a self published source of the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC) My URL wasn't to a blacklisted file store (which are blacklisted because any file type can be posted for download), but to a site that hosts documents files for in-browser view. Use of the {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) template wouldn't have mattered -- it was your chosen URL that was blacklisted, not mine. FYI, WP:AGF doesn't mean you can make insinuations until you're proven wrong. It mean you don't make insinuations, but assume good intentions instead. Equazcion (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I didn't accuse you of gaming the system. I said it looked possible. I accused you of attempting to confuse the reader with a bare url to a host site Wikipedia consensus has determined is not a RS on its own for a source that is from the movement itself to reference opinion on the movement and that is assuming it is not self published. Assuming good faith works both ways. I still have my doubts about your good faith but am clearly able to continue the dicussion and you have stated over and over with accusations of tag teaming, making up policy and a host of actual accusations that you are absolutely not assuming good faith. See the difference. You do understand the term Boomerang? But at least you keep discussing.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Voicing a suspicion amounts to the same violation of AGF. If you were assuming good intentions, there would be no need to voice anything but. My tag-teaming statement didn't speak to intent; it was the sequence of reverts that occurred. Equazcion (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) PS. AKA has bullied his edits in, often without discussion or compromise, and was often successful due to your additional reverts. In case you thought I was trying to further imply your premeditated coordination with him, I didn't, and still don't have any reason to think that's true. Equazcion (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Excuse me a moment...what 'holier than thou' crap. Sorry, but that is distilling that down to what it is. LOL! AGF says "In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors." Voicing a suspicion is not a violtaion of AGF, making accusations is, as it amounts to a personal attack. You make these kinds of accusations sir. You have not exactly proven you are not gaming the system. I have just admited that there is no black list of the source. Just an odd coincidence of unrelated Wikipedia black list reply blocks that I have never experianced before over trying to post replies about your source from research I found about the publisher, which is Occupytheory.org.. I said you are attempting to confuse the reader with a bare url to a host site Wikipedia consensus has determined is not a RS on its own for a source that is from the movement itself to reference opinion on the movement and that is assuming it is not self published....but it is. So, you could say my suspicions have not been satisfied of the intent you had when you made the contribution, adding the information with this as a citation for a claim. But wait...there is more than just this that makes me suspicious. This all sounds vaguely familiar to me. Give me a sec.....--Amadscientist (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya know what I did earlier. I confused this authors name with another author from an earlier dispute that went to DR/N...and is ending in mediation dispute not being resolved at the DR/N. Does anyone remember that whole thing. What was that dispute...OH that's right, it was an odd use of statistical information from an opinion. We ended up changing the prose slightly and the reference completly replaced. Forbes I believe...wasn't that over the use of a Literary Proffesor discussing the new Occupy Wall Street publication? Hmmmmmmm. These were placed at about the same time weren't they? Hmmmmmmm.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It was an OWS publication the Occupy Wall Street Journal. I reread through that whole article and the author of the Forbes piece was discussing rhetoric as I think I stated earlier and the use of the facts and figures in a biased manner were just secondary filler for the discussion of the use of the published word in relation to OWS. This looks a little like advocacy within the reference pointing to sources from within the movement. I see why AKA may have objected if he thought this was a weak attempt to use an opinion peice on rhetoric to base fact on microeconomics just so it linked to a mention of an OWS publication. And now we have this dispute about the addition of...what do-ya know...a professor in Rhetoric so their article can be seen in yet another publication from within the movement. I am sorry, but I see an advocacy issue here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I still don't see why the source we had wasn't sufficient; it was an opinion piece by Butler used to show a (prominent) opinion on the question of demands for occupy. As I understand it, we'd even be permitted to use blogs to show that figure A has expressed opinion X. Is any of this incorrect? Sindinero (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely wrong. Re-read the policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A big issue is a question of self publication without true journalistic, editorial oversite and just posted by the organization itself and not through an established publishing company in a formal manner recognised by mainstream academics, journalists etc. However another major issue is placing the author prominently next to another who is established as a central figure in the protest. Her view may have relevence in the movement articles, but she has no context to the protest in the same manner David Graeber does so if you have the opinion of Graeber why do you need to add another so weak. Its puffery at best.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's puffery at all. She may not have been involved with the organizing of OWS to the extent that Graeber was, but she is certainly an informed commentator and, as you point out way above, has made substantial contributions to political theory. People involved in radical politics and organizing (read: OWS) are actually more likely to be familiar with Butler's work than with Graeber's. I don't think there's any credible doubt that Butler herself is a notable, prominent source, and I think she's worth including because she gives a slightly different, somewhat more theoretically nuanced opinion than Graeber of why demanding demands might be a politically problematic move. There's no puffery to that, and I'm not sure why we'd want to impoverish this article by a major voice just to save half a sentence of text. Her essay is cited merely to show her opinion, and her opinion is a prominent one. Sindinero (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, when and why did you change your mind so drastically? Didn't you say that Butler "Seems to be a reasonable expert to use on this article" Sindinero (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If losing the reference and the attribution doesn't lose the claim and its STILL referenced with a reliable source...it is puffery. "People involved in radical politics and organizing (read: OWS) are actually more likely to be familiar with Butler's work than with Graeber's". Has no bearing on the use of her opinion in the article. The fact that she meets criteria to use as an expert and has been published doesn't mean the use here is legitimate.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

except that I think the use here is legitimate, for the reasons I've spelled out above. I'm not convinced by your response, and don't really understand what you mean by "If losing the reference and the attribution doesn't lose the claim and its [sic] STILL referenced with a reliable source...it is puffery." None of the objections to including Butler here are very convincing. Nobody has contested that she wrote that piece; it's an essay expressing her notable opinion on an important and contentious issue within OWS, and not including it would seem to be a disservice to readers. Sindinero (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand you think it is, but I have seen no compelling argument to see how what you believe is accurate. If the original opinion is still there as attributed to Graeber (who is established in the article and multiple references to the subject as being a central figure in the movement (edit) protest itself) and then you add another figure to attribute that SAME opinion to, who is not central or related in any way to the subject but is just a expert of political rhetoric and not established in some manner for context.....it's puffery. Just added to build up the opinion or the article and the loss does not effect the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The author isn't really notable and the source isn't in any way reliable. 'Nuff said. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a prominent opinion, but WP:RSOPINION doesn't say whether blogs are valid for that. It sort of makes sense that they're not, since without a reliable publication, there's always the question of whether or not the opinion actually is prominent. The edit I just reverted [9] is an opinion sourced from a blog; if blogs were allowed, who's to really say whether an opinion is prominent? We'd have to allow the edit (along with whatever other crap people dig up or publish themselves). This magazine's reputation is a big question mark so far -- even though the author is reputable enough -- but if it's not in a reliable source, I don't think we can use it. I could be wrong though. The policy on opinion pieces is a little vague. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The magazine article could be considered a primary source though, since we're describing an opinion for the express purpose of stating that opinion and nothing more. I'm not really sure though. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting that. It certainly has no place in the lede, and the wording expressed something of a POV that was unencyclopedic. However.....the source is a legitimate, reliable and well known publication, "The Village Voice". The artcicle was not a personal blog from a random poster or subscriber, but from James king [10] who appears to be on staff and has jounalistic credentials for use as an "Opinion piece" as it is a blog from the journalist on staff and not a personal blog. Per WP:SOURCES "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability." WP:NEWSBLOG states: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[4] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources." WP:BLOGS states: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Read the article and you will see that the subject of OWS as a "joke" is headlines at the New York Post post according to this opinion and the author states:

Unfortunately for the occupiers, May Day was widely considered to be a "dud," and has many in the media arguing that the movement has become nothing more than a joke -- just a bunch of "bums" running around New York City complaining about one thing or another.

Now we are not a newspaper, and by we - I mean us, Wikipedia and we don't need to stay abreast of every opinion or fact, but there is a mainstream academic opinion about this and you can't make the encyclopedia bury its head in the sand forever.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The self-published "magazine" that the Butler article appears in pretty obviously is not a reliable source, so there shouldn't be much need to discuss it further. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Judith Butler piece is not "self-published," although there are valid concerns about the reliability of the source. While we're on the topic, though, I'd second what Equazcion said above -- the claim by Graeber, Butler, or both does not belong in the "reactions" section but in this one. They are notable views on the tricky politics of making demands, not general (outside) reactions to the movement. We do the section an injustice if we leave out this critique of the demand for demands. Sindinero (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm curious how several editors here can so easily and glibly write off Judith Butler as non-notable, when at least two editors in this thread (three, at one time) have agreed that she's prominent. Are these dismissals based on a knowledge of Butler, her activism, and her work, or an ignorance thereof? In my experience, arguing from ignorance (I haven't heard of it, therefore it can't be that important) isn't a good way to do anything, let alone write an encyclopedia. Butler is not just a foremost thinker of radical politics, she is also a long-term activist and has been involved with occupy in NYC, Oakland, and Philly; indeed, since Graeber distanced himself from the daily workings of the movement (for good reasons) shortly after its inception, it's possible that Butler has been more involved recently than he has. Truthout isn't an RS, I know, but this interview gives a further glimpse of the scope and nature of her theoretical involvement with occupy. The point is that the critique of the demand for demands is a pretty common one within occupy, albeit one that doesn't often make it into mainstream media; here we have the opportunity to show two prominent voices making this critique, voices that will make the "Goals" section more complete, more coherent, and more representative. I'm not sure why people object to this. Sindinero (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand the policies you're referring to. Everything we've seen shows that the magazine itself is self-published by some random dude, and is not an RS. It can't be used. If you can make a substantiated claim to the contrary, I'm all ears. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing we've seen shows the magazine is self-published. You don't understand what that means. Self-published, on Wikipedia, refers to when the author is the same person who decides what gets published. That's the case for blogs and forums. It's not the case for a magazine -- even if it does end up being a piece of shit basement-run magazine. This author is not the editor. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Flat-out wrong, and obviously so.

Absent some showing to the contrary, the mag is self published by Craig What's-His-Name and is not an RS.

Furthermore, it's unequivocally, 100% your burden to show it's an RS, not my burden to show it's not.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

...and if Craig what's-his-name were the article's author, then this would be considered self-published. "Nope flat-out wrong," as well thought-out an argument as that is, doesn't really convince. You're defining self-publishing as "do-it-yourself" publishing, which is a fallacy. The fact that a small group publishes it, or even one guy alone, or a POV group, do not, in and of themselves, constitute a self-published source. Wikipedia has a specific definition: It's specifically when the publication would allow authors of articles to publish directly, whatever they want, as in a blog or website run by the author, or a newsletter run by the author -- the author being Butler in this case, not Craig. ...and I'm not saying it's an RS (I'm not sure if it meets RS myself, that's why I removed it). It's just not self-published; that particular part of RS is not the grounds by which this could fail RS. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ Equazcion: "self-published" on wikipedia means that the author and the publisher are the same person, which doesn't apply to Butler's piece. Sindinero (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just silly. Even if you were right that WP policy on "self-published" sources simply means that you need to get somebody else to post your material on the interwebs and voila, it's not self-published — which is an absurd reading that utterly flies in the face of both the actual text of the self-published policy language and the basic meaning of WP:V — it wouldn't even matter, because you need to show that the source is a reliable source. You haven't shown that and you're wasting everyone's time with ridiculous arguments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Self published is not a reference to someone you are quoting from the source, it is when someone or group does not have a publishing company publish the work.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look, the Butler essay was never in support of statements of fact, but to demonstrate that she holds the opinion the half-sentence alleged she did. The standards for RSs are different in that case, and in situations like these, it's arguable that her essay is a primary source. Do you dispute that Butler wrote the essay in question? RS policy refers to the publication as well as the author; as I've argued (and Equazcion seems to agree), Butler herself is certainly a reliable source on political/rhetorical topics like what is at stake for a radical movement to make demands.

Please tone down the personal shrillness here, it's totally unnecessary. You've said elsewhere that the Salon piece counts as a reliable source; would that be enough for you to reinclude mention of Butler's position on goals/demands? Sindinero (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand RS policy. The section on opinions doesn't mean "we can ignore normal RS requirements for statements of opinion". It does mean "even after we've decided that a source meets RS standards, it may be further restricted such that it can only be used to source statements of opinion". Your (incorrect) interpretation of the policy would mean that reliable sources are simply not required for opinions. That's the opposite of what the policy means.

As for primary sources, we don't use those, especially when there is a giant mountain of secondary source material on the subject — and thus, no need to allow editors to set off on their own personal, completedly uncredentialed POV-pushing campaigns of generating original commentary on the subject.

Next, just to reiterate, your interpretation of the self-pub policy is, likewise, completely wrong. If a source is self-published, we generally do not use it. It matters not whether the author of the piece sought to be cited is the same person who self-published the self-published material. If the publication is self-pub'd, we don't use any piece in it. The limited exception to this is that self-pub'd materials may be used for claims about the author. But this generally refers to material used as a reference in an article about the author, which this article is not. And in any event, the Tidal piece is also disqualified for those purposes by the explicit terms of the self-pub policy, which says that we can't use the self-pub'd material, even for claims about the author in an article about the author, unless the following conditions are all true:

• "the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)", which condition this material fails;
• "the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject", which condition this material also fails;
• "there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material", which condition, again, this material fails.

Finally, regarding your argument that "RS policy refers to the publication as well as the author". What the policy actually says is this: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. The Tidal piece has not been shown to have a reliable publication process (or indeed, any publication process other than "Craig Random-Dude likes this and put it in a PDF file"). Nor has the author been shown to be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject".

How do we tell when an author is regarded as authoritative on the subject? We generally know that this is the case when the author has been widely cited by reliable secondary sources on that subject. We don't have that here. We have a single blog/online mag (albeit the mother of all blogs/online mags) referring to her as a "renowned academic and feminist theorist"; she is cited briefly not because she is "regarded as authoritative on the subject", but because when the piece was written she was, in Salon's words, the "latest intellectual to express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street." She's being cited because she has publicly supported OWS and is somewhat notable for other reasons, not because she's regarded as an expert on income inequality, finance reform, balancing the budget, stopping offshoring, etc. She's a comp lit professor, for God's sake!

What this means is that, as I said before, the Salon piece should be fine as a source, but the Tidal piece is definitely not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of your characterization of wikipedia policy, although I would still hold that, although she may be just a "comp lit" professor, Butler's work on political theory and rhetoric well qualifies her to address the ins and outs of making demands. This -- and not factual or policy statements on economy or finance -- is the focus of the essay in Tidal and the shorter speech linked in Salon, and this is why we had cited her in the article in the first place. She's not making a point about how to better manage the economy, she's making a point about the vicissitudes of demands as a political form. This should be obvious to anyone who reads the piece.

Please rethink your accusations of POV-pushing. I'm not sure what "personal, completely uncredentialed campaign" you see me setting off upon (diffs?), but I'd be curious to hear. Although I've asked, nobody has given an answer what agenda or advocacy Butler or Graeber's arguments might possibly be seen as making. It's not as simple as a naive pro/contra-OWS dichotomy. Butler's piece (and the deleted content that used it) was neither for nor against Occupy as such, but was making a more nuanced statement on the question of demands. Many in occupy are for demands, many are against, and I think it's our responsibility as encyclopedists to represent this complexity. To think that every statement on OWS besides the straightly journalistic can be boiled down to support or opposition is a crude oversimplification.

But setting all that aside, can I ask you again whether your acceptance of Salon as an RS would lead to your support for a modified reinclusion of her position on demands, using that piece instead of the Tidal one? I'd be grateful for a response. Sindinero (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. To be clear, I didn't mean you were engaging in a POV-pushing expedition. But that's what the policy interpretation you suggest would allow, and IMO it's important to consistently address these types of disputes at the policy level rather than make a series of one-off exceptions that must later be explained, rationalized, and defended for the benefit other editors who weren't around when the original participants in the dispute decided to compromise and split the baby.

And, it's not so much that I see Graeber or Butler as pushing an agenda; it's that the Reactions article made a fairly clean break with this one and now contains all of the opinion/commentary/reactions, with this article being left as a sort of nuts-and-bolts description of what has been happening. I recognize the perspective that "goals" is a sort of nuts-and-bolts issue, but IMO many other aspects can also be characterized that way, leaving us without a clear division of labor between the articles unless we keep with the "clean break" approach. Personally, I run WP on a very fast computer with a 1080p monitor, so I don't actually care if an article is 1024k in length, but this is apparently quite undesirable to the rest of WP users and editors. So the article was split, and we're left with what (IMO) is a pretty artificial distinction splitting the article in two, but I think we need to stick with it, without exception.

Again, I think the Salon piece is a fine source and should be used for whatever it can be used for. I don't know that a fair paraphrase of that piece would necessarily say that demands "would be a counterproductive legitimization of the very power structures the movement seeks to challenge", but it's certainly in the same ballpark and I would think that something that you find satisfactory could be gotten from it. Actually, I'm wondering if the best approach of all would be to use the following direct quote:

Either they say there are no demands and that leaves your critics confused, or they say that the demands for social equality and economic justice are impossible demands.

Again, though, I think we need to maintain the "clean break" between this and the Reactions article, otherwise we're just inviting endless content disputes about which opinions/commentary/etc. are central enough to be here instead, also including counterproductive disputes about POV forking, none of which would materialize if we simply maintain the somewhat-bright-line distinction between general info and commentary that has been observed since the article split. This might not be as important with a less controversial article, but as with any topic implicating the personal ideology/life philosophy of individual editors, this one will always invite contentious disputes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the direct quote would be a good solution. I'll work on the wording of a framing sentence to come up with something short and accurate. Sindinero (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's in. I expanded the quote you suggested a bit, so that it's clearer to readers seeing it out of context. Since we have the Salon piece as the primary reference, I would still like to include the longer essay that was challenged earlier: I think this is important because Butler spells out her position in it in greater detail, and if I were a reader new to the topic, I would appreciate the reference. I know there are serious questions about the characterization of the source, but unless anybody disputes that Butler actually wrote the essay in question ("So What are the Demands?"), I think it would be useful to include in an auxiliary capacity. Are there objections? Sindinero (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Break one

There are a few misunderstandings on your part. No offense. First, the "issue" of publication of source is in "dispute" as being self published. There has been no eveidence or argument presented to establish that it is or isn't. If it is not self published, please establish that in some manner that can be verified. Now, even if it is published (Publishing company?) there are issues with it's use to reference a claim or opinion of the very movement that it is published by or for.

The next misunderstanding is that this was an issue of prominence and that I had held some opinion about this author in regards to the issue of this discussion or article. No. Her prominence within the movement isn't what would make her of note here is it? If it is then she doesn't belong here but at the movement article. Focus issue. I, myself never said she was prominent I said she was creditialed enough as an expert, not to be dismissed on credentials ALONE. No one is dismissing anyone, but we cannot allow the two names to be along each other in this manner JUST because one figure has "distanced themselves" and another has stepped up. On the article that would be projecting advocacy...especially if we can't establish all of the criteria for RS. If this figure deserves mention from the notability to this subject it does not have to be PUSHED. It will be in some other RS, but this isn't the movement article it's about the protests in NYC. IF the figure you are concerned about is a part of the NYC protests...ESTABLSIH THAT, both in the article and in the discussion with secondary, published sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Excuse me, but are you seriously alleging that Judith Butler published Tidal herself? That's my understanding of wp's definition of 'self-published.' But even if the essay in question is self-published, it can be used, according to WP:SELFPUB, as a source of information about Butler's views on a given topic. I'm not sure how an inclusion of Butler's opinion would be a "projection of advocacy" - advocacy of what, exactly? Can you explain a little more clearly what you mean? No intelligent reader will possibly take the fact that we've included both Graeber's and Butler's opinions as our editorial pronouncement on their respective importance or centrality, will they? Sindinero (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well...thanks for at least stating clearly "the fact that we've included both Graeber's and Butler's opinions as our editorial pronouncement on their respective importance or centrality" Advocacy.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no ideal why you ask if I am alleging anything. Either prove it is or isn't and do not rely on your own interpretation.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How does WP:SELFPUB apply here in your argument?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You said "it can be used, according to WP:SELFPUB, as a source of information about Butler's views on a given topic." WP:SELFPUB says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So...YOU are saying she published the magazine herself?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read a little more carefully to understand what I wrote: I said explicitly that we're not making any editorial pronouncements by including Graeber and Butler, that should be obvious. You can't quote half a sentence out of context (a clause without a main verb) to show that I've said something I haven't. Where exactly is the advocacy, again? You still haven't made that clear. Advocacy of what?

The guidelines on self-publication apply if we accept the source as self-published, something you are pushing for. IF it's self-published, THEN we can use it according to certain clear guidelines. IF it's NOT self-published, THEN it's not clear why we can't use Butler's essay. Is that explicit enough? So you tell me: are you asserting that her essay is self-published or not?

In general, please tone down the shrillness and defensiveness. We've communicated well in the past, in my opinion, and I'm not sure why you're taking this tone now. Sindinero (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source; it seems the essay in question also appeared in a shortened version as a speech. This source (the text, not the video) shows that she addressed OWS in NYC, so I think that answers the question of whether her critique is relevant to the movement in general or to OWS. [11] And here's the transcript: [12] Sindinero (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Salon is fine as a source AFAIK. Tidal is definitely not, absent any kind of showing that it could be an RS. In any event, the Butler piece belongs, if anywhere, at Reactions per the consensus that resulted in the creation of that article. This article is no longer the place for people's opinions about OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, that seems like a POV fork to me. If we have a section on goals, we need to include the prominent critical commentary on the idea that the movement should have goals at all. This is not just a 'reaction to OWS', but a specific position on the question of goals. Sindinero (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keeping all the opinion and commentary on OWS in its own article is not POV forking. POV forking would be reflected in an insistence on including positive commentary about the goals of OWS in this article, while also insisting on keeping critical commentary on the goals of OWS hidden in the Reactions article. Nutshell: it's only a POV fork if the forking favors or is biased towards one prominent POV rather than the other. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I think (and if I remember right, another editor agrees) that the 'goals' section is the appropriate place for commentary on goals. As a side note, I'm not sure why people are so eager to see Butler's piece as 'positive commentary' on OWS: it's an opinion that reflects some strands within the movement while disagreeing with others, not an appraisal of the movement as such. Sindinero (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)}

Have we any consensus as to whether opinions on the movement's goals, such as Butler's, which do not address OWS in particular, again, such as Butler's, can be attributed as OWS goals? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of a distraction; as mentioned above, OWS was in the title of the essay, and the speech I posted above (in a RS, Salon), was given at an OWS rally. So the question isn't really that relevant here. Sindinero (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration

This was removed by another editor who is now indef blocked but was the editor to remove the mention in the section. I think the section should be removed until consensus determines if it is undue weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with the use of this content in this article but many more with the way it was copy pasted into this article with no attribution link in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: "At minimum, attribution must be provided in the edit summary of the page into which content is placed. This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.". For this reason I am removing just this section from the article. The merge should be proposed and discussed. See Help:Merging.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a merge. A merge is when the origin article is blanked and redirected to another article. This is just a summary (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). No attribution is required since the original article is retained. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please seek advise or review above policy. Partial or full is still a merge. Please do not edit this section further as it is still a part of the mediation as seen in lest of issues. I am reverting again as this is a merge and we are not to be editing section from the mediation.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

True, if the mediation does still involve the goals section go ahead (that wasn't all too clear to me). It's not a merge, but I guess we can address that at mediation too. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

PS. Your link (WP:SMERGE) states: "Delete all the text from the source page and replace it with #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] {{R from merge}}." We didn't do that, as I said. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Any content that is moved from one page to another with prose and referrences is a merge. There are sveral kinds of merges. Please review policy on attribution. Your problem with that may be brought up as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If that were the case, why did you permanently remove the content? Why not follow your revert with re-adding the content and adding the summary you feel was missing? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think? Because the information has consensus for exclusion at this time. Information being merged to and from controversial articles should be discussed first.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where that consensus was demonstrated, but I guess we'll have to handle this at mediation too. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no...you don't get to add disputes to mediation as you edit the article you agreed NOT to edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The last word on that was not to edit the section(s) being mediated, rather than the whole article. Thus far that's pretty much only been the economic one, though goals were mentioned at some point -- which is why I've consented to this last revert. As far as that barring me from discussing this new issue at the mediation, I guess we'll see. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Barring is something you brought up. I have no intention of discussing anything that was not brought up initially and am wondering if this is even a good idea at all. Originally we were to not edit, then you got to edit as long as you don't edit the sections involved in mediation, but now I see you take advantage of any possible way to get things changed for readons I have clearly decided are not good faith. I doubt mediation can help this situation. I see editors being blocked and banned all the time and i think at this point it's better to let this go. Mediation is not working in my opinion. It has made it worse.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, assume good faith. Second of all, breathe. Third, if you don't think mediation is the way to go, I'm not sure how else you plan to handle this conflict. We haven't gotten anywhere on our own or at DRN. I'm open to further suggestions. If you decide to withdraw from mediation I can't stop you. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was completely unaware that AKA took out a section on that... I merely saw the article in the links (I think that's where it was), looked at it and saw it obviously belonged. You may not believe it, but it's so. Amadscientist, if you are withdrawing from the mediation, how do you propose to solve problems? B^e——C_ritical 04:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I encourage all of you to remain in the mediation process. We are always free to add more issues to discuss on the list, and with things calmed down, I think our focus is now ready. I repeat what I said on the mediation case page. If I have to close the mediation, then an RFAR would be the only venue of relief for you all. I hate to bring it up, I really do, but you have to understand the severity of withdrawing from mediation at this stage in the game. Lord Roem (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not withdrawing. B^e——C_ritical 04:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, in case that was in question. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so back to business, I don't see any reason that the 99% declaration wouldn't receive a small paragraph since it's worthy of it's own article. It is definitely related specifically to OWS. B^e——C_ritical 16:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to include it at this time. It's notability is questionable, it's mention in this article has been a point of contention for some time now. However, if you wish to include the section and really fel it should be included, I encourage you to make a formal proposal and place the tag on both pages to seek consensus of editors. If this is something you wish to do you can find assistance in proposing merger of content at sveral locations including some already mentioned in this thread. If you would like i can point those locations out again or assist in creating the proposal in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A Merge Proposal might even be something to consider for editors who wish to re-"merge" the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you call it a merge. I don't want to merge. I want to include a small section as with the We are the 99% article and reactions article. To put it another way: if it's notable enough for an article, it's notable enough for a paragraph here. If it's not, then that article should be deleted. One or the other. It may not be notable enough for an article though. B^e——C_ritical 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good point. The question is, did the section you used as an example get placed in this article...or was it split into the other article? What it appears you did in the original Bold merge was to take the lede from this page: 99 Percent Declaration (editing box) and copy paste it into this article with a slight copy edit. This is a WP:SMERGE, meaning that selected content was merged.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly what he did, but it doesn't matter what he did. Let's discuss what to do now. Assume we'll be summarizing in paraphrased words. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In other other words, if the only problem with this was you seeing it as a merge due to copied text, we'll fix that next time. If there are any other issues preventing us from inserting a summary of that article here again, please present them. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Merging content with original prose from references can be a controversial move and should be discussed first to gain consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

...except I just said we're not going to be doing it that way. Different words will be used. Anything else? Equazcion ^(talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we get a third opinion on whether you just re-stated exactly what I just said? You appear to be for inclusion. Then I encourage a merge proposal.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If I read it right, we can use the text from the lead just as I did, but we have to attribute the article in the edit summary. That seems proper per my vague understanding of creative commons copyright, I just never thought of applying it between WP articles. And no there's no need to go through any rigamarole like a merge proposal per WP:BURO, if we agree that the info is notable. B^e——C_ritical 22:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Basicly, yes. That would be a bare minimum. There are also some other procedural things such as templates and alike that are also recommended, but some of the more important factors include, merging content during a dispute, and/or merging content as original prose as well as merging content from two controversial articles without a full proposal and discussion.

Yes I'm for inclusion, but of a re-worded summary that doesn't carry the attribution problem. If there's no other issue with inserting a summary of that article here, I'm going to go ahead with it. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an awefully aggresive move when I am attempting to help get this proposed and discuss. Odd that you think a bold addition of content without consenus or discussion is acceptable now....but you refused to allow edits to another article without discussion first. Well. I cannot control your actions. I just encourage you to be a reasonable editor and not edit war.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary is inserted. The only problem you had with this was the copy/paste, and that's not been done this time. The procedure you're referring to isn't required for this. It's just a summary. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amadscientist, I believe your position makes Wikipedia out to be a sclerotic bureaucracy and that this can be bypassed. If there are objections per real policy, such as WEIGHT or something, then that is a different matter. And, we are not edit warring as you and AKA used to do: we are discussing, forming consensus prior to insertion. Your original revert was undone by Equazcion because he did not believe your stated basis was even accurate: it was not undone because he was attempting to enforce his will in the face of controversy. I also sometimes revert if the other person's edit summary makes it clear they misunderstood the edit. B^e——C_ritical 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bypassing WP rules and bureaucratic requirements is not an acceptable way of building articles, especially on controversial subjects where WP regulatory infrastructure is needed the most to sort out disputes and conflicting goals.

Anything more than a brief sentence mentioning this 99% declaration or group would be excessive and undue weight. Both the existence of the org and their document have barely registered in mainstream discussion, and really the only reason a separate article was made was because of the widely perceived need to prevent the group from being associated too directly with OWS. The circumstances provide no support whatsoever for a boot-strapping argument that "I don't see any reason that the 99% declaration wouldn't receive a small paragraph since it's worthy of it's own article." Further, we simply don't use existence of WP articles as a sign of notability -- we use the prominence of the entity or subject in mainstream discourse as reflected by reliable sources. That's core policy and we don't "bypass" it because we feel an article subject deserves more attention than it has been given by the mainstream. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we probably should consider the existence of the article as a sign that it's notable enough to be summarized in a related article. If one wants to make the argument that the article isn't notable and was created for the wrong reasons, they're actually arguing for a merge, not exclusion. If the rationale for its creation was actually as you say, and its sources present now still don't establish its notability, a merge is definitely in order, though that would have to be shown. I see quite a few prominent sources there right now. As long as the article is there, though, it should be summarized here. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And PS, more wholesale removals are really not what we need here -- which I see you've done despite having said it should merely be reduced. Wonderful. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Burden is on adding editors to fashion something that isn't undue weight. Pare it down yourself rather than snarkily complaining that I didn't oblige. "More wholesale removals are really not what we need here" reflects obliviousness to reality; if the material doesn't belong, it should be removed. And statements to the effect of "we should probably ignore this policy" are almost always wrong; no, we don't consider the existence of a WP article as evidence of notability -- that's a circumvention of WP:V, a core policy that is not to be circumvented. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Burden's not on anyone in particular to work in reaching a compromise on material in conflict. The rule that those for inclusion incur burden has conspicuously been created out of thin air here, and it's going to stop. You've heard of words like "compromise" and "collaborate"? You said a line is okay with you? Well, in the spirit of compromise.... see where I'm going with this? Let me know if you need clarification, I'll try to simplify my wording next time. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think the burden's on me to bring content you want to add into compliance with policy, I'm afraid discussion won't be very productive. Allow me to be clear: anything more than, e.g., "a separate group has split off from OWS to propose its own demands" — with no recitation of the 99% group list of demands (or further explication of why they think OWS has it all wrong) — would be undue weight and should be removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I said burden is "not on anyone in particular." I don't know how to make that any clearer, but I can try. Just ask. Burden is on each of us to collaborate towards a solution acceptable to us both. Policy isn't a bright line. We each have a conflicting interpretation and we're both (assumedly) trying to compromise on it. If something is added that you'd be amenable to in a different form, you don't get to say, "Nope, sorry, try again." You make the edits that would bring the content to a state you see fit. That's how a wiki works. We get to edit each other's content until a compromise is reached. Rather than remove. If you understand the difference. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I do get to remove content that doesn't belong here. So do you. Neither of us gets to simply add content without being subject to the scrutiny of other editors. The basic consensus model is that objectionable content is removed and then replaced with content that reflects a compromise -- not that objectionable content stays until editors reach agreement on what should be removed.

Your "pared down" version still gives prominence to the 99% list of demands. This article is about OWS, not the 99% group. For absolutely no justifiable reason, you are insisting on giving more copy to the 99% declaration demands than to actual OWS demands. You have provided no justification for this and in fact there is none. I'll likely be removing this again when I get home from work unless you have shown further efforts at crafting the extremely minimal reference to the 99% percent group that is warranted in an article about OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems like unreasonable obstructionism. To my mind, the better solution would be to keep Equazcion's much shortened version, and add a sentence or clause about the smaller group's contested relationship to OWS. Sindinero (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And, according to you, Centrify, not all of it didn't belong, so why remove it all? See Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching consensus through editing -- Improve by revising first. And, no, this isn't more copy than that given to OWS' demands (first paragraph of Goals, which is actually longer than the sentence on the Declaration). Furthermore, there's no reason a comparison of weight given to one vs. the other means a comparison of concrete demands alone. Just because that group happens to favor demands, while an explanation of OWS' goals mainly must consist of their rationale for not having demands, doesn't mean the rest of the goals section here doesn't count towards weight. We spend a lot more content here describing OWS' motivation than the Declaration group -- several paragraphs vs. a single sentence. There's no reason to cut it down any further than that. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The idea that we have to go through some sort of bureaucratic process just to give a summary of a sub-article in a main article (or one article in another where relevant) is completely incorrect. If anyone believes otherwise, then we need to go to a noticeboard, but I don't know how anyone could seriously believe. However, it is beginning to look like the Declaration article should be merged here since as Centrify says it may not not be notable enough for its own article. So let's merge it. It is worthy of its own paragraph here, which briefly describes the gist of it. But if people can, in fact, successfully argue that it should not be merged, then that is an indication that it's worthy of inclusion here. Centrify, try to collaborate and compromise. Do not blank when you can fix. B^e——C_ritical 17:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus clearly shows that at least a mention is worthy, but not yet agreed on that an entire section is needed. Having an article does not mean it necessarily needs it's own section.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It currently doesn't have ITS own section, and I'm not sure if anyone is suggesting that it needs ITS own section. Sindinero (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone isn't suggesting that actually. One editor is suggesting a merge of content but that doesn't mean they want a full section, but again it is a matter of undue weight. How much mention is needed?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a productive question to be asking, and the answer will depend on whatever consensus or compromise we can hammer out. Several editors are in favor of at least some mention, so hopefully we can dispense with any further unilateral blankings..? Sindinero (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you commit to not making any further unilateral additions of material that gives undue weight to a barely notable, marginally relevant subject whose inclusion at this article was rejected by consensus months ago? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has changed. It's obvious to me that if it survived two AfDs [13][14] it is the consensus of the community that it is notable. B^e——C_ritical 21:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just silly and belies what actually happened. For starters, the consensus to keep the article reflected substantial concern that the 99% group was separate from, because it was rejected by, OWS, and that a separate article was justified to avoid confusing readers. Others not voting to delete felt it was simply not notable enough for its own article and should merge with the OWS article. Giving the 99% Declaration substantial attention at an article about OWS exacerbates both problems by exaggerating both the notability of the document and the strength of its affiliation with OWS.

"Consensus can change" is not a license to simply ignore what has gone before after an issue has been put to bed by the greater community and discussion has died down. And it certainly is not a basis for two or three editors who habitually ignore policy to decide on their own that the community got it wrong. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A small mention in this article seems only due WEIGHT to me, even if the "keep" decision was not very strong. B^e——C_ritical 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

How much mention does the subject of the 99 Percent declaratiion need in this article in comparison to say, the Liberty Square document?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No more than, and quite possibly less than, the amount of attention given in this edit. Additionally, this article cannot fail to mention that the 99% Declaration and its group have not been endorsed by OWS proper, with at least one General Assembly flatly rejecting both the document, its demands, its website, and the group that produced it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true, not to mention that the Liberty Square Blueprint is ONLY mentioned within brackets. I suggest copy editing down all mention of the 99 Percent declaration to the exact same single mention with no references within those same brakets and no more.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's about right the way it is. Like I said above, propose the article for a merge, and let that discussion determine WEIGHT in this article. Having less than a sentence for something that passed AfD is UNDUE in the other direction. What is the big deal here? B^e——C_ritical 20:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note, just for the record, that the discussion convinced me that the Declaration had less notability than that which it would need to justify its own section/subsection. And thus all the disruptive editing and talk page discussion and the edit warring was merely counterproductive. Such tactics merely server to push us closer to ArbCom- which will not look kindly on tactics of force, but will look to see if editors have used calmness, reason, compromise and collegiality and have avoided absolutist positions backed up by various forms of heavy-handedness. B^e——C_ritical 04:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds vaguely like a threat. Spoiler: disruptively adding contentious material, in a manner that ignores prior consensus, and without first seeking consensus for the addition, is itself the source of the policy violation and editor dispute here. Using rhetoric about edit-warring to complain about the removal of such material is just a tad disingenuous. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit warring was over the insertion of their preferred versions, not over reverting to longstanding text. B^e——C_ritical 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What that sentence means is anybody's guess. Regardless, the consensus at the AFDs was that the appropriate place, if any, to discuss the 99% Declaration was the article about that document. More recently, the discussion of "Goals" was pared down to a minimum, with most commentary on the movement reserved for other articles. Most recently, you and a couple of other editors, ignoring the invitation to discuss the matter first, simply started unilaterally adding text that ended up devoting more page space to the rejected goals of this rejected splinter group than to the actual goals of OWS itself. And now you are lecturing me about compromise for not seeking your personal approval for removal. That ain't how it works, pal. You don't get to ignore rules on collaborative editing when they are contrary to what you want to do, and then cite a bass-ackwards perversion of them — purporting to prohibit removal of any material at all, irrespective of why it is objectionable, without discussing it with the adding editor first — once you've edit-warred your preferred "right version" into place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but it just sounds like you misunderstand the sequence and my editing practices. I adhered to BRD. B^e——C_ritical 16:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain what you mean by that? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I made some minor changes but did not change the amount of coverage or content other than mention that the 99% group was an example of a "demands" group. I believe that it is appropriate as presently presented because the 99% group appears to now be defunct and the Liberty doc has had no further content added since October. Gandydancer (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Expanding income inequality

Income inequality weighs heavily on this topic, being the primary reason people felt the need to start the OWS movement. A summary of the statistics and history of the aspect that motivates them fundamentally should be represented with more completeness than the terse existing section. Below is the current draft suggested by User:Becritical (many thanks for all his work on this). It seems to be well-sourced. If anyone has any particular objection to it, please post specifics so we can work on addressing them before we post it. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We should probably start with the very obvious objection that it's substantially OR — original unpublished analysis and synthesis of both primary and secondary sources. Any analysis that doesn't cite directly to sources specifically discussing the relation between U.S. income inequality and OWS can't go in the article. That's just basic policy.

More critically, even where there is sourcing that discusses the topic in relation to OWS, the below text makes no effort to actually discuss the relation with OWS. Instead, the reader is essentially instructed to infer that "this entire description of a social problem, constructed by a WP editor using sources having nothing to do with OWS, should be understood as what the protesters are complaining about."

Altogether, the paragraph clearly and blatantly violates WP:OR. Moreover, this was pointed out to BeCritical long ago and his response seems to simply be that we should ignore policy if it obstructs the truth or otherwise gets in the way of what a particular editor wants to do. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Further comment: the section as it is currently written is fine and relies on sources that explicitly address the topic in connection with OWS. There is no need to pad the section with extensive OR. I don't see why this discussion was even started. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss it: your first request for discussion is that it might be OR. Do you see any parts that are OR? If so, post them here. Please start with the most blatant instance of OR, stating exactly why it is OR.

Second, please list the sources that have nothing to do with OWS and are being used as exclusive sources for the text, instead of as a courtesy for the reader.

Third, please state how it is wrong to assume/assert, as do the sources, that "this entire description of a social problem... should be understood as what the protesters are complaining about." B^e——C_ritical 13:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to start with the most central problems. If, as you say, "the sources" assert that a particular problem or aspect of a problem is what OWS protesters are concerned about, you (1) should have no trouble finding sources that say everything that needs to be said, and (2) should have no need to conduct original research to present analysis that goes beyond what the sources say.

Other than that, I'm not sure why feel entitled to demand a detailed explanation of why OR policy is what it is. In a nutshell: it's to prevent WP editors from constructing, whole-cloth, their own original analysis and interpretation of events and concepts surrounding an article topic. Nor are you entitled to an exhaustive explanation of precisely which prose is OR or which sources are being used in the OR. A plain reading of the policy tells you all you need to know: if you are presenting analysis or synthesis that is not directly given by reliable sources in connection with the article subject, it's OR. If you find that inconvenient, your quibble is with WP policy, not me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This material has already gone through extensive overhaul. If you feel that there is still OR involved, the burden is in fact on you to point out where and how. Sindinero (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that an editor has put forth efforts to make some OR material less OR-ish is really neither here nor there and does not burden me with the task of exhaustively pointing out what's wrong with it.

That said, since you're going to be stubborn about it: Every single bit of prose that cites only to material that does not discuss OWS is OR.

And I'll note that no one has given any justification for expanding the section other than that some editors feel it is not given enough attention. That's all well and good, but if mainstream sources don't give the subject enough attention, it is emphatically not the role of Wikipedia to fill in the gaps. I really should not have to explain this to you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we've had weeks and months of assertions, but never real explanation. The sources are presented, an assertion of OR has been made, but not explained. BTW, far from the sources not giving the subject enough WEIGHT, the section could be expanded much more per WEIGHT, as this is the most, or one of the most WEIGHTY parts of the article. But nevermind that, please just explain your assertions. B^e——C_ritical 14:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain that original analysis and synthesis of published material by a WP editor is unacceptable for inclusion in any article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not sure how clearly the rest of us can explain that we understand the relevant policy; now please proceed to state your objections in detail and explain why you think what is original research or synthesis. To vaguely allege OR and leave it up to everyone else to guess what exactly you may be referring to is obstructionism, no matter how often or exasperatedly you gesture towards relevant policy. Sindinero (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's how: Say which text, in particular, you believe to be OR or SYNTH. Just waving a hand toward the whole thing isn't specific enough to allow a response. B^e——C_ritical 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Any prose that cites to sources that do not even mention OWS is OR. Any prose that uses sources saying nothing about OWS to say something about OWS is OR. It's dishonest to complain about "obstructionism" whilst making no effort whatsoever to justify the use of sources saying nothing about OWS. It's the burden of editors wishing to add material to show that it is verifiable. This doesn't just mean that everything has to reference a source, and that nothing more is required. It means that everything must reference a source that explicitly contemplates a connection with the WP article's subject. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to explain yourself your unsupported assertions cannot carry any weight in this discussion, and cannot be counted toward consensus. B^e——C_ritical 15:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've explained myself very clearly. No material citing to sources that don't discuss OWS is appropriate for inclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Then if you are unable to explain your objection, it seems there is consensus for the new version. B^e——C_ritical 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sticking your fingers in your ears and citing to "I DIDN'T HEAR THAT" doesn't get you where you want to go. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Centrify's objection here originated with AKA (now indef-blocked) who didn't have any other reason to call for cutting down this section and was grasping at straws. Amadscientist had similarly repeated this objection after hearing it from AKA. This so-called rule itself is all that's "original" though. No one's been able to point out a policy that legitimizes it. Amadscientist had referred to SYN at least, but SYN doesn't cover this. These are well-sourced facts, and the location where well-sourced facts get included is not an OR issue. This is one point which we did get a clear outside opinion on at DRN here (from an admin, not that that should necessarily carry special weight, but it wasn't from some new/inexperienced user at least). Unless there's some new justification other than this, there's no reason to exclude the expanded material, as there's absolutely nothing OR about it. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No matter what type of name-calling or guilt-by-association you resort to, original analysis and synthesis by WP editors is still OR and doesn't belong in an article. You should have no problem referencing the discussion entirely from sources that discuss the topic in connection with OWS and with respect to its implications for OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If my characterization of the problems with the objection are faulty then show me the relevant policy statements that back up your claim. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, all material in the proposed section has secondary sources which are specifically discussing OWS. B^e——C_ritical 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

So again, in the absence of any specific objections as I said above "Here's how: Say which text, in particular, you believe to be OR or SYNTH. Just waving a hand toward the whole thing isn't specific enough to allow a response" then it seems we do have a consensus here. But as always, I'm very happy to respond to specific objections or concerns. B^e——C_ritical 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If content is being challenged as OR please post the content here or point it out so all editors can look at and assess it. I don't really understand alleging OR and ignoring the simple appropriate request to state what the OR content is. General repeated allegations of OR with out any evidence does become disruptive at some point. Determining whether the content is OR should precede discussions of Weight or placement. First things first. If the content is OR it will be removed and Weight and placement won't even come into the equation. Could we move ahead with this next step, please.(olive (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC))

Ok, though I now see that some of the sources in that reflist are not used anywhere in the prose, I also see that numerous of the sources that are used in the prose make no mention of OWS or related protests, with some of them predating OWS by years. Since so many editors here apparently feel that the burden is on the editor wishing to remove content to show that the content isn't acceptably sourced, and since the author of the prose has authored it while somehow magically not noticing that so many sources discuss things that might be of interest to OWS instead of actually discussing OWS, I suppose I will shoulder the burden of carefully parsing through the prose and sources and flagging all these sources that somehow escaped the author's attention.

This isn't supposed to be my burden to begin with, but I suppose I'll have to tread the high road alone. It'll take some time. Probably tomorrow. Cheers for the homework assignment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some of the sources are included because the secondary sources reference them, as a courtesy to the reader. I believe that the secondary sources which do make a connection between what they are saying and OWS are the ones I used to source the text. But if you can show me where the source does not say what the text does, I'll be grateful, and I'll change the text to fit the source we have or I'll add sources and adjust text as necessary. And yes it is supposed to be your burden to say what problems you find. That's because my BURDEN is carried by the addition of the sources themselves. WP would not work any other way. I would have included quotes, however, that did not prove to help in the past as people merely asked me to source each word instead of each sentence. B^e——C_ritical 02:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia could easily, and in fact does easily, work the way you insist it could not. Here's an illustration; note the critical steps reflected in boldface text:

1. Editor fashions long segment of article text containing footnotes and wishes to insert the whole thing into Wikipedia article.
2. Other editor notices some sources don't appear to substantiate connection to article topic and raises that in talk.
3. Authoring editor explains what source material he was referring to when he came up with his paraphrasing, or puts forth quoted language substantiating the prose -- a task that is not difficult for the author because he knows exactly which source material he had in mind when writing the paraphrasing language and adding the footnotes.
4. Authoring editor thus easily identifies the text which purportedly establishes the indicated relationship with the article topic.

The way you insist upon is nowhere near as easy:

1. Editor fashions long segment of article text containing footnotes and wishes to insert the whole thing into Wikipedia article.
2. Other editor notices some sources don't appear to substantiate connection to article topic and raises that in talk.
3. Authoring editor asserts generally "it's all fine dude" and demands that challenging editor exhaustively document every specific problem with prose and sourcing.
4. Challenging editor must parse through every word of every source listed and try to locate quotes and understand what authoring editor had in mind when he wrote particular paraphrasing language. This is difficult because the challenging editor is not a mind reader.
5. The more sources the authoring editor has listed, and the less careful or honest he was with sourcing, the more difficult it is for the challenging editor to understand what the hell the authoring editor had in mind, since the authoring editor does not use helpful quoted text or otherwise indicate the relationship of the source text to the article text.
6. If the authoring editor also isn't careful about footnote placement and simply stacks numerous footnotes at the end of each sentence, this task is even more difficult.
7. If the challenging editor is unable to easily identify the source text which the authoring editor insists establishes the indicated relation with the article topic, he has no choice but to keep looking until he is absolutely sure there is not a scintilla of support for the prose. Even then, the challenging editor cannot "prove" this because there is never any language to quote that shows a source doesn't talk about something ... the only way to "prove it" would be to quote the entire article and say, "Look, there's no support here..."

I'll note that this latter approach was a favorite tactic of User:Dualus, who was perhaps the most disruptive editor I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and who spent many weeks or even months insisting that other editors exhaustively document all the problems with his long OR-infused essay about OWS and Lawrence Lessig. He, like you, refused to assist other editors in understanding exactly what the heck he had in mind when he placed a footnote at the end of a sentence...

This, friend, is one of the chief reasons why I keep insisting it's the adding editor's burden to demonstrate that cited sources substantiate article text. The authoring editor is in the best position to put the debate to rest — because only he can easily identify the source language he had in mind when he wrote the article text. WP:V strongly suggests that this is indeed your burden; I've yet to hear of any policy making it clear that WP:BURDEN requires only that the author put some footnotes in text he adds, while everything else is up to the challenging editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope that's not how it works, because as part of step two challenging editor says which part of the text is not supported by sources. He doesn't just wave a hand toward the whole passage. Had you merely said sentence X has no support in the sources I would have given you a quote. But you weren't even willing to put yourself out that much. And I've used quotations in the references on this article before, but people were, apparently, unable to read them and asked me to source by the word instead of the sentence. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to pose a decent question. B^e——C_ritical 13:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in other words, making unfalsifiable observations doesn't get anyone anywhere. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like you know what "unfalsifiable" means. My assertions could easily be falsified with a showing of textual support. That said, I suppose it's fruitless trying to further persuade you of the inherent unreasonableness of your position. I'll proceed with all due haste (which, I'd note, is not a whole lot of haste) to parse the prose and each source line by line to determine whether the support is there. Please note that, in the meantime, you have no consensus for this addition. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It really can't. You're asking us to prove the negative -- that there are no problems. Rough analogy: I design a car, you ask me to prove it's safe. That can't be done. Generally others come inspect it and report problems they find so they can be corrected. That's basically how it tends to work in most things. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(inserted out of turn) Now you're just distorting our discussion to make your unreasonable position sound reasonable. I'm not asking that you show "that there are no problems" or prove any other "negative". As I said, a showing of textual support for the proposed article prose is all I have asked for and would be much, much less labor-intensive than the alternative task you're insisting other editors take upon themselves. That showing is also part of your burden, which you are trying to shift to other editors, thereby making work for them in order to show the material shouldn't be included — when in actuality, WP policy requires that you do the work to show the material should be included. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Still no consensus for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If that were all objectors had to say in order to keep something from being included, you'd be golden. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Objectors? No...editors. And it may make you golden as well. Just take a poll and see if there are enough editors who support the inclusion. Collaboration and consensus is how decisions are made on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, consensus is not a vote and wikipedia is not a democracy. You have to show reasons, something which you have failed to do in a manner more spectacular than I've ever seen before. B^e——C_ritical 17:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I never said consensus was a vote (in fact I always state that). Nor did I ask for such. Funny how you make up claims about others as character assination. I have eplained myself and my position...you have not. Spectacular is your efforts to push POV. But polls are a common way to see current consensus. We have done them here on this article many times.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Without reasons, your position is merely IDONTLIKEIT. B^e——C_ritical 17:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And just saying I have made no argument is not accurate, considering I have gone out of my way to do such. There is no consensus for inclusion at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you give a link to your argument? I don't recall anything except unsupported assertions. B^e——C_ritical 18:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny....I recall the same about you.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As you should, since I'm not the one with the burden to make an argument here: I've provided the citations and text, it's up to you to say why you feel they are not acceptable. B^e——C_ritical 21:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What policy or guideline is this from?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you just make that up? Seriously? Because the policy is: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. from WP:Burden/Wikipedia:Verifiability. It also says "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it." per [15] Wikipedia:Tendentious editing--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Burden" refers to content that is added or re added and to the fact that it must be reliably sourced. It is up to the editor adding the content to source it appropriately. If once the content has been added the content or source becomes contentious, then it is only logical to expect the editor challenging the source to indicate what is wrong. Its unreasonable to expect an editor to fix something when he doesn't know what's wrong with it. I hope this provides the context for "Burden" which wasn't included in the quote above.(olive (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

But of course you'll agree that an editor's "burden" is not satisfied simply by adding some footnotes, generally assuring everyone that the sourcing is kosher, and calling it a day. In face of an objection, the editor wishing to add content must show that it is reliably sourced.

And it is never the duty of another editor to exhaustively document every problem with a proposed addition when that editor's objections clearly identify a problem. Thus, since I've pointed out that the prose cites to sources that do not address the article topic at all, it's the burden of the editors wishing to add the material to show that, in BeCritical's words, the prose cites only to "secondary sources which are specifically discussing OWS". That task shouldn't be hard, especially for the editor who authored the section, and it's clearly called for by policy.

But so far all I have heard are complaints from BeCritical about past disputes with other editors, where he's allegedly tried all this before without success, with the conclusion that he's tired of debating this and doesn't feel he ought to have to play along. Perhaps a protracted history of failure to garner consensus should be taken as a sign that the content doesn't belong here. In any event, it cannot afford a justification for needlessly making work for other editors by refusing to take the efficient, standard approach that is called for by policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, whether you like it or not, once there is sourcing you have to either say why it doesn't live up to policy... or remove yourself from consideration in the consensus. You have to specifically state at least one objection in such a manner that it can be defined and fixed. Once it is fixed or there is determination there isn't a problem, then if you still have objections you must, again, clearly define them. That's your job and your burden and no one else's. B^e——C_ritical 20:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely we are all obligated to justify our positions or direction and edits, however, burden is not "the content". Burden, is the load which one carries. In this case the policy states clearly that burden is "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it." Not really that big a deal actually. Its just a guideline and is not a brightline rule. We can discuss what burden means to each of us, but it means little in the long run. Application of anything of this sort is only necessary if there is a discussion and the one who establishes the discussion is at least the one must adhering to the spirit of Wikipedia, and even then...its not a gold medal, just an attempt to collaborate.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's poorly worded, but in context, WP:TE is referring to unsourced or poorly sourced content. WP:BURDEN specifically applies to verifying unsourced material; WP:BURDEN does not apply to other content challenges such as WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Dreadstar ☥ 23:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Once reliable sources are provided for content, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied. WP:OR does not have a burden component beyond WP:V and the related WP:CITE requirements. It is only reasonable (and commonsense) for editors to identify exactly what content they believe is a violation of WP:OR once BURDEN has been satisfied. The challenger should really explain exactly what the problem content is. Dreadstar ☥ 23:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Such a task is made much more difficult when the adding editor refuses to identify source text substantiating the prose. That burden of the adding editor is prior to any burden carried by a challenging editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By providing in-line citations, the adding editor has already done this. Sindinero (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, by providing in-line citations, the adding editor has identified sources that he believes support the proposed prose. The few parenthetical quotes provided were of little use in trying to identify supporting source text, and were of no help in determining that many sources were being used inappropriately. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect, WP:BURDEN is indeed met by providing reliable sources, it is up to the challenger to identify what he believes to be OR or still-unsourced content. There is nothing in BURDEN that states an editor must identify the exact wording in a source that supports the content, that's a tad bit beyond the purpose of BURDEN. You'll need to negotiate this with the editor you're challenging instead of relying on a misinterpretation of WP:BURDEN. We also have tags to mark content that fails verification, in addition to tags that mark unsourced or poorly sourced content. Dreadstar ☥ 18:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I would add here is the point about Burden being met once reliable sources are provided for content. My point in any argument here with Burden is that in many cases relaible sources are not met. It would be the burden of the editor adding content to addres the isssues brought up about such, but again that takes discussion and sometimes editors strongly believe their sources meet criteria for RS but in reality, some fall short, It is my belief that if a source is questioned as RS then burden is not met. This is not a challenge to further this debate, just pointing out why I saw burden as not being met in this situation. But it is being met NOW by addressing the concerns.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're following the correct and best practice below by identifying problem content and sources, and discussing it, so nice job there! If you're questioning a source, then you have to identify the content and source being challenged, which is the crux of the particular debate above. Again, BURDEN is meant to put the onus for finding reliable sources on the editor seeking to add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced content, if an editor supplies sources for their content, then BURDEN is satisfied and it is then up to the challenger to identify the sources and related content they believe are not in the source or are still poorly sourced - which is different than identifying unreliable sources, if they're unreliable then BURDEN still applies - but someone still needs to identify what that unreliable source is, and explain why it's unreliable. WP:Collaboration, folks, that's what is needed past BURDEN. Dreadstar ☥ 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft

Original draft

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States. Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters. During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations. Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans." A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth. According to The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%. According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%. Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%. Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes. In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line. Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less.

Poll

Any polling should happen after the OR and any other issues have been resolved. Dreadstar ☥ 04:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we include the above information and references to the Income inequality section? Oppose - Not at this time. Original research concerns, POV and advocacy issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Throwing some general terms around doesn't qualify as an argument that would affect consensus. The draft has been up for about 2 days now with no specific objection raised, aside from this inconsequential reference to "issues". Unless someone shows specific objections, the section is going to be added. I think another 24 hours is reasonable. Equazcion (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Nope. Sorry, but consensus for inclusion has not been met.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC) It's 4 to 2 so far. Of course, consensus isn't a straight vote, but with no specific objections raised by those opposing, it's consensus. Equazcion (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I don't see that. I only see one oppose and thus far THAT is the consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Putting the word "oppose" in bold doesn't mean everyone else must do the same or not be counted. In fact, your comment above is probably the least apt to be considered towards consensus, out of all the discussion on this page. Equazcion (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Polls are part of the discussion. "[C]onsensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." per WP:TALKDONTREVERT.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, "part". That's correct. Not all. And yet, "all" you "see" is one oppose, which you've declared as consensus. As you're fond of pointing out, this isn't a vote. The fact that you've begun a poll, of which you're the only participant so far, doesn't remotely mean yours is the only opinion that's been presented. There's currently far more support for this draft than there is opposition. Equazcion (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Looks like 2 editors above against 2 other editors. That is no consensus, but maybe others may weigh in. Right now the poll shows only one oppose and no other replies. You posting but not participating means you are ignoring the discussion. Should you choose to edit the disputed content back in at this point, that would probably be disruptive editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I'm ignoring the discussion format you started, yes. I am definitely doing that. We're in complete agreement there. Ignoring the discussion? No, see my very many comments above. Unless you can point out a policy that says once a user begins a poll-style discussion, it replaces the rest of the discussion in determining consensus. Equazcion (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC) PS. it's 4 to 2 supporting, by my count. Sindinero and Littleolive_oil stated support in addition to myself and Becritical. Equazcion (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Not so sure on that from the discussion. That is why a poll was started. It is indeed a part of the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I never said it wasn't part of the discussion. So far it would seem it's only your part though. Everyone else's part can be found above, so read through that if things are currently unclear to you. Equazcion (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC) And all I am saying is that a poll will help us determine where everyone stands. But with even 4 to 2 that is not consensus. We need to get more opinion and moreeditors involved. Eventually this will get ironed out. Of that I have no doubt.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC) It is Amadscientist who has been ignoring the discussion for weeks by not telling us what his objections are even when we begged him to do so and even participated in a mediation to try and find out what he thought... a mediation from which he withdrew. I'm waiting for Factchecker to see if he brings up real objections. Be——Critical 21:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Not even close to accurate. Becritical continues to simply argue about editors and not his text. It has gotten him very far, but the text and references here are not entirely the same as was being discussed before I noticed, so we are both obligated to discuss are views. When I make my argument it is simply disputed and the very policy shown ignored. Becritical himself stated that this beuracracy of policy can be worked around. Yes, this is true. Consensus can chnage with the changing text. I still oppose the content, but I am only one editor and if consensus goes against me I will live with the prose. The problem is...whenever anything gets into this article, removing it becomes a huge hassle.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC) That honestly doesn't seem like "the problem" with this article. Look at what you write—you accuse Becritical of ignoring the textual problems and arguing about editors instead, and then you proceed to do exactly that. Reading this discussion is pretty exasperating: it seems like we could move on pretty quickly if you point out which parts of the text in question aren't supported by the sources or go against policy, and how. Doesn't that make more sense? Sindinero (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I 'd agree.To despersonalize and move on to a solution in dealing with disputed content we have to know what the disputed content is; the content has to be identified. With out the content to ground the discussion, views are meaningless. (olive (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)) I have to agree with Sindinero that I did indeed just repeat the same behavior I was complaining about. If you are willing to discuss the content I am willing as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC) The floor is yours. Sindinero (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft edited following consensus established under objections

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States. Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters. Studies over many years have shown increasing income inequality in the United States. These facts have been further pushed into the national spotlight by the OWS movement. OWS protesters are concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and what they see as the corrupting power that banks and multinational corporations hold over society. Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans." A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth. According to The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including the vast majority of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10%. Currently, the top 20% own 85% of the wealth; the 120 million poorest own .3%; and the most affluent 1% own about 33%. Deborah Jacobs of Forbes states that according to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, even before the 2008–2012 global recession the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%. Tax rates paid by the wealthiest are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the most affluent, whose income derives mostly from investments, pay less than 20%. Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes. In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line. Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less. Notes References

Objections to draft

Objection 1 by Amadscientist

Read full objection

"During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations." Source-Income Inequality"

• The first few lines are problematic. At the very least they require citations with each claim that may be disputed (now this may need some discussion to determine what "may be disputed", but it doesn't have to have a sepearte reference but at least a citation) But the claims themselves are not actually supported with a reliable source in the form of an inline citation. Its a bare url to a tertiary summary...not a tertiary source.

• It lacks author, publication etc information. The Times Topics is not an article with a byline but has been established to be a uncredited summary of varying publications from the past week. It is not even clear if all the information is from the Times Itself. It was suggested by the mediator that this could be overcome by finding the publications being summarized and using the actual sources. This summary link is not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 1

We might want to attribute to "the New York Times," or the opinion on greed to the protesters, but it appears to be reliable [16]. B^e——C_ritical 03:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that discussion clarified the source as reliable. I believe User:Encycloshave identifyed the source as a summary analysis, which "falls somewhere between "factual (reporting) content" and "analytical (editorial) content". He states that "analysis and opinion pieces [which] are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." He believed the point of contention was in the prose "in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations". Its not the prose it's the lack of authorship. You can't attribute this as analitical opinion without the author and I dispute that we can attribute in prose or in the citation, the source of the analitical summary alone. However, User:WhatamIdoing (also discussing the prose) stated: "the idea that the markets are motivated by greed is merely a plain, uncontestable fact of life, not an insult." And that is close to what I was thinking when reading through this how much of this section can be rewritten to be undisputed fact that need not be cited? Example: "Studies show increasing income inequality in the United States. It was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests are concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed currupting banks and multinational corporations." I think that alone is undisputable fact. If it's undisputable fact we really do not need the summary analitical opinion that has no authorship.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we can try to rewrite it as undisputed fact then. One thing in that source I thought was particularly encyclopedic was the context provided by "this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement." Here's a new draft of the passage...

Over the last 20 years economic studies have shown increasing income inequality in the United States, but this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests are concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and corrupting power that banks and multinational corporations hold .

What I did was bold the parts I think are disputed. I used your phrasing but added "power held by" since that's what the protesters mean. Did I get it right? Do you feel those are all uncontested facts, or do we need more rewriting or more sources? B^e——C_ritical 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that may be getting to specific in the beginning with a specific amount of time and a specific group of studies (in other words, some of these are not economic studies themselves) to be undisputed fact. We know there are huge amounts of studies and we (the two of us and I think one other at one point) know this is not disputed fact. But I would limit time to something that would not require a reference for dating.

"Studies in recent years have shown increasing income inequality in the United States. These facts have been further pushed into the national spotlight by the OWS movement. OWS protesters are concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and curruption of powerful banks and multinational corporations"

I Feel pretty strongly about one thing. It might not be good to try to determine what the protestors actually mean. It might not be correct.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with that. I can get other sources for anything in there which is their opinion or desires or focus though. That part at least is very easy to source. B^e——C_ritical 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I made that "powerful banks". Its undisputable and I wonder if it conveys that same information about "power held"?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree to this draft except the "curruption of powerful banks" part which isn't specific enough... it actually should be "corrupting power that banks and multinational corporations hold over society." That's the concept OWS is conveying, and we should be more specific about it. B^e——C_ritical 15:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that copy edit, except I wonder if we even need the last part about "over society". Not that it is questioned, but may be specific enough to then require a citation for that particular claim. If we just cut that part out it conveys they same, but sticks to the simpler facts to be undisputable. --Amadscientist (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me apply it to the draft to see if this works with you. If not, please remove it and we can continue.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department can be used as a reference citation for the first sentence as it's written in the prose about "studies in recent years..." which could be changed to "Studies over many years...".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection 2 by Amadscientist

Resolved

Read full objection The next line went through dispute resolution and was worked out as written, but still uses the Forbes source that is an Editorial Opinion piece and the Guardian Data blog, that I think is still being debated as to it being an opinion since it is clearly a blog (not a personal blog). I believe that line is well sourced with the Hiltzik, LA times reference alone and should the other two be used, would need to be used with attribution to Author and source. Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans." --Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC) The line "A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth.[15]" is not disputed by me. Seems good.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Discussion 2 If you agree (as I think you're saying) that the line is fine with fewer sources, that is not something I'd dispute. Be——Critical 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Yes. The Hiltzik, LA times reference you found was very good in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Cool. I have to continue this tomorrow... I need to get to bed. It's nice working with you (: Be——Critical 04:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you. It is nice to be working with you as well. I'll finish the last section before I hit the hay.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Draft changes 2 Forbes and Guardian refs removed from line Equazcion (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection 3 by Amadscientist

Read full objection

The next chunk I think should be discussed at once, but could be seperated as needed: "According to The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%. According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%."

• I just think this part is very confusing. It starts out with a false premise that is then debunked, but I am both unclear on the notability of that mention or if that is the best way to put any of that. "90% of..believe the top 20%..should own as much as 40%...and that the poorest 120 million...should own about 10%...However, in reality...repeat with different numbers.

• This doesn't seem like information that is needed at all. It seems to jumble them up to begin with. This is not a source argument, simply that I think the use of statistics in this case are a bit confusing and unwarrented. That is what I see with the entire chunk really, not even looking to see if the prose reflects the source or RS etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 3

I think you're right about it's being confusing. I will attempt to rewrite it to be more easily understood. It seems to me to be encyclopedic to give an overall view of how the ideas of the protesters relate to the ideas of the overall society. That's why I think it's appropriate summarize how what people want contrasts with the reality, since we have the source to do so. B^e——C_ritical 03:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there one major statistic you think may be the best one to convey the information? Just a suggestion.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll think about it... I don't really think there is just one statistic, it's all of them put together. The stats don't seem too terribly confusing to me and I'm not trained for such things. I'm not sure how we could convey it in a summary: to summarize it one would have to say "There is a gargantuan disparity between how people across the political spectrum believe wealth should be distributed and how it is actually distributed."

I just removed a draft which framed the statistics when I realized they're already framed... So now I'm not sure what could be done, maybe someone else has some way of doing this or a second opinion. B^e——C_ritical 04:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I really have only discussed this as being confusing and not conveying the message I think it is trying to convey, but I do have some concerns about the references and in particular their formatting. I have been meaning to ask if you would consider using the same formatting in the article and not bare urls? And I noticed one reference seems to be a link in a note. Did you think it may be time to add a notes section. Perhaps this is a way of including some of the opinion as conveniance links but used to refernce the claim in notes? Does this sound like it may be of interest?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft changes 3

• Copyedited the confusing line somewhat, see edited draft above. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That is much better, yes!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Now I wonder if all the Simon Rogers stuff can simply be moved together as to allow a single attribution to him for all the information. Splitting it all up creats a citation nightmare of having to debate whether or not each mention needs to be attributed. to me the answer is to not spread out the use of the rogers - Guradian Datablog stuff and keep it togther for attribution of analysis/opiion of data.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • We're not moving them together so they can all be dismissed as the opinions of one guy, when they're assuredly not. As I stated below, so see there. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection 4 by Amadscientist

Read full objection

The next part: "However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%."

• First, I wonder if we should be using the term "Great recession". I would say that since this is actually a redirect[17], that any reference should be made to the article subject with clarity as "2008–2012 global recession" and ask, if the source reflects the dating of the "Great recession" to 2007, but the wikilink is to a recession dated from 2008, if that should be a red flag for something?

• At anyrate it uses the Jacobs reference that is an opinion peice and needs attribution to use.

• But the next source, while it appears to be pretty good... what it means by "Working paper # 589" seems imply it is not a finished work. At any rate the piece is not about the recession and thus does not date it at 2007, but is simply, "updated to 2007" as the cover states (remember its a working document).--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 4

• I agree about the term "Great recession," which I think was recently changed from an article to a redirect.
• I doubt it's a red flag that the date of the recession has a disparity... recessions aren't things that begin on particular dates. But we could do more research to check it out.
  • To clarify, I meant that it was a red flag that there was something wrong with the dating of the recession as 2007. The working paper doesn't update to 2008 and does not indicate the dating of the global recession. Now if it's Deborah Jackobs then that is a simple matter of attributing the dating discrepancy.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• You're right that the working paper is a work in progress. Usually I included such primary sources not to source the text, but as a courtesy to the reader because they were referred to in the secondary sources which are actually being used to source the text. Would simply taking it out be better?
  • I would drop this one only because its a document about recent trends in household wealth, is not a good source to date anything past 2007 and does not specifically date a reccession to 2007.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Attribution can be given to the Forbes source (Deborah Jackobs writing for Forbes said that..."), or I might also substitute other sources and give a somewhat different summary. But Jacobs did give an unusually good summary of the primary sources, which are the real sources behind this. My argument before was that the Forbes source is actually being used in a limited way: to show that there is a relationship between the statistics quoted and OWS. Seen in this light, it's less necessary to attribute unless we doubt the statistics. B^e——C_ritical 03:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft changes 4

• "Great Recession" changed to "2008–2012 global recession"
  • The line still dates the recession to 2007 and is not cited with a reliable source. I would simply lose this controversial opinion that does not appear to have attribution and is conflicting information.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• levyinstitute.org working paper removed Equazcion ^(talk) 11:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection 5 by Amadscientist

Read full objection

"Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%. Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes. In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line. Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less."

• I wonder if the wikilink in the first claim is the best to use. Could that be linked to Progressive tax or Tax rate or Taxation in the United States or some mix of these instead of to the Buffett Rule? After all, its just a tax plan proposed by the US President, not an actual plan in place and could be seen as advocating a position towards that proposal.

• Also, is it possible that we could replace "The wealthy" with just "Some US residents"? "Tax rates paid by some US residents are less than those paid by Americans making...", and the second mention changed to "But higher incomes come mostly from investments..." for neutrality. Now, this is referenced by the Guardian Data Blog and I think should be attributed to the author.

• The line "Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes. as referenced with just the LA times is enough as I still dispute the use of the NYT's analitcal Topic summary without a credited author.

• The line "In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line." should just be attributed to the author. And the last line I don't dispute but would like to look at references tomorrow. That's about it for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 5

Firstly I'd like to say I'm glad we're finally doing this. Thanks for outlining your objections succinctly like this, Amadscientist.

The link issue is reasonable. I'd say it doesn't really fit the text, and it does seem to convey that the text is trying to make a backhanded point. The Buffett Rule should be described (briefly) in the prose instead.

As far as replacing "the wealthy" with "some Americans", that doesn't convey the idea at all. Who cares if "some Americans" pay low taxes? That would make the point pretty fuzzy until your second mention of "higher incomes", and that's not necessary. Saying "the wealthy" isn't non-neutral, but if it sounds that way to you, I think "the most affluent", or even "those with the highest incomes", would be alright.

You said something should be attributed to an author as your final point but didn't say why, so if you could elaborate that would help. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

moved an exchange regarding Guardian Data Blog material down to where it was brought up separately, to avoid fracturing the discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Amadscientist's objection to the link to the Buffet Rule is reasonable. I think the best link there would be to Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States.
• "The most affluent", or even "those with the highest incomes" would be acceptable substitutes for "wealthy," although I see nothing at all POV about naming wealth as wealth.
• Take out the NYT reference and use just the LA Times.
• Attribute to the Guardian data blog. I object to attributing to the author, as that makes it out to be more like personal opinion than it is. These are indisputable facts. Really we shouldn't have to attribute them at all... I could find other sources, but those sources wouldn't necessarily mention OWS. B^e——C_ritical 18:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Wealthy"

Resolved: Wealth -> Wealthiest

I'm also in favor of using "wealthy" or even "rich." Having a high income is not exactly the same thing as being rich, and "affluent," with its secondary (and original) sense of flowing bounty, has a positive connotation that makes it borderline euphemistic, like "people of means." No need to talk around what we mean here. Sindinero (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Those are not very neutral or encyclopedic in my opinion. Being wealthy or rich is a point of view. It also seems like trying to push a point to use these terms and I find them contentious here. I am wealthy. I am rich. To Bill Gates...that would be laughable, but to a homelss man on the street I am wealthy. Wealth and riches is a point of view. Try "prosperous". Wealth as a term itself can be used in a neutral manner, but wealthy and rich signify a view either of the person who thinks they are wealthy or people around them that think so, but there is no clear deffinition.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I think going to great contortions to circumlocute a simple, understandable descriptor like "wealthy" is what is unencyclopedic. Sure, "wealthy" might be considered relative, but in that sense what adjective wouldn't be? In a way, that's tautological reasoning; as an adjective, "wealthy" has a comparative form ("wealthier"); because it has a comparative form, it's relative; ergo, "wealthy" isn't a good adjective to use because it's an adjective. Substitute "tall" for "wealthy" to see what I mean. You can always find something taller than something else, but in the sentence, "Mr. X was a well-known tall person," "tall" is not particularly controversial and everybody would understand what it meant. Not only are they sloppy uses of language, but such circumlocutions and euphemisms like "vertically privileged," "disproportionately un-short," or (to correspond to "some Americans,") "of a certain height" are themselves unencyclopedic. You wish to substitute "prosperous," but that suffers from the same relativity (on the Bill-Gates-to-homeless-dude scale) that "wealthy" does. In certain cases, we may in fact call a spade a spade. In the section in question, "wealthy" is not in fact a point of view, but an economic category, and halfway intelligent readers will understand it as such. I do appreciate your optimism that "wealthy" or "rich" will be taken as derogatory, but I don't think that is in fact the case. Sindinero (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I don't understand your point of appreciation to something I never said. It is a simple matter of who we are speaking of and how we are speaking of them. Its also a bit redundant in use and seems to be pushing a bit. You seem to see some deffinition to properous that I do not as I saw that as a clearer distinction and offers an alternative to using the same term in nearly the same manner. A compromise might be: Tax rates paid by the wealthiest are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the properous, whose income derives mostly from investments, pay less than 20%. User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]] (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC) What is a "point of appreciation"? I'm not sure why you'd think "prosperous" is acceptable where "wealthy" is not, since, as an adjective that can be made into a comparative form ("more prosperous"), "prosperous" suffers from the same relativism that "wealthy" does, and you can plug it into your Bill Gates 'n' homeless guy scenario with the same result. "Prosperous" to my ears is less neutral because of the positive connotation; wealthy is a neutral descriptive term simply meaning people who have substantially more money than others. "Prosperous" sounds a little ridiculous in this context, to be honest, and my reservations about euphemisms still apply. Sindinero (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I don't know, I am not so much worried by what it sounds like to your ears. Prosperity is the state of flourishing, thriving, good fortune and / or successful social status. Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions. Uhm....seems to me properous is a more defined variant in this case. And the Bill Gates/homeless guy scenario still applies to wealth, but I don't see how as much with prosperous as it denotes a successful social status...and middle class isn't a successful social status. Success would be a higher standard than the middle.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC) We're talking about the adjective "wealthy" here, not the noun "wealth." Your original objection to the word was that it is relative, since one person may be wealthier than others. My point is that this is applicable to all but a few adjectives, "prosperous" included. In my opinion, "wealthy" or "rich" would be preferable to "prosperous" because the latter carries the connotation of "successful" and "flourishing." There is no need to include these connotations: in the present context, we're talking about financial wealth, period. Now I think your just going a bit overboard. Your point isn't missed...it isn't agreed with. Properous is more defined becuase of "successful" and "flourishing." and makes it less relative to the general 99 percent of the population. Also I think you are missing a point, this isn't that easy for the simple reason that we are trying to lable a non existant classification of people...the "Upper class". We don't use class distinction in the US, but in this case, the way we are segregating a mass amount of people based on a very narrow set of criteria.....large amounts of income that is taxed yearly, then yeah...I think "successful" and "flourishing." are very good criteria for establishing what group this would include. We are talking about income coming mostly from investments. So flourishing is apt here. Wealthy is to broad.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Just compare the two definitions from the same source: "wealthy and prosperous. Wealthy is far more vague in my opinion for this situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I still disagree, but I'd like to hear what others think. Whatever your opinions about class structures in the US may be (and fortunately they're irrelevant, since we go by the sources, not by whatever pop-sociology individual editors may subscribe to), we're not actually trying to label a non-existent class of people. To use "wealthy" doesn't imply our judgments on a class structure, it's the simplest way of representing the source: the "wealthy" or "rich," as the context makes abundantly clear, are those in an upper-income bracket who pay less than 20%. The piggybacking connotations of "successful" and "flourishing" could easily be taken as value judgments, while "wealthy" is more precise, since its primary definition has to do exclusively with material wealth, and that's all that's important in this context. Sindinero (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I think you are making a mountain out of a moll hill and are refusing to compromise. For heaven's sake. I only changed wealthy to wealthiest and then its the redundant mention to prosperous which is the so called "piggybacking", which I think is a leap. I have discussed this and offered compromise. This is beginning to become unreasonable.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC) At this point I could live with switching prosperous to Becritical's suggestion of "the most affluent" if it works to move past this.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer, but it should be obvious that I was chipping in with my opinion rather than stating an intention to block all alternatives. I do strongly feel that "wealthy" or "rich" is preferable for the reasons given above, but I'm happy to compromise if others also feel that "most affluent" or "prosperous" is better. (To clarify: I didn't say that "prosperous" was itself piggybacking, I said that it had connotations which we may not want to make. That's not a leap, really, that's just how language works.) Sindinero (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I prefer "wealthy", would accept "most affluent" but not "prosperous". Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC) The hubbub over "wealthy" as opposed to "prosperous" is just a response to the cultural stigma attached to wealth. "Prosperous" denotes that a person is wealthy but deserves it because they worked hard and prospered, while "wealthy" just means they have a lot more than everyone else, which in today's society can be considered a "bad thing" on its own. See the euphemism treadmill. "Wealthy" is still used in non-opinion sources though and it's fine. However, if this becomes the very last thing someone has a problem with, I'd be more than happy to concede to a comfortable euphemism for the sake of ending this and getting the section in. Equazcion (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Here would then be a good place to add Equazcion's suggestion of mentioning the Buffett rule: "Legislation proposed by President Obama, known as the Buffett rule is an attempt to rectify this discrepancy."--Amadscientist (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Rich or Wealthy are relative terms, yes, to the rest of the average population. They are the common terms and per the principle of WP:COMMONNAME we should use it. Arguing otherwise, in my view, is would be POV pushing the other way. Certainly "prosperous" is POV pushing the other way, as it is not a neutral term like "wealthy" but gives it a positive spin. Be——Critical 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Could you elaborate on how WP:COMMONNAME applies for a term or phrase in this case please? I strongly disagree that "prosperous" is POV pushing or putting a positive spin on someone being "rich". But I do feel that the two terms are too general and relative and that "wealthiest" is preferred and "most affluent" for the second mention.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Changing "Wealthy" to "wealthiest" is fine, but I don't see how it would make a difference to you. I said "principle" re COMNMONNAME. Be——Critical 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC) For one it makes it less relative and seems far more specific to the exact income brackets being discussed. The Warren Buffett's of the country are the wealthiest not just wealthy and that has a lot to do with the legislation, national discussion etc. Its really undisputed fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) In other words, it isn't the rich and the wealthy in general that OWS takes issue with. It's the inequality of contributions in taxes of the very wealthiest and richest amoung us, not just those that have more than others in general. Being well off does not warrent a criticism of this nature. Being Rich isn't the issue, it's being the very top bracket of even those who are seen as rich and what they are taxed compared to those makeng far less.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Alright so wealthy becomes wealthiest. I don't think anyone will have a problem with that. On to other things... Equazcion (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Excellent, done deal (: Be——Critical 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New draft Economics section

Will start soon. B^e——C_ritical 15:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I started one at #Draft edited following consensus established under objections. It's edited to include some of the changes agreed on so far. I noted changes under each objections section. Feel free to continue. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks I'll do that. B^e——C_ritical 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, I've been really busy and that is why I'm not working as hard as I should on the draft. I hope you'll forgive and be patient! B^e——C_ritical 14:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-exhaustive list of problems with most recent draft

I see that some of the sources have been removed in the latest revised draft by BeCritical. Problems nonetheless remain. A non-exhaustive list:

NA Text no longer in prose

*"cited by liberals" should read "cited by liberal activists"

Believe it or not, there's a difference.

• • NA (not applicable) text is not longer in prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• "this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement."

This is a terrible and misleading paraphrase. Suggest using quoted language from source, e.g.:

Although these studies were cited by liberal activists and Democrats, income inequality "did not take a central place on the national stage" until it was championed by OWS.

• • NA. Text is no longer in prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• "corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations."

POV pushing paraphrase; should read "corrosive power", in quotes; "corrupting power" is POV-pushing editorializing and absolutely cannot remain.

• • This we may need to discuss.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--

Resolved at DR/N

*Source 7 (LA Times) is an editorial and should be attributed as such, with its author named.

• • No. Sorry, but this went through dispute resolution. If you look at the top left of the article there is a "You are here" that breaks down what this is. Its a feature article, from the "In the News" of the bussiness section. It is not a blog, an editorial or an opinion piece. This is straight journalism. It's a news story.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• "Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades"

Source does not appear to say that wealth inequality has increased over the last 3 decades.

• • Actually it does. It just doesn't use these words. The "fact" was lifted from the source that states in terms of actual year date of 30 years ago I believe.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• "with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."

Not what source says. "most Americans" should be replaced with "working people"; source says that four specific goals cited by Obama as important to working people have been undermined.

Source also attributes this phenomenon to income inequality only, not also economic stagnation.

• • • This was worked on during dispute resolution and the "most Americans" was suggested by a volunteer at DR/N and seems fine to me. As for economic stagnation that as well was justifyed at DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• "Currently, the top 20% own 85% of the wealth; the 120 million poorest own .3%; "and the most affluent 1% own about 33%"

The first two figures given by the source refer to "wealth"; the last figure refers to "net worth". So should our prose.

• • Could you elaborate please?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• "However, after the 2008–2012 global recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. "

Unable to identify any text in either source substantiating this. Entire sentence appears to be OR?

Uhm...no. This is actually a part of a discussion Becritical and I are having about the dating of 2007. Thanks for pointing this out so that i could actually see what the problem involved, but yes it does basicly say what was in prose, but the dating was confucing and i think may be ironed out now. Here is the text from part of where these facts are lifted:

The Wealth Distribution In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• Hiltzik source does not substantiate sentence about progressiveness of US taxes, and should not be cited there.

• • Please elaborate.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• "about 15%"

Source says 14.5%. No need to round.

• • Please elaborate.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--

• " at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line."

Source says 46.2 million, not "at least 42 million".

• • Please elaborate.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the last sentence, source 13 does not discuss this topic in connection with OWS and should not be cited here.

• Ditto for source 14, which, additionally, does not directly substantiate the claim, and should also be removed.

• Source 15 discusses OWS but does not substantiate the claim and should be removed.

• Source 16 neither discusses OWS nor substantiates the claim and should be removed.

I note that it was considerably more work for me to do this than it would have been for BeCritical to provide source text substantiating his textual claims. In fact, a bit of review of his own work would have revealed some or all of the problems detailed above. This is why, again, the burden is on the adding editor to show that the content sought to be added is properly sourced. The adding editor's burden is not discharged by simply adding sources. The policy is very clear that the adding editor must clearly identify where in the source the substantiating material can be found. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will incorporate most of your suggestions into a draft. I should note that the lack of collegial attitude, incorrect interpretation of policy, and lack of collaborative editing (no one would have reverted most of the changes you suggest) is appalling. B^e——C_ritical 16:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. I find your ignorance of policy, lack of care, and willingness to insist that other editors take painstaking measures to correct problems you could easily discover yourself quite appalling, as well. I am also less than impressed at your attempts to push POV by exaggerating source material and fluffing up your prose with citations that don't belong.

Finally, I am shocked that, after entrenching yourself in the utterly unsupported position that it's other people's job to uncover basic sourcing problems with your proposed text, when I finally agree to play by your rules by carefully documenting the above problems, you decided to additionally slam me for not making the changes myself. Much appreciated, dude. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of collaborative editing, and you are wrong about policy, as has been explained to you by editors on this page and a couple of third opinions. B^e——C_ritical 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hogwash. Part of "collaborative editing" is submitting suggested changes to an editor or editors who might dispute them. Plus, you were actively asking me to identify any problems I had with the text -- you didn't simply ask me to fix it to my liking. Thus you can't seriously take me to task for not knowing that you'd find my changes unobjectionable (some of them? all of them? even now it's not clear...). And anyway, just because an administrator pops onto the talk page to say I'm wrong about policy doesn't mean I'm wrong. Administrators are wrong about policy all the time.

Furthermore, by relying on this tenuous argument to shift the burden of accurately sourcing your prose to other editors, you're acting contrary to the spirit of WP:V and the spirit of collaboration policy, which contemplates that editors will efficiently allocate editing tasks among themselves -- i.e., the editor who is in the best position to show that proposed content is verifiable should go ahead and do it, rather than sit back and demand that others show it's not verifiable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact four different editors have explained "Burden", including Dreadstar, Olive, BeCritical, and BlueBoar. Yet there is still Insistence that a novel definition is the right one.

"Part of "collaborative editing" is submitting suggested changes to an editor or editors who might dispute them." Yes, exactly and until an editor submits those specific suggested changes and good faith editor tends to believe his text and its sourcing is accurate, and unless and until an editor does make those suggestions why would any good faith editor think there was anything wrong with his text and sources. None of us are mind readers (at least I'm not). If you have problems with the text you did the right thing by pointing those concerns out.

Its an act of good faith to ask an editor if they want to make the changes themselves into an article, in a contentious situation, rather than have an editor who has done the work of identifying and fixing text handing over the final and rewarding task of "fixing" the article to someone else.(olive (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC))

Let's get very precise for just a moment, Olive. Are you explicitly saying that an adding editor's burden under verifiability is satisfied once he has added footnotes to his text, and that the burden does not require the adding editor, upon being challenged, to identify source text that substantiates the proposed WP-article text? Rather, you seem to be saying, it is incumbent upon other editors to determine whether the proposed text is verifiable? If that were indeed the case, we might as well delete WP:BURDEN entirely; anyone can stick footnotes in text and say "everything's cool, folks". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be the burden of the editor wishing to add text. The process works like this: Adding editor puts in text and sourcing. Challenging editor says "I don't see X, Y or Z in the source text." Adding editor says "This is where I got X, Y and Z." Here's how it doesn't work: Adding editor puts in text and sourcing. Challenging editor says, "You're doing OR and SYNTH." Adding editor says "Which part?" Challenging editor says "It's not my burden to tell you." B^e——C_ritical 22:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not even especially responsive to the question that was not directed at you. But I'll play along. You're saying that the adding editor's burden is only to explain or correct specific problems brought to his attention. That essentially places the burden on other editors to check that the content is verifiable, when actually it's supposed to be the burden of the adding editor to show it's verifiable. That latter task may be annoying and tedious, but nowhere near as annoying and tedious as exhaustively checking someone else's work, trying to figure out what he had in mind, and trying to figure out whether he used sources with care. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that is the way WP works. B^e——C_ritical 22:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if the policy interpretation is sound, which I doubt, using it to stonewall other editors is at best a questionable practice. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You stole the words right out of my mouth. B^e——C_ritical 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Guardian Data Blog and notes section

Moved from above to avoid fracturing the discussion and having to repeat responses Equazcion ^(talk) 14:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

---

The Line "In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line." is referenced with the Guardian Data Blog. Per WP:NEWSBLOG This is an newsblog and should attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). It is a summary analysis. That is opinion per WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." It was late. I should have been specific.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources for the news blog entry are outlined here: [18]. It doesn't appear to be an opinion piece, though much of it is an analysis. The particular points we reference here aren't opinions though. It would be awkward to say "Guardian columnist Simon Rogers says 15% of households are food-insecure" when that's clearly a fact and no one would care who said it. If he drew some conclusion from that, it would make more sense to attribute it. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as awkward and I do believe we have established it as an opinion piece and cannot be used to source facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong disagree, and we need to be treating sourcing policy with a finer-toothed comb here. What we reference, as Equazcion and Becritical have both stated, are facts, not opinions. Qualifying them by stating that "Simon Rogers says" these things makes them seem like they're in question. Would you accept other sources in addition to this one to reference these statistics (i.e., even if they don't make direction mention of OWS)? Sindinero (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly stand by this and see no reason to ignore this guideline and dispute that any of the information is NOT in question. Of course it is...that is why it is opinion. The facts are not undisputed, they are just a fact that they are the interpretation of data from one person.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The facts are sourced within the blog post, as I stated and linked above. We could use the data sources directly, but if we did that you'd rail on use of sources that don't mention OWS, despite backing up everything here. Well, here we have the facts stated in relation to OWS, they're not in an opinion piece but in an analysis, and we're not even making mention of any of the various analyses. Only the facts. Insisting on attribution anyway at this point, because of the wording in a Wikipedia policy, is wikilawyering. You don't see any reason to ignore the policy? Well, there's a policy that says we should. We're not even ignoring the rule here, just not following the exact letter of it -- which is precisely how things work here. The facts we're using are stated quite separate from the analysis portion and those are what we're using. They're backed up by stated sources. Regardless of the policy wording, there's just no practical need for attribution. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Over-attributing is also something we're not supposed to do, because it makes it look like mere opinion and not fact. Now, how would we figure out if we're over-attributing? It all boils down to whether there is anything controversial being stated, like an opinion. You have to attribute opinion. Here, there are two ways the sources are being used: to connect the data to OWS and to relate facts. Is there any dispute that the facts are relevant to OWS, that in fact the protesters are concerned about these issues? Is there any dispute that the facts related are accurate? And, are we relating opinion? If the answer is "no" to these questions, we do not need attribution. B^e——C_ritical 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Over attribution is only a concern when you are using one opinion piece to source multiple sections of prose. However the entire article suffers from over attribution of differing opinion and should probably be dicussed to where it best belongs. No deletions, but perhaps it is best for some of the opinion to go into a notes section. Its a good way to compromise for this situation and others.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

---

My main concern about the use of this source is that since it is a blog and analysis of data that constitutes opinion and requires attribution to the author. This is done once and then the reference is used to cite facts 3 additional times without attribution. At least one is unneeded as the claim has several other citations. i suggest this not be used to cite andy fact already cited by RS...HOWEVER, there is no reason all this information cannot be placed into notes along with the references, generating a seperate list. Here you still need to source all claims but this is where you add all the opinion as attributed to the author next to the other RS instead on using it as an inline citation. It stays in the same location, conveys and saves the same information and a notes section will allow for much less contentious editing as there will always be a place for most disputed content that has good sourcing. If it doesn't have consensus to plce in the body of the article there will at least be a place of compromise that collaboration can use to save worthwhile contributions. I would like to try this on the draft and see if this is something that works for editors. This is useful WP:REFNEST--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As above, attribution isn't required, as the material used from Guardian Data Blog doesn't constitute opinion. Repeating that it is opinion doesn't change this. Note that since you chose to bring this same argument in a different location, I've moved the exchange that preceded it to this section, above your post. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We should acknowledge that this is a slightly iffy situation. I Amadscientist has a point that the blog is in some sense opinion, but I think attribution depends on how it is used. The data itself isn't opinion. If we are satisfied that the data are correct, and if we are satisfied that the data are relevant to OWS, I don't see a need to attribute. If we are anywhere using the Data Blog for opinion we should attribute as much as necessary to be clear. You could argue that the facts themselves are presented to push a POV, but then we merely go see if this is substantially different from what we find in other sources. I personally don't think it is. The sources are very consistent in saying that the economic data such as that in the CBO report are what OWS is concerned about. We are super-sourcing here by only allowing facts from the primary sources which our secondary sources explicitly mention in their explanation of the OWS concerns. B^e——C_ritical 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how we are arriving at a blog of analytical data not being opinion. I undertsand that editors feel they are lifting facts from the opinion, but we do not do that. For the source to be reliable it must be used per policy mentioned. Facts are not referenced from blogs or analitical interpretations of data. If we are relying on the single blog for this information that is being vlaimed as fact...why are there no straight news stories or economic journals that say the same thing? This is a matter of asking the editors why they feel the guidelines should be ignored for this source and why we cant source these facts with stronger references? We do not lift facts from opion pieces, and analysis of data is treated as opinion and it id a blog. Guys...there are several things wrong with the content and reference. The claims are referenced in a manner that does not meet guidelines in a number of ways. I think we should not include any of the information not attributed per policy. I tried to find a way that this could still be used but i have not seen any justification argued to allow it that isn't just the opinion of editors. I don't know where we go from here. I am not really seeing my concerns addressed on this issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"why are there no straight news stories or economic journals that say the same thing?" Well of course there ARE! It would have been so easy to source this section if there weren't the requirement that the source be explicitly talking about OWS. But what happens is usually the sources write up the data on economics, then they write about OWS and they say "oh, and for the economic data behind why OWS is angry, see this other article," but we can't use the other article because it isn't "about" OWS. It's a silly rule that hurts the encyclopedia, and it's only necessary because if we didn't have it then people would do OR. But it also constricts how well we can write. B^e——C_ritical 00:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Another Graeber source

This article by David Graeber could be useful. I don't have the time to integrate it yet, but I hope to get to it soon. I put it in the further reading section for the time being, since it is a major statement by a prominent figure in the movement (and this article), thinking it would be useful for people. It was removed with a stringently obnoxious and un-AGF edit summary, on the grounds of presumed soap-boxing. In the past, first putting new sources into "further reading" sections has proven useful as a transitional measure to avoid aggressively pushing new sourcing into an article, in the interests of compromise (and that's actually how David Graeber made his way to this article in the first place). I'm not really interested in pushing this point, but think Graeber's text is important enough to include in some form, so I've moved it here. Sindinero (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Although on second thought, it's more than a little ridiculous to call inclusion of a text in a major newspaper by a major figure in Occupy "soapboxing" or "a portal for web activism." What do others think about reinclusion of Graeber's essay in a "Further reading" section? Sindinero (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. However important the street-level core of anarchist twits were in providing warm bodies to hold signs, chant slogans, and start fights with police, it was certainly not that ethos that motivated the vast majority of people who identified with OWS, nor does anyone really think that "revolutionary anarchism" has anything of value to add to the developing sociopolitical dialogue. Despite his affiliation with OWS and despite his appearance in Guardian publication space, this is just Graeber cheerleading for what has always been a bankrupt ideology and which is worlds apart from what made OWS a notable phenomenon. In a nutshell, Graeber simply argues that OWS has unburdened itself with the very mainstream business of having any kind of coherent political theory that might provide a foundation for change. That argument could be appropriately reflected at the Reactions article, but is not general background information and certainly does not belong in the Further Reading section of this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so given what you've just said, editors are to take your removal of the Graeber text and its edit summary as NPOV how...? You seem to have a pretty firm agenda vis-a-vis OWS; I'm interested in including relevant material in this article written by a foundational figure in the movement. Your (touchingly superficial..?) assessment of anarchism's role within OWS is neither here nor there, since we do not edit based on our own glib personal views or opinions, but on the sources we have. Please don't be disingenuous: when you say that nobody "really think[s] that "revolutionary anarchism" has anything of value to add to the developing sociopolitical dialogue," you mean that you don't think it does, but that's totally irrelevant. Graeber thinks it does, and he's the source. Arguing with a source, or making changes to the article based on what you think OWS actually is or should be comes close to WP:OR, and "anarchist twits" isn't exactly in line with policy on WP:BLP. Maybe you should grind your axes elsewhere..? Sindinero (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"street-level core of anarchist twits"? This is the person accusing me of POV pushing above? Okay. I see the article posted as a good source for material for this article. It's in the Guardian and it's by an author with relevant degrees, positions, and history. This article uses authors and publications from many different perspectives, even Douglas Schoen and Fox News. B^e——C_ritical 20:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Yeah that does sort of explain his demeanor here. Glad that came out. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure he was referring to the ones not being organised by OWS and meant twit as a criticism of vandals and those that make mischief...and it isn't POV pushing to say it on the talk page. We are allowed to use original research here. Most discussion is a form of OR. I wouldn't take that to mean he much more.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree entirely with Factchecker. "No one really thinks that "Revolutionary anarchism" has anything of value to add to the developing sociopolitical dialogue? Uhm...don't pretend to understand what anarchism is or the very foundamentals of it for such discussion or context to this subject. These issues have already been resolved in discussion and perhaps part of this is trying to set apart and move past the early beginnings and establish where the protest has moved to, if anywhere.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure he was not. It would be a stretch to take "street level core" as ambiguous. It's not any sort of POV-type "violation" to say so here (maybe BLP though?); but like I said, either way, it's good to know. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I would likely argue against further Graeber info in the present article. It would be good for the OWS article if we could find enough material to make a section of comment about the present influence, ect., of the movement, where it may fit in quite well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking that it might be best placed in a new section on what's been going on in OWS over the last few months, including May Day, etc., specifically used as one particular perspective. Sindinero (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and ignore the silly comments that this reveals (or confirms) some "agenda" that I'm accused of which the accusers can't be bothered to identify. Ditto for the cackling comments concluding (obviously) that this "explains my demeanor", or complaining that I could have the nerve to label someone's in-article puffery "POV pushing" while daring to say something in favor of one point of view on the talk page. I'm not quite sure what to make of the suggestion that we can't say "anarchist twits" in article text (oh gee, really?!?) — or of the argument that it might be OR to make un-footnoted decisions about the notability of a subject or source for the purpose of determining what weight, if any, it should be given — we do that all the time. Yes, we base our weight decisions off of what is published in the mainstream, but that doesn't mean that being published in a mainstream source --> permanent, unconditional notability on whatever subject you're talking about --> everything you say on the subject goes into the WP article.

As for editing "[not] based on our own glib personal views or opinions, but on the sources we have", I'm going to have to go ahead and insist that if we're going to include Graeber's article essentially saying "You're all anarchists, guys! Isn't that awesome!?" — then we also ought to include some material balancing the picture we present on anarchism's role in OWS (spoiler alert: anarchism and anarchists make OWS look terrible, undermine its credibility, and detract from its message). I'd suggest, for example, using text from this LA Times article, "Today's anarchists are just brats in black":

The small gangs of destructive knuckleheads who style themselves as anarchists have been the bane of Occupy Wall Street protests this spring. On May Day, the brats in black smashed store windows, bashed cars and fought with police on the streets of Seattle, Oakland, Montreal and other cities. Their antics stole attention from the thousands of peaceful protesters who may have had serious things to say about the expanding divide between rich and poor.

[emphasis added]. Moral of the story: serious political cause with broad appeal is hijacked by knuckleheads who undermine its appeal by using violence, opposing mainstream society in general, and favoring abolition of the government. And now I suppose we'll finish the hit job here because a few editors are, themselves, enchanted by the "ideals" of anarchism...? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that most of us that are presently editing this article remember that we have discussed this in the past and I believe that there has been an attempt to use this article as a podium from which to praise anarchist philosophy. I'm mostly in agreement with Centrify and I will continue to argue against any attempt to paint the OWS movement as an anarchist-based movement. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of praising any philosophy, but of showing different takes and notable opinions on where the movement's going and what it's about. As I've said before, I'm personally opposed to defining OWS as primarily an anarchist movement: this isn't correct, the sources don't really back it up, and it's a huge oversimplification (what would that even mean)? However, it's equally simplistic (and yet perhaps more dangerous for the veracity and depth of this article because it seems to be the more widely-held view) to attempt to separate them to the (unsurprisingly glib) extent that Centrify does above. It's not correct to say that there's occupy, and then there are anarchists who are somehow "outside" it. Defining the situation in this way relies upon some flawed, and perhaps unconscious, background assumptions about what political movements actually are. OWS isn't a brand, nor an organized group with clear membership, but a movement: polyvocal, internally heterogeneous and contradictory, amorphous, and shifting. Anarchism had early influence and roots in it, and continues to interact with it and shape it to an extent not seen in mass movements for awhile. Anyone who knows a little about the history of radical left politics over the last twenty years will likely already have been familiar with things like the assemblies, the hand signals, black blocs, discourses of occupation, etc., that OWS has now firmly entrenched in public consciousness: all these things were part of the anarchist scene in the states long before occupy.

I say this not because I think we need any of this in the article, but to address the problematic and methodologically naive assumptions I see popping up on the talk page from time to time about the relationship between OWS and anarchism. In short, it's highly complex, and deserves treatment as such. In general, what I support for this article is an inclusion of the significant and notable discourses on OWS -- presented as precisely that, discourses, things that people have said about OWS. I think Graeber should be in there because he's one (quite notable) view, not because he's gospel to me. Is that understandable enough? I also fully support inclusion of criticism of the anarchists' and black bloc's roles here, as long as it's clear that this criticism is not in WP's editorial voice, and WP:WEIGHT is adhered to.

This all should be really obvious to anyone, and I'm constantly surprised at how often an argument for inclusion of a particular viewpoint or other is taken as a simplistic support of some even more oversimplified viewpoint. Sindinero (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yay textwall without a clear message. As I said before, Graeber's involvement in OWS does not mean the WP OWS article becomes a soapbox for showcasing Graeber's views on anarchism, even as he thinks those views on anarchism relate to OWS. On WP, by and large we reflect how article topics are viewed by mainstream society and we attempt to mirror mainstream society's judgments about what topics are notable and what aspects of particular topics are notable. Simply put, anarchism and anarchist views are not what the public thought was notable about OWS — nor did the vast majority of OWS participants take themselves to be adopting anarchist tactics or rhetoric or fighting an anarchist cause. In the larger context of OWS, anarchism/anarchist views/anarchist tactics are basically trivia, and that's how they should be reflected.

The remainder of your comments seem to reflect confusion about, or carefully cultivated ignorance of, the fact that, due to excessive size of this article, another article (as I stated before, the Reactions article) has come to be the repository for virtually all discourse about OWS, whereas this article is a basic nuts-and-bolts account of what has happened and of the movement in general. Thus by insisting on extensive treatment of anarchism here you're both fighting an article split that resulted from a very wide community consensus, and threatening to introduce a WEIGHT problem here by emphasizing a niche view here while mainstream views languish in obscurity in the sub-article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That is completely untrue: we reflect sources, which by and large do not reflect society at large. You're advocating a recipe for POV pushing. You are doing original research. You should talk about sources, not about what you think about OWS and its context or what POV Wikipedia should reflect. This is not to say anything about the source in question or its use in this article. Likely the source would be of limited use here, one among many. But my previous point about Fox News and Douglas Schoen stands: use of fringe/POV sources can be from all sides if we use them at all. B^e——C_ritical 20:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ricidulous. Everything you just said is flatly contradicted by the first two sentences of WP:WEIGHT. We reflect views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint [in reliable sources]." It's not a "recipe for POV pushing" and it's not "original research" for Wikipedia to give limited attention to niche views; this is just basic WP:NPOV. It's even arguable that OWS anarchists are a "tiny minority" whose views should perhaps not be reflected at all, although I'm not sure I'd go to the mat on that one.

As an aside, if you seriously think the Douglas Schoen piece from WSJ is "fringe", it is easier to understand your mindset as you push anarchist views here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, you didn't say anything about reliable sources before. You said we should rely on popular opinion "On WP, by and large we reflect how article topics are viewed by mainstream society and we attempt to mirror mainstream society's judgments...anarchism and anarchist views are not what the public thought was notable about OWS" emphasis added. In other words, you indicated that we should base WP articles on popular opinion. B^e——C_ritical 21:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was relatively clear that by saying "we attempt to mirror mainstream society's judgments about what topics are notable and what aspects of particular topics are notable", I was indicating that we track what weight particular views are given in mainstream sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

To me these are very different things. The public has all sorts of views which reliable sources would give very little weight. But certainly we agree here (: B^e——C_ritical 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Restructured the Information Box, and Provided Better Readability in the Overview

This user was voted off the island (not enough cowbell) Penyulap ☏ 14:51, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
extract of infobox The following information presented in this "infobox" also known as, the information box has been updated with proper resourcing in attention to recent events, and findings on the matters of original research from former participants, current participants, journalists, and expert contributors. This information box is best suited for a brief account of the movement recorded on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. The content has not been completely revised from its previous contributions by any means; it has only been touched upon with recent events. This movement's causes and goals have been disputed numerous times, and will continue to be disputed due to the lack of proper transparency and clarification on the behalf of core participants of this particular movement's willingness for transparency on their motives. The views presented in this information box shall be subject for dispute but based off the information gathered from the Article, itself and outside sources; it is second to impossible to determine the true motivations, causes or goals of this movement because of the lack of proper transparency. This information is mere critical speculation and shall not be reverted, or removed until proper transparency within the movement, itself, clarifies such matters. Just in case you guys want to know what I did. My Contribution to the Article Publis the Second (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Looks awesome ! ...until you have a bit of a read of the rest of this talkpage.. bummer. Penyulap ☏ 12:43, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) What are you implying? Publis the Second (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) What are you implying that I'm implying ? Penyulap ☏ 12:48, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) Okay, if you don't want to discuss this in a proper manner then this conversation is over. Publis the Second (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I'm happy to discuss it in any manner you like, whatever suits you suits me, whatever language suits you suits me, it's all good. Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) What don't you like about my contributions that you had to revert it twice? If I decide to edit your contributions again and you decide to revert, this would you third time reverting and that's a 3RR Violation. I would love to discuss this matter with you in a proper dialogue. Publis the Second (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I like the infobox, it's seriously a refreshing surprise, I don't expect to find that kind of thing in an article much, I liked it, I did. It was cool, made me smile, but also feel kind of bad, because I really don't like it when people are excluded from the group, especially when they feel strongly about something, I can't stand that kind of 'vote someone off the island' bullshit, I prefer people work harder to get along. Penyulap ☏ 13:07, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) If you liked my contributions in attention to the information box then how come you reverted it entirely? Is there something specific that you didn't like that caused you to revert the entire contribution? Publis the Second (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Well, the first thing that pops into my head is it needs more cowbell, but I don't know why that just popped right in there, I think I have had a stressful day really. I think "Wikipedia Encyclopedia" is an interesting inclusion in the infobox, but as this is your first day here, I think we can let that one go. "This movement's causes and goals have been disputed numerous times, and will continue to be disputed due to the blah blah blah" I think that is like looking into the future, don't you ? Penyulap ☏ 13:18, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) I understand your concerns and the reason why I stated this, "This movement's causes and goals have been disputed numerous times, and will continue to be disputed". It was a direct response to the ongoing confusion among numerous sources. I decided that this Article needed to take a stand and just say what the causes and goals are in a simplistic fashion based off critical analysis. It's becoming increasingly difficult to rely on mainstream sources to find such information that is crystal clear without them having a slant; as of now, there is hardly any mainstream media outlets that covering this movement, and they really haven't been covering it for a long time now. They may have gave the movement a couple of minutes but you can't deny the fact that this movement is essentially not being about, compared to the Oct. and Nov. coverage. Publis the Second (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Have you watched it on RT ? it has had pretty good coverage on there. Penyulap ☏ 13:27, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) Yes, I have and I was about to edit my post to discuss that. It seems that the media outlets that do cover all seem to get the same thing; the movement really has not changed its causes, goals, or motivations and surely have not clarified. It all brings down to us, the contributors to this site, to offer a little bit of critical analysis of what the causes and goals are in a simplistic, jargon-free fashion. In other words, there is just not enough of evidence to keep on waiting for this movement to give us the necessary tools to archive their workings at this point. Publis the Second (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC) But if you can't work out what they are up to, why not just ask them ? they must have some idea why they are there, have you tried that approach ? Penyulap ☏ 13:42, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) Yes, I have considered that approach and a matter of fact, I am one of those former participants. This is why I mention in the note, "former or current participants", I was referring to myself there and possibly others who contributed to this Article in the past. Publis the Second (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC) That is so COOL!!. So how come they are there ? Penyulap ☏ 13:47, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) "How come they are there?" Why are you asking such questions when it has been covered in the Article already? Publis the Second (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC) well why are you wanting to put your own reasons in if it is already in the article ? Penyulap ☏ 13:57, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC) oh for crying out loud, this user has been voted off the island. *sigh*, and I was having a lovely conversation. Now I'm just back to being glum. Penyulap ☏ 14:44, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Restraining order and same-day order vacating it

On November 15 a judge issued a temporary restraining order which was vacated later that day. Do we really need external links pointing readers to the NLG's proposed order (as edited and signed by the judge) and the judicial decision, later that day, vacating the order? We've already got a fairly detailed discussion of this in the Timeline article Scratch that, it looks like the Timeline article has been carefully rewritten to make it sound like the restraining order was never struck down and still stands and was simply ignored by everyone involved. Gotta love POV forking. Nonetheless, do we really need links to incidental documents like this? How does such trivia advance a general encyclopedic understanding of the article subject? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree (and thanks for pointing it out). Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Direct action

Article text:

The movement is largely defined by its consensus-based decision making process, embodied in its general assemblies, which effect direct action instead of petitioning authorities.

This is fine except the source does not say that OWS uses direct action instead of petitioning the government. That discussion from the source is about Graeber's ethnographic observations of direct action that took place in Madagascar, not stuff that is happening on the ground in NYC. It is not discussed in connection with OWS, and there is no reason to suppose that direct action and petitioning the government are mutually exclusive. OWS can do both if it likes, and we shouldn't say that OWS eschews the idea of petitioning the government unless we have a source explicitly saying so.

So, in a nutshell, the words "instead of petitioning authorities" should be removed from the end of that sentence. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Memories...Memories.... Funny, I remember raising my eyebrows at those words at one time too... I agree with you and support a change. Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited it to address this, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:53, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture, but it still says basically the same thing, which is very different from what the source says. The problem thus remains. Can't we just limit ourselves to saying what the source says? That's what policy tells us to do. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not if it means a quote. Quotes are for attributing an important view to an important person. We're looking to describe the way the movement works in summary fashion, and a quote doesn't fit.

The source text says:

• "its emphasis on direct action and leaderless, consensus-based decision-making, is most clearly embodied by its General Assembly".

The article currently reads:

• "The movement is largely defined by its consensus-based decision making process, embodied in its general assemblies, which emphasize direct action over petitioning authorities."

Explain how these are "very different" from each other so I know what/how to tweak. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:09, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I think I was extremely clear and I don't see what you're confused about. What's "very different" is the additional claim that is not in the source. Just remove "over petitioning authorities", as I suggested, and the text will track the source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The source explains the concept of direct action by comparing it with petition, in an example. It doesn't matter that it doesn't explicitly say this in connection with OWS. The reference to Madagascar had nothing specifically to do with that explanation. Describing a group that emphasizes direct action could legitimately make reference to petition in order to clarify what their preferred methods are, even if a source doesn't even mention petition. I think it should stay, but let's see what others think. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:37, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yes if you're only objection to "over petitioning authorities" and not the mention of direct action, then the text is merely providing the definition of "direct action." B^e——C_ritical 19:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course the one problem is that it makes this a definition not stated in the source itself and I am unable to varify this with other sources. Is direct action an "either/or" situation? Does direct action mean no petioning of authority? See...I don't think that is necessarily true.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hence the use of "emphasizes". Equazcion ^(talk) 19:49, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Right, "emphasizes" is non-exclusive. The source says "The process is what scholars of anarchism call "direct action." For example, instead of petitioning the government to build a well, members of a community might simply build it themselves. It is an example of anarchism's philosophy, or what Mr. Graeber describes as "democracy without a government." B^e——C_ritical 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. That text is talking about Graeber's observations of things that took place in Madagascar, not NYC. Look, article text that isn't explicitly contradicted by any source is a far cry from article text that is explicitly supported by some source. The latter is what we require. The former has no place on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If anything, the rationale here is more like rejecting the latter as the sole criteria for inclusion, rather than accepting the former (which we're not doing, and is a total mischaracterization). To claim "OWS emphasizes direct action over petition", the source doesn't need to say "OWS emphasizes direct action over petition", if it already says "OWS emphasizes direct action" + "direct action contrasts with petition". Equazcion ^(talk) 20:09, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

If the source does make these two claims then it would support the current prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The source defines "direct action" and says OWS uses is. B^e——C_ritical 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This would all be dandy if, as Equazion suggested, the source said "OWS emphasizes direct action" + "direct action contrasts with petition". But it doesn't. The source also does not say that OWS rejects the idea of petitioning the government. It doesn't say anything about how OWS feels about petitioning the government, period.

In fact, at least one OWS group has explicitly rallied around the idea of petitioning the government. And though that group has been marginalized by OWS proper, it wasn't marginalized because OWS rejects the idea of petitioning the government, but rather because the group claimed to speak for OWS protesters in general, which is a no-no.

Bottom line, you've got the WP article saying something the source doesn't say or support. Remove those three little words and all of a sudden you're in compliance with policy. Not sure why you're arguing over it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I addressed the implication that the use of petitions was rejected by switching to "emphasize", which is exactly what the source says. Re: "but it doesn't" -- Yes it does. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:43, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You just need to study the sources more. We see it, and if you don't, we're sorry but that is the consensus. B^e——C_ritical 20:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What difference does it make what other OWS groups have rallied around? This isn't about the movement overall Centrify, but the origins of the New York protests.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words, please read the sources carefully before you waste people's time with claims about what they do or do not support. The source says "The defining aspect of Occupy Wall Street, its emphasis on direct action," and "residents made choices in a direct, decentralized way, not through the apparatus of the state... The process is what scholars of anarchism call "direct action."" Stop disrupting the process of this article. B^e——C_ritical 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Next time I catch you misrepresenting a source to push an agenda I'll make sure I accuse you of disruption (or worse) instead of merely focusing on the content. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Better yet file an ArbCom case... we're always on the edge of that anyway, and you'd maybe save me some trouble. B^e——C_ritical 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say this is concluded, but will let others make the final decision of this. As I see it, Equaz has made his point and Becritical has shown the text from the source that supports it. It does not have to use the exact words. In fact it is better that the wording is original, while conveying the same facts. This claim is supported by the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Some liberties are being taken. You're insisting, for no obvious reason, on including WP article text that goes beyond what the source supports. But this is not worth arguing over any further. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the two editors have indeed shown how the source supports the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly better-supported after Equazion's edit (although the version I wrote was fully supported!) But I still don't see why we don't end the sentence after the words "direct action", and let the reader follow the Wikilink if they want to learn more about what direct action is—or else simply give a neutral definition of direct action without speculating as to exactly how we think OWS feels about petitioning the government. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point of the last part. It was explained above by Equazcion. In a nut shell it gives definition to how the term "direct action" refers in this case. That it is emphasied over petitioning authority. It shows the important aspect of how it relates to OWS. I see this as important and your attempts to remove this and other portions of reference to anarchism as rewriting history against both sources and consensus and i do believe you are being disruptive and purposely difficult and wish you would work with editors and not against them.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Amadscientist, BeCritical and Equazcion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Becritical's removal of the globalize tag

I'm wondering why you remove this tag ? Penyulap ☏ 08:37, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice I removed it, but is it appropriate for an article that focuses only on the the Wall Street protests? B^e——C_ritical 19:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Where was the globalize tag? It's probably not appropriate for most of this, except for maybe the responses section, or a section dealing with the resulting national/global movement -- which might be conspicuously absent here. We have the separate "occupy movement" article, but a summary here about how that spun off might be worth considering. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:44, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)

It would seem ridiculous that the movements that were a response to ows are not mentioned at all. the london article lede is very clear about the issue. The idea that there was no international response is rather absurd.

The horrid sub article though, well, that's just a horrid sub article, but the london and so on are quite ok. Penyulap ☏ 15:00, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Zuccotti Park is Empty and the OWS "Movement" is Dead

In case you haven't noticed, the "occupiers" aren't occupying anything anymore and nobody except the original leaders of this allegedly "leaderless" movement care about it anymore. The article is the most overblown, hyped-up collection of Wikipedia rule-violations in existence. It's chock-full of POV, UNDUE, original research, non-reliable self-serving and self-congratulatory sources. Plus, there could be a whole separate article about the hundreds of murders, rapes, thefts and assorted violence committed by this "non-violent" group of leftover '60s hippies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to know how to respond to your comment without at least some example of what you think are some of the more serious problems you've identified. Also, although this article has historically seen tensions run very high among editors, even subtle expressions of hostility towards an article subject are generally counter-productive. Finally, I don't think you would find many editors who agree that there has been sufficient violent crime at OWS protests to warrant a sub-article. But, just for the sake of my own curiosity, I've got to ask: has there been even a single OWS murder? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That IP is shared by the New York State Unified Court System.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's sure interesting... Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the NYSUCS is huge, and if that IP is even an NYSUCS IP, that just means it could be any one of thousands of government employees. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you don't deny the allegations that no one is in Zuccotti park any more, that the "movement" is dormant, or that most of the article is forbidden original research or synthesis. Here is a list of over 400 crimes, although I now see another editor has already created a separate article about them: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/10/28/UPDATED---OccupyWallStreet--The-Rap-Sheet--So-Far — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.175 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead? it's not dead, it's just got funnier, wasn't there like 600 arrests or something ? I don't know I don't follow it, but when you said it's dead I thought, WOW millions of people suddenly stopped and said 'ah forget it, this protesting thing is never gonna fly, OK... OK.... everyone back to work, Ok everyone back to being exploited, come on now, show me your smiles everyone, you there, smile like you mean it, .....that's better'

But no, that hasn't happened, or it doesn't appear that way when I looked, but hey here is a nice notable quote we can use in the article that just popped right up...

There is nothing that terrifies the US government so much as the threat of democracy breaking out in America,”

— said David Graeber from Occupy New York on the Julian Assange Show ^-^

lolz eh, but can we trust RT ? have they turned to the dark side or are they trolling OWS ? Here, decide for yourself, they're merchandising OWS with an occupy wall street game. ...very suspicious.

yeah, let's keep the quote thing, and supress the game advertising thing because I'm not getting a cut out of it. yeah, lets find some rule or other that suits that scenario, I like it. +1 OH HEY, is this in the article already ? I don't bother to read it anymore, it's so biased, so long as the globalise template stays there I'm cool with whatever goes on. Penyulap ☏ 10:00, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

No, since you're asking, we can't trust RT. See below. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

List-defined references

FYI, I migrated this article's refs to list-defined references format (WP:LDR) for easier prose editing, considering the massive amount of reference data here. Named refs are defined in the References section, and only the names show up in the text. This doesn't affect future refs, ie. anyone can still insert refs any way they like, but if you need to change an existing ref, look for it in the References section. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:46, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure all that work was worth it Equazcion. What was the purpose again, to make writing prose easier? Well. I guess it does do that, but now it makes it harder for editors to make changes that will not result in a red error link message in the reference section. Can we discuss this. As I would rather have the full reference in the location it is used and not worry about attempting to locate a reference when a change is made or a the link is broken. We have discussed this before and I thought the consensus was against the migration of all references to a list for this reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any discussion. As for pros and cons, when you want to make changes you still need to look for the original ref, and that's actually easier to do when they're all in one section -- you just edit the References section and use your browser search to find the ref name, and the first result will be it. If you have to do that in the article text, you'll get the other named uses in your search as well. I could see the point if every use of a named ref had the complete ref info, but under the circumstances you'll be searching for it regardless, so it seems better to have them all defined in one section. Not to mention the ease of editing issue, which is big, in my book. The jumble of code amidst every portion of text was getting very difficult to deal with. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:20, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

This creates havoc when editing the page becuase if the reference is removed (and doubtless that there are several references still needing to be removed) and it also reverts work of a number of editors. Again, you should have discussed this first as i object to this formatting. It has been discussed before and I would like to know from others if this is something that they agree to. I think all references should be in the article in full as normal and that the bold edit or migrating all the references should be reverted. you do good work Equazcion, but this is something I do not agree with. Several editors were attempting to return all single citations back to fully formated inline citations per MOS. This doesn't really make editing easier, it makes it a bit more difficult in some ways.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is reverted, it wouldn't make all references appear "in full", which is the point I was making in my earlier comment -- only one of each instance would appear that way. And no work has been reverted, no formatting removed. Citations that were formatted are still formatted just as they were, and future citations can still be formatted just the same. This just puts the code for them in a neat list, instead of floating around within the prose during editing. This is why WP:LDR was made available. I'm not seeing a downside, but I guess let's see if others share your concerns. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:01, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

When I said the "work of others" I meant the work we were doing earlier in returning the full citations back. I see no reason for this right now. It does make editing a bit more difficult and there seems little reason to do it and more reason not to. It's not something I would take to DR/N but it is something we had discussed before and I am concerned about now. if no one else adds input it is something I am willing to live with. Took me enough time to understand it and how it works...but I still don't like it! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Spam, yum ? or yuk ? depends if you have taste or not i guess

here is the motherload of OWS stories File:Spam.gif but it's all from RT dot com, yes that's RT dot com, the only source for ne, ah who am I kidding, they ain't giving me a nickel. (grumble) but it is a nice big fat list of stuff. hey that little spam guy looks angry, i wonder if he's in the ows, or upset cause he's not getting paid, hmmm, man, I have to go, he looks upset. I better just save and run off. Penyulap ☏ 10:07, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

{{WikiProject OWS}}

Lolz, it gave me the idea to pwn your banner. :) Penyulap ☏ 10:27, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Please note this is an article talk page, not an amateur comedy forum.

Russia Today is a Kremlin-backed propaganda outlet originally organized and funded to enhance Russian "soft power" and push Vladimir Putin's aggressive foreign policy. Since we've got plenty of coverage from sources that aren't state-owned propaganda factories, my suggestion is that we not use Russia Today at all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

that's a rather impressive POV there, any citations to give it substance ? Penyulap ☏ 21:26, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

POVs don't need refs -- that's what makes them POV. From a policy standpoint, Russia Today is fine. And anyway, every news source has its leanings. If we hopefully extract their facts without any possibly slanted presentation, I think we're good. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:34, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do have refs to "give substance" to the POV that Russia Today is a Kremlin propaganda outlet, and only a few years old, to boot. And no, that isn't the same thing as "every news source [having] its leanings". The political leanings and other typical sympathies of ordinary newspapers are just not comparable to the agenda of the state-owned propaganda arm of an oppressive state government. And for these reasons I certainly doubt that RT is "fine" from a "policy standpoint". I would also question why, given the massive coverage from well-established reliable sources, we would have any need to scrape the barrel bottom to hear what the foreign intelligence service of the former Soviet Union wants us to think about political protests in America. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, I un-transcluded the banner and de-animated your comment. It was rather distracting, sorry. And echoing Centirfy's sentiments, please keep your comments here at least 80% relevant and 20% fun, rather than the other way around. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:42, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, spoilsport :) still, the disputes haven't died down on the ows article, and the problems I'd like to help with haven't been addressed by anyone else besides the two of us, so it's not like I have much else that I can do. Penyulap ☏ 21:26, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'm more of a 80% fun and 20% edit person, not because I wish to be, but as an alternative to the antisocial 80% arguing and 20% revediting but meh, that's me, another alternative is just to pick a topic nobody wants to own in the first place, that works too. Penyulap ☏ 00:53, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

There's little to enjoy about duking it out over serious differences of opinion. I don't think a controversial article such as this is a good place to go searching for "80% fun". Just FWIW. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Factchecker that RT (TV network) is not a reliable source, as a news outlet owned by a dictatorial regime not known for any respect for truth or objectivity. However good their reporting may or may not be, we can't use them as an RS, though we could use them for an outside perspective if properly framed, in the reactions article. B^e——C_ritical 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

which sources are reliable

here is a simple question, if RT is 'unreliable' then which sources are reliable and good enough for the article. Penyulap ☏ 21:31, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

RT is reliable, according to WP:RS (I think). There's no reference in that policy to rejecting state-owned media sources. I could see an argument for doing that though. If you're actually asking the hypothetical, "if RT were unreliable due to being state-owned, then what is reliable?", then of course the answer is non-state-owned reliable sources. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:38, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

well, the hidden question I am asking, is "If wp:rs is going to be used as the OWS version of the normal term wp:idontlikeit, then is there anything at all that everyone does like which I can then go and find bits and pieces from for use in the article." or is it a matter of "show me what you want to put in and then I will say wp:rs when what I actually mean is wp:own", and I'm not welcome to edit here.

I was asking that question as well, because just like you, I think RT is pretty much ok as a source, I've noticed that it's quite popular and useful in a very wide variety of articles. Seems suspicious to me that all of a sudden in a battlezone article it's called into question, I just think it is nice to say what you mean, so I ask the question as I intended, in the hope of a straight answer to that question. What sources are ok for me to use ? Penyulap ☏ 00:39, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Anything in accordance with WP:RS is okay (though that only speaks to the source itself, and I'm not approving of the way you intend to use it ahead of time, of course). If one editor told you he would rather not use a particular source regardless of its accordance with WP:RS, I wouldn't magnify that statement and assume it applies to the article and everyone who edits here. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:06, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

very diplomatic response Equazcion :)

No I'm not planning any Spanish inquisition with my main weapon today. I just did that with that cute little protester, who was carted away by the authorities (glare) (grumble) I liked that little rebel. Anyhow, how about that quote in a box wherever it is, seems pretty good, someone connected with the protest, I don't know who it was, but that julian assange chap is not about to interview the wrong person, and RT is not about to cover something that's not significant, and there'll be plenty of other sources for the statement, so I think it'd be a lot better than most of the reactions section which I just read. So how about that quote in that box thing ?

Looking over these occupy articles just then to see where it goes, these articles are such a heartbreaking mess, that I can't be bothered with this nonsense. Penyulap ☏ 08:06, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Please see my recent response to your comment above regarding RT. I have serious doubts that use of RT as a source is appropriate, and there is thoroughly extensive coverage of just about every topic imaginable in traditional reliable sources that are not Kremlin propaganda outlets. Kremlin musings about OWS belong, if anywhere, in the Reactions article, along with editorials by the state news agencies of China, Iran, North Korea, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Penyulap ☏ 14:42, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I also seriously question RT (TV network), but I can see how someone would want to use it. Penyulap, I suggest you ask for more opinions on the WP:RS/N. It's an interesting question. Suggest you use "Russia Today rt.com, RT (TV network)" as your heading, so that people can find it in the future. B^e——C_ritical 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

yes, I think that is a good idea, but right now, I think it is fine to stick to editors who are familiar with ows. I do wonder if there are any government news agencies, like the BBS that are reliable sources ? Penyulap ☏ 16:22, 10 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BBS is considered reliable. As is NPR. So you might mention that and find out what people think is the difference specifically. B^e——C_ritical 17:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Opps, I did a typo I meant BBC not BBS, what is bbs btw ? Penyulap ☏ 18:27, 10 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking British Broadcasting Systems, BBC is correct, anyway we understood each other lol. B^e——C_ritical 18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed we did, I meant BBC, Dr Who and all :) but hey, this whole idea about only the american and british media outlets being reliable, don't you get like, a bit worried that someone will point and say that is totally racist ? that would worry me a great deal. doesn't it worry you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:35, 10 Jun 2012 (UTC)

No, there are two factors: first, the type of government. Second, the language. We can use sources like BBC equivalents from other countries such as Germany or France, I would think. It's just that we don't know the language so no one does. I'm not sure they have equivalents, but we could use them. And again, you should bring it to the board, because the details are beyond me. I just know from experience that NPR and BBC are accepted. You'd have to ask people at the board to justify that. B^e——C_ritical 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is how it is meant to work though, for example, if I want to add something to an article, then telling me I need pre-approval is just bullshit. What you need is a proper reason why something can't go in, like for example, it contradicts other references. The whole idea that people can't put something into the article until they go and have it approved elsewhere is just useless time wasting ownership tactics, when if you need something checked as a reliable source, that is what you go and do yourself. Or at least that is how it works on the rest of wikipedia. That said, this is occupy wall street, and normal rules never apply here. I'm left wondering if it is worthwhile adding what Julian Assange found out to the garbage in the bin article, or, as we call it here, the 'reactions to wall street article which will never be summarized into the real article anyhow' article.

What about the Italian government though, I don't like them myself, so we should keep out anything that their Italian government media outlet says, I like that idea a lot actually, actually, most of those little foreign-speaking countries in Europe actually, I've never liked those. I say we should keep them all out. How about you, are those government sources reliable ? Penyulap ☏ 01:44, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I do believe there is in fact an NPOV problem with splitting the article off like that: it isolates it in a place where far fewer readers will see it. I personally think the size limit on articles is rubbish. B^e——C_ritical 03:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to add "Legal" section?

Many of the NYC Occupy arrests have been thrown out in court, most recently the 700 Brooklyn Bridge arrests were found to be the fault of NYPD, not the protesters, and a class action lawsuit against NYPD has been OKed.

Protesters alleged that police had led them onto the roadway, while police maintained that the demonstrators were sufficiently informed that walking on the area intended for vehicles would result in detention. "A reasonable officer in the noisy environment defendants occupied would have known that a single bull horn could not reasonably communicate a message to 700 demonstrators," [the judge] wrote in his decision. petrarchan47^Tc 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

sounds great. Penyulap ☏ 02:57, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yes, cool. B^e——C_ritical 03:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A request for repsonsible use of footnotes

Going forward, if any editor wishes to insert a substantial block of text with a substantial number of footnotes, it really would be courteous and helpful to be careful to place each footnote next to the text it substantiates. A single sentence containing 5-10 claims, with 5-10 sources stacked at the end of the sentence, is really of very little use. Material in WP articles is supposed to be verifiable by the reader, and this goal is not served when editors write prose in a way that hinders verifiability rather than furthering it. Just a request. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair request, but per WP:Citing sources, citations don't need to be placed within a sentence unless backing up a particularly contentious word or phrase[19]. "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Are you finding given words or phrases contentious enough to warrant their own mid-sentence citations? Sindinero (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sentence OR paragraph. I believe all he is asking is that each "claim" be accompanied by a citation. As I have said before (as was told to me by an admin I believe) is that the citation may be the same reference as already used but if the fact was lifted from that source it is always better to cite the claim not the entire chunk or block of text with stacked up references. All that really does it look like a large chunk of unreferenced and make it more difficult for the reader to verify the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mad. That is, in fact, my precise concern. Sindinero, I would just point out the policy language saying it's usually sufficient to add citations at the end "so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text". The specific situation I encountered yesterday, and the one I had in mind when I posted above, involved article text that gave no indication whatsoever which source supported which part of the text. And, for what it's worth, the "Goals" section is not exactly the least contentious part of the OWS article. So, IMO it's not only a fair request that is quite easy to comply with, but also one that would result in a better quality of service to the reader. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, given the history of this article there is very little or nothing that has not been found to be contentious. I give a pat on the back to anyone that has stuck with this article and the many other WP articles that draw similar problems. It reminds me of the good advise to not fight with pigs because you will get dirty, but the pig likes it. But we have to do it anyway or the article would now be a piece of political propaganda. And yes, by the way, I'm in total agreement with Centrify... :D Gandydancer (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is why I suggest we step up the citation formatting to include notes as well as references. The two can be used and generate seprate sections were a more detailed prose (still with references) can be added about specific bits of information. You can cite the source that contains the fact and then use the note to explain, for example- how the CBO report (with the report as a primary source) relates or was interpreted by "X' expert or blog. The claim would have the note, the reference and the primary source of link from the reference further detailed, all right after the claim. many articles do this.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This all makes perfect sense. (I'm also generally a fan of notes vs. references sections, particularly as used with the harvard or sfn template, as it allows for ease of editing footnotes and citing individual page numbers on a case-by-case basis, as e.g. here.) My question was actually whether Centrify meant that there were many locations where we'd need to cite on the sub-sentence level (i.e., after individual words or phrases), but it seems that this is not the case. Sindinero (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, maybe some people would like that...not me. Too many times I have found that that is used as just one more way to slant the actual reference to a certain POV. I never even bother to read them even though I actually do read refs on just about everything I read on WP. Gandydancer (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, no -- I didn't mean to suggest that we need to adopt this practice everywhere. I'm sorry if my words were misleading. But where we are dealing with a contentious section, and especially where we've got a single sentence summarizing and paraphrasing 5+ sources discussing a debatable topic, I think it's important to be a little more careful. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I definitely oppose this. This puts the needs of editors above readers. It's ridiculous to require duplicate footnotes after each item in a sentence. If someone wants to check refs to make sure an item is there, they can feel free to put in the work themselves to do so. We don't need to make it as easy as possible for them to find it at the expense of the flow of the paragraph. This lowers the quality of the article, is against the MOS, and I'm undoing it. Just a heads-up. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:09, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Uhm. Verifiability is an obligation to readers. If the reader comes across a contentious claim and can't tell whether it's verifiable without an hour of work, because of careless drafting, that's a serious defect. And, it's clear that this practice need not be adopted everywhere, just where there are debatable claims and significant possibility for confusion by the reader. Article quality is not compromised in any way by careful and detailed use of footnotes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't careful, it's overkill. The first paragraph of the goals section looks ridiculous right now. 5 consecutive items all with a duplicate footnote? Completely unnecessary. Leave one after the final item and that's as obvious as any article is in identifying a source for a claim.

• How it looks now:

  OWS's goals include a more balanced distribution of income,^[49] more and better jobs,^[49] bank reform^[50] (including reduction or elimination of profits earned by banks),^[49] a reduction in the influence of corporations on politics,^[49] forgiveness of student loan debt^[49][51] or other relief for indebted students,^[52][53] and alleviation of the foreclosure situation which accounted for 20% of homes sold in 2011.

• How it should look:

  OWS's goals include a more balanced distribution of income, more and better jobs, bank reform^[50] (including reduction or elimination of profits earned by banks), a reduction in the influence of corporations on politics, forgiveness of student loan debt^[49][51] or other relief for indebted students,^[52][53] and alleviation of the foreclosure situation which accounted for 20% of homes sold in 2011.

Equazcion ^(talk) 16:37, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to introduce serious ambiguity all for the purpose of removing minor visual clutter. This is a terrible suggestion and would be a disservice to both readers and editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There's not even a little bit of ambiguity this way, let alone a serious amount of it. It's how every article works. We have a contiguous statement all sourced with one reference, and I'm suggesting putting that one source at the end of the sentence, instead of repeating it ad nauseum throughout the sentence. It's the opposite of ambiguous. What you're suggesting (and have done) is a response to paranoia, and is overkill. There is absolutely no need to repeat the same citation in a contiguous statement. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:58, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That's absurd. It is chock full of ambiguity because it doesn't tell the reader which sources substantiate which claims -- precisely the defect I sought to correct. But as long as we're arguing from ridiculous premises, I guess I'll assert that there is no visual clutter in the version I wrote, and thus no reason to remove any of the footnotes. (Wow! Dishonest argumentation is that easy?) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest argumentation? You think I have an ulterior motive here? Alright. Anyway: This is about as "chock full of ambiguity" as is standard practice to include -- which is basically none. Contiguous claims from one source receive one inline footnote. There's no need to repeat it 5 times in the same sentence (even if you disagree on the awkwardness issue). If you're saying this statement is especially contentious, therefore it should be treated differently? Well I guess I disagree. Let's see what others think. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:22, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on rewriting it to correct what your perceive to be a stylistic problem, I'm going to insist that it be re-written in a way that doesn't destroy or obscure the correspondence between specific sources and specific claims. Perhaps this could be as simple as re-ordering the list items or breaking up the sentence into multiple sentences. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to put quotations in the notes, but as I see it that does no good since when I did that I was asked to source each word instead of each sentence. I don't think there is any need for abnormally exact placement of sourcing for this article. But there is a need for reading the sources on the part of some of those who criticize the text, as was the case with the "direct action" criticism. B^e——C_ritical 22:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Look; I frankly don't care how sorely you think you were mistreated in prior content disputes with other editors. Please stop with these irrelevant and distracting complaints. I have no interest in further hearing about how you aren't interested in showing basic courtesies or honoring basic requests because you once went to the trouble of showing how your sources substantiated your prose and weren't sufficiently rewarded for the effort. And I'd note that there wouldn't be a "need for reading the sources" if not for the habit of you and one or two other editors here to stretch and misrepresent sources to fit the particular narrative you want for this article, while filibustering the talk page with protests when someone points out sourcing problems with your article text (or, God forbid, asks you to assist verification by showing which source text you think corresponds to which article text you have written). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And I have no interest in hearing your complaints that you can't read normal sourcing and have to have it specially formatted. Read the sources provided, even if there is more than one. Then if you still can't find it, I will be glad to point it out for you. Heck, I'm glad to point it out or provide quotes even if you haven't read the sources. But don't make claims that the sourcing is bad before you've done your homework. For the record here, the claims above are spurious: we have been excruciatingly diligent about stating exactly where and how our sourcing supports the text, and Factchecker's inability to gain consensus for his claims that the sourcing is bad seems to stem from his lack of knowledge of those sources or from not absorbing the explanations. B^e——C_ritical 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What a frankly dishonest series of statements. I won't continue this "discussion" and I will continue to remove any misrepresentation of sources that you include in this article. I would urge you to stop and read sources more carefully so that you don't end up with more irresponsible paraphrasing. Also query whether your desire to give WP readers an original narrative that can't be found in any source is appropriate. (Spoiler alert: probably not!) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)