Jump to content

Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Wrong date on the page

In one section, refers to 17 Oct 2011, which isn't even here yet. Can't update, which defeats the purpose of wikipedia, because someone chose to protect the page and restrict edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyle.jack (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo fixed. Semiprotection was done to reduce vandalism, and I, for one, am glad of it. Autoconfirmed editors, which you will be after doing a few edits on non-protected articles, are quite welcome to edit semiprotected articles. --Lexein (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

STOP DELETING REFS

Named refs are used in several places in the article. When the main named ref is deleted, it damages the verifiability of the rest of the article. Please pay close attention to changes made, and use Preview and temporary {{reflist}}s to verify changes before saving. -Lexein (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop putting in non-cited information in

There is a lot of information being put in the article that isn't being cited and sourced. This why I got the article protected, so that I could stop people just dumping whatever they want in it. If you want to change something, it needs to be talked about on this page before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oki doki. See comment above. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
American Engineer should follow his own suggestion and quit adding information without a source. Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't put any information in that was uncited.AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanitation section

An editor removed the sanitation section from the article and commented, "this whole section should be moved to the article about Zucotti Park."

I disagree, because the sanitation issue is related specifically to this protest, not to the general, everyday nature of the park.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but would prefer a different quote/source (that one is from the landlord). LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of the landlord, Bloomberg's girlfriend, Diana Taylor, is on the board of directors of the company owning the park. Feel free to google-verify, plenty of sources. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
LoveUxoxo, the quote from the landlord is what was reported in the CBS article. If you can find additional quotes from other parties in reliable sources, please add them to the article. But please don't think there can only be one quote, and please don't remove the landlord quote. Mk2z0h (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I never considered removing it, just would prefer a better source when/if available. As OWS progresses, that shouldn't be too hard, because Burger King and sympathetic neighbor's showers isn't going to cut it. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage section's pruning

Thanks, someone have pruned the Media section, so score of reductionist and simplistic garbage journalism (Erin Burnett, Fox news) have been remove, as well as others humorous counter attacks (Jon Stewart, etc) since they are not need anymore. A good part of my work have been deleted, but thanks. Good move for everyone. Yug (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not needed, though it is understandable. If deletions have been wrongly made, please be clear about which ones, and make a concise, civil case for the inclusion of the material. Coverage is coverage: there's no need for deletion of commentary, especially if that has been reported on elsewhere. Feel free to revert deletions of sourced material, without exceeding 3RR, then discuss civilly, per WP:BRD.
Wikipedia is not the place for strong views, though we can do our best to report in a balanced way about the views of involved parties. See WP:TIGERS. This is a caution both to supporters and opposers of the protests. --Lexein (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ugh... That was not sarcasm. I even thanked Viriditas. This move is a good move I support, and which will save a lot of time to all of us (not having to reports all the peripheral attacks). Yug (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Another reason this article needs a neutrality tag. Deleting news reports that you disagree with. That is the exact opposite of NPOV. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Both content I added and the opposite side contents based on humorous sources have been deleted to let the place to the few serious and calm sources, that's fair and neutral. Yug (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Negative - It is not neutral. You have made your feelings on this protest known and are manipulating the article to make it sympathetic to the protesters. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear, are you still talking about the Media coverage section ? Yug (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No, this article does not need a neutrality tag. You need to know what is encyclopedic. Commentary from Jon Stewart or Bill Maher making jokes about the coverage (or lack there of) FOX news had about the protests and the Tea Party similarities isn't. This article also doesn't need, and I quote, "American radicals are planning hundreds of simultaneous violent uprisings to topple our system of capitalism... I'm talking about anti-capitalist terrorists in our own country" in the article, or "if you put every single left-wing cause into a blender, this is the sludge you’d get." This section was about the coverage the media had on the protests, which was initially very little coverage, and now that it is spreading it is getting a lot of attention. Now the section reads two sides of the situation, how initially it was hard to take seriously, and now that it's getting attention, a more widespread message is trying to be reached. Funny jokes from comedians and right-wing commentary about how the Occupy Wall Street protests are dirty hippies and terrorists is not neutral or add any value. Just because you don't have every person's opinion on the article, doesn't mean it isn't neutral. Neutrality takes the form of having encyclopedic information from a couple of different majority view points making coherent sense of what the topic is about, not a clusterfuck of comments and opinions of random people unrelated to the topic. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the comedian edits and have deleted a few myself, but I don't agree with the deletion of every right wing Fox News personality, in other words Hannity, Coulter, and O'Riely (and who needs comedians when you've got these guys?). If we have an acceptable reference for their comments, they should be in the article, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of this paragraph, and think it should be put back in:

"In an editorial in the Jewish Commentary magazine, Senior editor Abe Greenwald referred to celebrities who supported the protests as "self-demonizing millionaires."[1] Conservative opinion columnist Ann Coulter, in comparing them with the tea party protestors wrote, "Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public... Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning."[2]"

My reasons are that:

1) Since the protest is about the 99% protesting against the 1%, it is indeed notable that some of the protestors are in that very 1% whom they claim to be protesting against.

2) Since the protest has been compared to the tea party, it is notable to compare the different behaviors of the two groups.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I support keeping those two sources removed. We want to discuss the media coverage in an encyclopedic manner, using the best sources we can find. What you present has got nothing to do with media coverage, nor do we want to be in the habit of citing opinion pieces. Furthermore, criticizing celebrities is off-topic. The question you need to ask is, why should we be citing Greenwald or Coulter's opinion? Please try to pay close attention to the underlying narrative of the media coverage section. It isn't perfect, and needs work, but it is about how the media covers the subject and how they represent the story. Greenwald's attack on celebrities doesn't address this topic at all, and Coulter's comment is just another one of her numerous attacks on liberals, implying that all protesters are unemployed or on the dole. It's about as far from encyclopedic or important as you can get. Your reasons for inclusion don't really hold up. First of all, look at the sources that are used in the section. Most, if not all of them, are considered notable by secondary sources, not by Wikipedia editors. That means that this commentary was already established as significant in some way. Second, the narrative shows a general view of the position of the media and how they see the protesters. It certainly needs work, and will change as the days go by, but we have no need to focus on offtopic or extremist rhetoric. We should strive to represent mainstream sources at the center, with relevancy and authoritativeness in mind. There's a big difference between talking about the difference between news coverage of two different movements and comparing their "behaviors". If we are really going to do that, then we aren't going to talk about it in a media coverage section, and we certainly are not going to use Coulter as a source for sociological analysis. Authoritativeness is important here. Coulter is an authority on attacking liberals, and that's not the subject of this article. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
First, my argument for inclusion had nothing to do with the way editor Mk2z0h views the inclusion. However, reading Viriditas' post and coming to see this section as a section about the way the protest is being covered by the media rather than the comments of notable media figures, Coulter for example, I would agree that she and other Fox News anchors are not appropriate in this section since they are commenting on the protesters, not the media that is covering the protests. Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Add San Diego

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/occupy-san-diego-city-hall.html demonstrates that the movement is viable in San Diego too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.97.254 (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is an Occupy Wall Street protest in San Diego. Someone please add it. --Trickymaster (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/131412063.html

Please make the following changes to the External Links section:

1. This link is incorrect (it automatically forwards to the official Adbusters page, which is already linked in this section):


It should be updated to this:


2. Please remove this external link (it does not meet external link standards):


3. Please add this external link:


Lampshade00 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you please update the first link also? It should be changed from "occupywallstreet.org" to "occupywallst.org".
The occupywallstreet.org URL automatically redirects to http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet (which is already listed). The occupywallst.org URL is registered to Adbusters (and is therefore "backed by Adbusters").
--Lampshade00 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, got that fixed, anything else??? AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Thanks! --Lampshade00 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date in "Number" section of infobox

Please change the date in this bullet point to October 5, 2011. The referenced article is dated October 6, but it is referring to the marches that took place the day before.
*15,000+ marchers
(Lower Manhattan solidarity march, October 6, 2011)
Lampshade00 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. It was completely retarded of that Guardian article to timestamp that entry as "10am". LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Resources

I appreciate all anonymous editors contributing sources which they feel might be useful, thank you for helping! However considering the number of sections on this talk page, I combined the last 3 submissions into one section. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Citigroup Analyst describes US and UK as Plutonomy
Can a Movement Save the American Dream? thenation.com
Plutonomy:Bringing Luxury, Eplaining Global Imbalances citigroup.
87.164.124.151 (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Protesting 'occupiers' spread message beyond Wall Street by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY
97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Steve Jobs, Occupy Wall Street, and the Capitalist Ideal 10/6/11 at 11:15 AM
Why Union Support for Occupy Wall Street Matters 10/5/11 at 08:35 AM
97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


I'm struggling to imagine how the alleged Citigroup doc, even if we had some way of authenticating it, would be an appropriate source for this article. I'm guessing that it would be useful only for original research. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities in alphabetical order

Hi,

I think it is easier to read the cities in alphabetical order rather than chronological. Although we could show the chronological order in the "History" section. But, for now it should be alphabetical. What do you guys think? --Trickymaster (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I like listing them in the infobox alphabetically (though perhaps grouped U.S./non-U.S.), while in chronological order in the article body. The list in the infobox show be presented in a way that facilities locating a specific city. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Greywater image from article

The image of the water-recycling bucket doesn't relate to any content in the article I see. Also, I find the image very distracting. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that including elements of the occupiers' day-to-day life is important because their message is partially delivered by the systems they've set up at the park; they are living within the kind of democratic system that they'd like to see adopted on a larger scale. Collectively caring for the space (forming sanitation crews, recycling, and setting up a greywater system) is part of that process. --Lampshade00 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, but with the limited number of images than can be in any article, they really should be limited to illustrate content that is actually in the article. Say a picture of the OWS media center would be way better. I'm not touching it myself, and I do think it gets that point across you were making (if not, for me personally, compellingly). LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. After looking through it again, it does seem a little out of place. It might fit in the future, but I agree that it doesn't quite work with the current content. --Lampshade00 (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to make a point: The sanitation section isn't just about bathroom issues, but in general how the protesters are taking care of the park and its environs, and how they are disposing of their waste (including wastewater). This image illustrates how they are recycling waste. That's why I think it fits. --David Shankbone 00:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That would be OR, would it not? Meanwhile, reliable sources publish stories talking about how the park is being trashed, with photos showing garbage piling up in the streets and one protestor even defecating on a police cruiser. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess my problem is, without accompanying sourced text in the article, it's letting the photo "testify" as a source. The graywater recycling could have been a bucket, a tray, and 2 pieces of PVC pipe that got junked after a couple of days. Or could be working quite effectively for weeks. Anyone have her number btw? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The photograph relates to sanitation and in at least one way depicts one method of addressing it at the park. This method has been covered in Wired, Business Insider, et al. I'll just expand to save a discussion. --David Shankbone 01:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but David thank you very much for contributing some of those pics...a pic like this is very informative and gives such a great sense of being "there" in Zuccotti Park. Maybe we should consider grouping a bunch in a horizontal gallery(?) Please don't force yourself to add content right now just because of what I said. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a good point - the photo stuck out, and it was just as easy to write a few sentences. Thanks about the photos - this article is large enough that I don't think we need a gallery (those are stylistically controversial anyway); I think illustrating the sections looks pretty good. --David Shankbone 01:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You both may find this from my permaculture garden group in Portland, Maine interesting: [1] Gandydancer (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, now I know the whole story! LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Iowa City should be added to the list of places where solidarity protests have arisen:

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20111008/NEWS01/110080321/More-than-200-gather-Occupy-Iowa-City Poliwop (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

its done!!--Nrpf22pr (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is The Corporation (film) an inspiration for this movement?

Is The Corporation (film) an inspiration for this movement? 99.35.15.199 (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you could find any (and more helpfully more than just one) reliable source(s) that state so, it could be considered for inclusion in the article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

from Portal:Current events/2011 October 9, reference?

What is our one demand?

The poster shown is given a caption that "What is our one demand?" indicates the absence of a single demand. Is that based on a source or is it original research? I have no inside knowledge, but to me the image of a woman standing on one leg with outstretched arms on top of a raging bull would seem to give the answer, "Balance!" - so I am reluctant to accept the interpretation provided here. Wnt (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the demand, actually? Is this just an event where people who are angry at Wall St protest? No demand at all but just crowd influence to scare Wall St?--72.19.122.62 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This page does not represent the people whose political ideologies are diverse, so please open up this protest as common people uniting against wall street and their control of the white house. It is not purely an anti-capitalism movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not completely, but it still is mostly an anti-capitalism movement. The rest is from other groups, also mostly extremists of various forms. It was started by Adbusters, and has not moved into the mainstream. You shouldn't try to make this look like it's a bunch of normal people. They're not. It's like putting lipstick on a pig. That only makes the article look foolish.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Being anti-capitalism makes you an extremist? And not a normal person? 83.83.118.29 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW: The opinion from an activist that's posted on HuffPo is not a good enough reference to say it's a "diverse group of demonstrators from various social and political backgrounds."
At best, you could use a reference that so-and-so says it's diverse, and let the reader decide based on the merits of that person. But a one-shot opinion piece on HuffPo isn't enough to make this worth doing.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

They will need to fix trade, protect innovation like we used to, roll back red tape and tort on small businesses, decertify public employee unions, and implement E-Verify while ending chain migration to fix this country. And it's just not going to happen unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.5.98 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


The one demand that keeps coming up in discussion is to give William K. Black all the necessary authority required to duplicate his success with the S&L crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.132.84 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OWS, Tea Party, capitalism relationship

From my understanding :

  • OWS demands to strongly regulate, taxe, sue the financial sector (Wall street) to restore economic justice, so hard work = good income again ;
  • the Tea Party request taxes reductions and reduction of the government for a fairer economy, so hard work = good not taxed income.

Upon what some news reports suggest that OWS and the Tea Party principles are compatible, while others say they are opposed. OWS supporter Mickael Moore said the movement is pro-capitalism, but against the Casino capitalism of Wall street (source). Other OWS supporter Van Jones said it is not against the Tea Party, he want to do like the tea party, to restore the american, pro-midde class way of capitalism (source). While the association of the two political views is not perfect, and not openly claimed or visible, we should also be careful with sources about a claimed 'opposition' between TP and OWS. From the direct sources I read, OWS political position and the TP actually have a lot in common. Wanted: a calm and serious source about the two movements will and compatibiity/opposition. Yug (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that there is little difference in Tea Party and Progressive/Liberal viewpoints, you are pretty much alone in your belief. Van Johnson said he wanted to "rival" the Tea Party's influence, not copy it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is there is actually few differences. But OWS is still a large group of various people and political views, so journalists wording I read *sound like* OWS is progressive[citation needed] or anti-capitalist[citation needed] idealists so they are oppose[citation needed] to conservatives views, without explaining seriously why, and in which points they oppose. My point is : Wikipedia should not reports such simplistic claims I myself neutralized several times. In a nutshell: when journalist do a poor work over a fictional opposition, no need citation here. Yug (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Do I understand you correctly in that you add ((source?)) because the source did not, in your opinion, explain the situation well enough? If you are doing that, you would not be correct. If you don't understand the difference you need to look it up rather than expect the media to explain the difference in a liberal and a Tea Party-er. For one thing almost all Tea Party-ers are Republicans, and I doubt you would find very many of them at a OWS protest. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(oups, misunderstood your previous post !)
I'm digging in. I didn't found clear opposition of the Tea party against the core request to reduce wall street power upon politics. Yug (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the Tea Party is opposed to the "core request to reduce Wall Street power"; but I think most self-identified Tea Partiers would profoundly disagree with the means proposed to achieve that goal. Simplistically put, Tea Party = conservative American populism; OWS = liberal American populism. They agree on the 'populist' part, but not much else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.193.162 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my suspicions. Soon you will see OBAMA 2012 shirts galore at the protests. S51438 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

MARK RUFFALO views on OCCUPY Wall Street Protesters stand for

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbSye1jTwL8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.188.104 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Update of Union Support for Occupy Wall Street

On September 28, 2011, th International Workers of the World union published an article on their website supporting the Occupy Wall Street protestors following the arrests and use of less-than-lethal weapons by the NYPD.

General Defense Committee of the Industrial Workers of the World stand in solidarity with our brave brothers and sisters at Occupy Wall Street. We denounce and detest the intimidation, harassment, and brutality exhibited by the New York Police. The actions of the police lay bare the true nature of Wall Street and Capitalism.

We call on all those that still retain a sense of humanity to show their support of the working class by refusing to engage in the brutal silencing of dissent. The only individuals who remain unaffected by the volatility of capitalism, globalization, and the stock market are those who are getting richer from furthering the disparity of all workers through calculated economic calamity. We support all of our brave fellow workers on the front lines of this occupation throughout the United States, and those like it across the world.

We recognize that the true occupying forces are the wealthy ruling classes, their institutions, and the States that legitimize their power. The police and military forces that protect their masters' wealth and power are just as guilty as their masters. Only by uniting as workers and standing together as a class, can we take back our streets and our workplaces.

Solidarity Forever!

The General Defense Committee of the IWW [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDaly0302 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Always helpful is to also provide a link to the original, as we can't consider adding anything to the article without a WP:RS. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

99% -- doesn't appear in the article

The 99% movement, or 99ers is a commonly used thing heavily cited over the past week in the media. It should be referenced in the lede. Can someone skilled do so? Herp Derp (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The claim that "we are the 99%" is namely a political agenda for more wealth sharing, economic fairness, democracy, etc. Should be more visible. Yug (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Also agree. Not sure why it's presently not found in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 99% article

I noticed that the bit was taken out of this article here, should this article just be deleted as well? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The 99% article is well-sourced and the phrase has certainly become notable, so it should remain, IMO. I also think the phrase should be visible in the article, as I do not currently see it there.--JayJasper (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

John B. Larson resource: "Larson Applauds Occupy Wall Street Movement"

http://www.larson.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1391:larson-applauds-occupy-wall-street-movement&catid=61:2011-press-releases 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy San Antonio

We have a group here that's been going on for about a week now. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Cries-of-Occupy-San-Antonio-ring-throughout-2205816.php http://www.facebook.com/occupysanantonio Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.247.2 (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographics section a tad disingenuous

The lead of the "demographics" section currently reads as follows: "The protests have brought together people of many political positions including liberals,[72] political independents,[73] socialists,[72] conservatives,[73] anarchists,[73] and libertarians.[72]"

Reference 73, which is used to justify "conservatives", reports a single conservative being at the rally. Not only does this not justify the use of "conservatives" in the plural, but this also goes to the larger point. Much as the organizers of this event would like to claim this to be a politically diverse event (as did the tea party on the other side), it's quite clear that this event by and large has a liberal slant and has been supported by mostly liberal groups and commentators. This position is represented by many sources (NYT NPR CBS etc.). Simply put, it is an NPOV violation to not mention the overall political leanings of this movement, or to suggest that liberals and conservatives are of equal footing based on the presence of a single conservative being mentioned in one reference. Oren0 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

While I seriously don't buy the "there was only one conservative at the rally", a simple rephrase of the sentence would suffice.
"The protests have brought together people of many political positions including liberal,[72] politically independent,[73] socialist,[72] conservative,[73] anarchist,[73] and libertarian.[72]"
The sentence was talking about the positions of the people anyways, not the number of people who had the positions. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the demographics section is poorly worded, not to mention puffy, and fails to mention what the Times and other sources have pointed out, which is that most demonstrators are young. I've reworded. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I know a little about that section because I added the info from Huff post way back when any sort of news was scanty. I never really did like it and had to make many edits to it - for instance someone kept adding "communist", refs were asked for even though the source was provided, and I don't remember what all. But I never really liked it and actually found it hard to believe, and to have one reporter claim this or that is hardly reliable for the article. At one point I actually deleted it, but someone else brought it back and gave it its own heading. Anyway, I agree we can do better. The NPR article is excellent and perhaps someone could work with that and other articles and come up with something better? Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
To add, about the ref, the Huff Post article mentioned all the different political positions but someone added other refs to some words, which left some appear to have no ref... I really wasted a lot of time on it! Gandydancer (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact that there may be some individuals of various political pursuasions isn't the point. There is a clear political leaning to the protests as a whole, as established by reliable sources. It's misleading and a WP:WEIGHT violation to mention the inclusion of all of these groups based on a single article that, again, mentions one conservative. I'm not arguing that there was in fact only one conservative, but to draw from this the conclusion that the group is politically diverse is a stretch. Oren0 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree with Oren here. There's not doubt this is a leftist movement, and it is proudly so. There was one sentence I took out that said it is mostly anarchists at the park, which is patently false. And in the same light, trying to make it seem that this movement resonates with conservatives is...misleading absent multiple sources. --David Shankbone 00:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Concur, this seems to be a relatively serious NPOV violation. Pretending that these protests somehow straddle the political spectrum disserves everyone who reads the article. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess I was misunderstood. I agree with the editors that feel the present information should be changed. Gandydancer (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It's so awful. Please someone put it out of its misery. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The effort to show a wide range of demographics is contrary to the sourcing and is POV, as is the photo, which I've removed. This area is definitely one that has been slanted, and I will tag this article for POV if it is reverted. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You wrote that the people are anarchists in their twenties, and not one source in that section backs that up; they say the opposite. I added two more, the Christian Post and Associated Press that also say it is diverse. Photos of the people at the protest are not POV. --David Shankbone 15:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with the text but not the photo. I think it's overkill. I'm beginning to see validity in the POV concerns. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
My perspective is that it adds to the article and to our readers' understanding of the topic to have a montage of participants at a protest, any protest, under the Participants section. It also supports the text that is reliably sourced. --David Shankbone 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I also don't feel strongly about the montage, so if someone removes it again I won't raise an issue. --David Shankbone 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel that strongly either, but I think that the montage, combined with the general tone of the article, is not terribly neutral. However, I've yet to see any evidence that balancing text has been omitted. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Just saw this discussion... I deleted the collage just now. I understand that a lot of work was put into that collage, and it looks artistically solid, but I just can't support it from an encyclopedia standpoint. I know it is annoying to see your work deleted (I have definitely been there) but my main concern is somewhere between wikipedia not being a journalism project and wikipedia requireing Verifiability ... Because this is a controversial topic, there will inevitably be people who ask, "were those NINE people REALLY representative of the crowd there?" ... and you can take one side or the other, but an AP source is a lot more bulletproof of an argument for diversity than "nine pictures some guy uploaded." Here I stand. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Deleted use of talk page as forum. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Editors should be aware of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 10#File:Wall-Street-1.jpg. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Redirect?

Somebody deleted the former occupy page on this wiki and has it redirecting to this page. That is a gross error. This movement does not define the word "occupy." Can somebody please undo that and fix wikipedia? 152.131.9.132 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I turned it into a disambig page... let's talk it out there. Talk:Occupy MPS (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

number of arrests international version on occupy wall street

I came across an article on the number of arrests in Boston:Wall Street protests swell in N.Y.; 129 arrested in Boston but in the number of arrests should it be added to this ine? One more thing, since there are so many "occupy wall street" protests all around the world, maybe its a good idea to create a page aboiut the protest that are happening all around the world involving the occupy movement--Nrpf22pr (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource Chicago

Corporation personhood resource

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has been mentioned in the media in relation to OWS. 99.190.85.209 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In more cities

Athens, GA not Greece

In the info section it says there are protests in Athens Greece, yet that patch article is for Athens, GA.--147.32.97.254 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

US and world

"October in over 1400 cities across the globe, and in approximately 400 cities in 48 states across America."

  • Source: Murray, Edward (Oct. 11). "Occupy Wall Street May Be Too Big to Fail". TheHuffingtonPost.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

"Occupy" protests Article needed

I feel that seeing the protests are now nation wide here in the United States that a parent article is needed to serve as an umbrella for all the events. Comments? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

resource?

Stéphane Hessel on Occupy Wall Street: Find the Time for Outrage When Your Values Are Not Respected of Time for Outrage! 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite error: Invalid ref tag

Occupy Wall Street#Local Residents - at the end of the first paragraph the ref tag is malformed. The text
   <ref name="NY Post Bloomberg article>
should be
   <ref name="NY Post Bloomberg article">
with a closing quote mark. The tag requires either matching single or double quotes or that the name= parameter contain no spaces. 192.42.92.28 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New York Times news sources

99.56.123.210 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chicago's 'Occupy' Protesters: What We Demand

LA Times resource

someone needs to merge List of Occupy Wall Street locations and "Occupy" protests

List of Occupy Wall Street locations lacks lots and lots of citations. I obviously have spent some time on the "Occupy" protests article (specifically the table) and so could be seen as not disinterested in how these things are merged... could someone a little more objective take a look at both and figure out what needs to be done (and DO IT!) Peace, MPS (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does the map have Arab Spring locations? Those protests are different from the occupy wall street movement.XantheTerra (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Did some researching and have seen evidence for occupy wall street movements in only US, Australia, Canada and the UK. Therefore a bunch of countries off the List of Occupy Wall Street locations should be deleted. Iraq is not involved, so why is it in the list? Protesting in Spain and Greece predates the Occupy movement, have different focuses and should thus not be included, etc. The map should only reflect countries where there are confirmed Occupy protests. The "Occupy" protests article is much better.XantheTerra (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Jacksonville

Since I no longer use my main Wikipedia account and this is semi-protected, I guess this is the only place I can put this. There is now a Occupy Jacksonville event that will be occurring. See a local news article, of which this is probably only one of the many there are. Jacksonville, Florida should be added to the beginning intro with the other cities that have other events. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If the introduction is about protests that have already occurred or started, then the word is October 8 is when the Jacksonville Occupation will begin, so you can wait until tomorrow or the next to have some reliable sources on the event going to start at Hemming Plaza. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added the information. My roommate was in charge of the UStreak for Jacksonville, and a link will be added when it is made available. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
As the list has changed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_%22Occupy%22_protest_locations, I have gone ahead and updated the information there as well. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Other cities

It's getting too big for the lead. I live in a town of 1500 people, and we had an Occupy rally yesterday. I imagine Oregon will probably end up with 10-50 cities having rallies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion above for a '2011 Occupy Protests' type of article is a good way forward now, as there are LOTS of occupations now taking place, many of which don't necessarily warrant individual articles - some will of course, if not straight away - and this article now faces becoming overburdened and unwieldy.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I would support the above suggestion, with notable individual protests (for example, Occupy Wall Street) being selected for individual articles. Perhaps it would also make sense to handle different countries and regions differently.--Yalens (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's a sample to start filling in... we can move to new article soon... Peace MPS (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not have the sources in the footnotes instead of having a "reliable sources" column? AGreenEarth (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
City Country wiki article date of first protest reliable sources number of people participating number of people arrested number of people killed number of dollars spent insert other sample headers here
Peoria United States Occupy Peoria October 4 Peoria newspaper
San Jose United States Occupy San Jose July 4, 1492 NBC news
Seattle United States Occupy Seattle etc etc
Portland United States Occupy Portland etc etc

Hey, student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee and there have been significant protests here across West End Ave. at Centennial Park. The music industry, which is Nashville's biggest economical factor, has taken a huge hit and people are getting uneasy about it. Please add Nashville to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.1 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok people, Occupy DC is getting speedy deleted... the time has come for a decision... do you want to create an 2011 Occupy protests article, or not... I will toss out a first "vote to see if there is consensus or if there are other ideas. Just noticed somone created this: List of Occupy Wall Street locations MPS (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street at fort worth

currently there is a planned protest at Fort worth, Texas Here i the Facebook Link:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Fort-Worth Set for Oct 10.--Nrpf22pr (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is problematic as a source. News sources, radio or TV reports or even their associated blogs would be better. --Lexein (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is one link:Occupy Fort Worth: Protests are Coming to Cowtown schedueled to begin tomorrow at 10:30CT--Nrpf22pr (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
A chart would be the easiest way to display all of the locations. The only annoying part will be continuisly updating the chart because the movement is spreading to so many cities accross the nation, not to mention there may be so many cities on the list it might be easier to mention the bigger cities instead of all of them.AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons to Tea Party

The "Tea Party" started on December 17, 2007, with Ron Paul's "Tea Party Moneybomb", which generated 6.08 million dollars for his 2008 campaign. Showing this graph with the arbitrary start of the "Tea Party" to show a correlation of media attention is at best disingenuous. Not that any of you would ever post disingenuous material. If you showed the real graph, it would show that the media largely ignored the "tea party" for 1.5 years. http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/005 The start of "Tea Party" protesting was in January of 2009, four months before this graph starts for the "Tea Party", and yet it is attempting to show somehow that the media favors the "Tea Party". But don't mind me, keep on discrediting yourselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

This image is now used in FiveThirtyEight as media commentary. It is public domain in the US because it is compiled from public data and elements which could be claimed as indicative of original authorship have been removed.
Unlinked image. Can't show non-free images on talk pages. Dragons flight (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not? Dualus (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Relinked, because a graph compiled from public data contains no more original authorship than a telephone directory. Dualus (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we upload an adaptation of this image from this 538 blog post? It shows how the Tea Party was funded up front (with astroturf?) in contrast to the natural growth curve of OWS. And it shows that OWS is quickly overtaking the Tea Party. My understanding of copyright laws for graphs is that the data and axis lines can be copied by points and lines including color, but the captions, axis labels, titles and legends have to be re-done. Are there any graphic artists who can do that? Dualus (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your various statements of what the graph shows are not the same as Nate Silver who created it. If the graph is included in the article it should be captioned appropriately. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have seen in reliable sources that the Koch brothers funded the Tea Party Movement. It's unreasonable to extrapolate first order variations, but the cumulative statistics are shown. Dualus (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you just meant, but I am admittedly a bit slow, so I'll assume it's a failure of my intellect. Fortunately Nate Silver is always deliberate and concise when dealing with this geeky stuff, and makes it crystal clear, even to me. The graph with its labels is self-explanatory. In the article he explains his methodology. And his analysis is not that it is "quickly overtaking the Tea Party". His actual quote is "Coverage of the Wall Street protests continues to increase, however, and could surpass that given to the Tea Party rallies in April and May 2009 if it remains at its current levels for several more days." (he wrote it on Oct 7). "Could" and "if" are two big qualifiers, Nate is a professional, quote him accurately as to any prognostication he makes.
You've used the word "funded" twice. The graph has nothing to do with that. And its completely missing the point of the article, which is the correlation between OWS news coverage and police use of force (see article title). Whatever "natural growth curve" you see, I don't, and Nate didn't either. The whole point of the article is showing the correlation between police use of force and spikes in coverage: "Still, the volume of news coverage has tended to grow in a punctuated way rather than a smooth and linear fashion, having increased after each confrontation with the police. The other graph shows that clearly. The article itself is a tremendous resource for this article. I just didn't see anything you wrote as being related to what I had just read. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
See Political activities of the Koch family. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Why? For the purposes of improving this article by using that graph, the other graph, or the article content from which they came, the Koch Brothers do not exist. Any attempt to make a connection is WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Just clarification as to why the previous Koch brothers comments' relevance. Just attempting to be helpful. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making the effort to help out, and don't ever feel the need to apologize for trying no matter how cranky people like me are (nor expect any thanks either!). Cheers! 05:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite tone. Sadly it can be in short supply in wp Talk. WP:TEA. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
If you were familiar with the history of the jumping IP's edits, you would come to the conclusion that its goal is not to improve Wikipedia, but to create links to its favorite articles, one of which is Koch brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed the caption of the image to read "Comparison of news coverage of Occupy Wall Street protests and the Tea Party Movement." Before, as I feared, the caption said that it was measuring the "growth" of each movement, which is just so wrong. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

While this protest is obviously important, it seems to me like this whole article is written from the point of view of the protesters and their views and is most certainly not NPOV. I don't have any vested interest in the article, but I just figured I'd point it out. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for rewriting history or correcting injustices. Articles shouldn't be written with an agenda beyond objectively. That's all very fine and good, but then what perspective should an article take? Indeed, a neutral perspective is not the same as an equal one. For example, it is not neutral to present a movie that is objectively Nazi propaganda as rather being a discourse on atheism, just because a vocal resource insists that all Nazism is truthfully founded in atheism. That is a fringe perspective. An article has to present an accurate perspective on reality. Attempts to mold a biased reality to a prejudiced opinion, will only disfigure the fact that sometimes -- to paraphrase Stephen Colbert -- reality has a liberal bias... or a conservative bias, or an anarchist bias, or a fascist bias, etc. If a majority of resources on the subject of this event are prejudiced and do not reflect reality, it would be irresponsible of us to use them as resources. Anti-Occupation resources can be used, if they were accurate in their commentary. Recent accusations that the protest is becoming unsanitary and filthy at Zuccotti Park are damning because they seem objectively backed by photographic evidence. Those accusations are included in this article now, free of pro-occupation bias. It isn't our fault that, since the initial arrest and pepper-spray incidents took place, media sources have been taking a closer look at the protesters, giving us more accurate sources to use, even as large swaths of the media remains biased in its reporting of events. Frankly, it's not our fault that reality on-the-ground gives us an article "written from the point of view of the protesters and their views". As soon as the media turns its spotlight on the police and Wall Street traders, we can get an article that considers their perspective as well. --Cast (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's very specifically not how Wikipedia works. We don't present "an accurate perspective on reality" that would be original research on our part. We present what was said or written by other notable people and organizations on the subject of the article, in this particular case those sources would be mainstream media, political analysts, politicians, academicians studying political science, etc... We don't get to exclude sources based on "prejudice" or "lack of accuracy" if the sources are generally held to be reliable and important by the majority.
If you think "a majority of resources on the subject of this event are prejudiced and do not reflect reality" that is not a valid reason not to use them, nor is the fact that "large swaths of the media remains biased in its reporting of events". If the article doesn't reflect the way the majority of sources report the events that's an obvious NPOV issue.
Please also keep in mind that people involved directly in the movement editing the article to insert TRUTH(tm) is a conflict of interest and the bulk of the editing should be left to supporters, opponents and random people who aren't directly involved. Especially having the OWS media teams editing here in an organized way would be highly inappropriate. Helixdq (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but lets take what you've advised to it's logical conclusion and see how it pans out. So, we don't present accurate details based in reality? Consider then the history of Henry Ford, who was accused of being an anarchist.HENRY FORD FILES $1,000,000 LIBEL SUIT; Resents Chicago Tribune's Charge of Anarchy in Connection with Enlistment of His Employes. So perhaps if I'm not to utilize my own discretion, which you characterize as original research, I should promptly use this as justification to alter the article in question and categorize Ford under Category:American anarchists, and further alter the infobox of that article to note the important contributions Ford made to the anarchist movement? Of course, that is an extremist view, but my point was that we must reject extremist views when they are presented as a minority opinion. But what if they are presented as a majority opinion? Well that would be notable, but only for the controversy of a majority opinion being wrong, and we could report on that controversy. Or perhaps we should dispense with that, and just merge the articles on Barack Obama with the separate articles we have on the largely reported rumors of his Kenyan origin and Muslim faith?[crackpotreference][nutcaseblog][outofcontextquote] No, we isolate and expand our coverage on the controversy, but we do not present the perspective as being based in fact. This is my perspective, grounded in Wikipedia:Coatrack, that "articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." This is an article on Occupy Wall Street. As the article expands, we can expand the reaction to it and eventually form an article on Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. By the time such an article is necessary due to size constraints on this article, it will surely include more perspectives from non-OWS participants. Then we can focus large swaths of that article on all views and opinions from a wide range of perspectives -- and that will require a great deal of discretionary balance on our part. Until then, this article should remain focused on Occupy Wall Street in general, its background, development, participants, and social impact -- all easily fact based, rather than opinion oriented. NPOV is easily attained here. We just filter for facts. I hope that minor act of filtration isn't too much like original research for your tastes. --Cast (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Good discussion guys, thanks. I would agree with a lot of Cast's comments above, especially in a situation like this, where sourcing is dominated (exclusively?) by news articles, generating in the immediacy of the news cycle. A certain amount of editor discretion based on common-sense reasoning is required. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gordon is correct, this article is written from the POV of protesters. It is heavily biased. It glosses over the leadership role of the General Assembly (it does have leaders and is quite organized) and the "Second Pepperspray Incident" is 1) titled in a way that is sympathetic to the protestors and 2) glosses over the violence that cause the police to respond. This is a very important event and it is a shame that wikipedia is letting people sympathetic to the protests control both the tone and the release of information. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the article has a serious neutrality problem at this point. Is there any pertinent information that is being ommitted? Are there any specific changes that need to be made that either haven't been done or are being thwarted somehow? I agree that the article, taken as a whole, is sympathetic to the protests but what's needed are specific suggestions to address that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Negative news coverage of the event was deleted from the page. The leadership of this movement has been ignored on this page. The violence of the protesters has been ignored. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you site diffs of the problematic edits? If there is a problem, it can and should be hashed out here, or it can go to dispute resolution. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion: go to the bottom of this page, where it will get more attention and be in better chronological order, and enumerate with diffs the text that needs to be added to make this more neutral. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess that until these protests have been over for at least a month, there will continue to be NPOV problems here—and in general, suggestions that there are in fact NPOV problems will be energetically rejected on Talk. There are just too many sympathetic editors descending on WP to edit this article for the normal editorial processes to play out as they're supposed to. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Much the same as if edits of the bio of a government official were coming from their office, if several editors to this article are doing so from the I.P.s of a wireless router in Zuccotti Park, I feel it's a WP:COI that is almost impossible to overcome. should be disclosed, as such a disclosure is a benefit to both Wikipedia's credibility, as well as the editors who are active participants in OWS. I said if, because I have no idea, however the concern is legitimate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting observation, though I have no idea how anyone but an admin could make the investigation that would be necessary to reveal such a COI. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that the entire Corruption section needs a rewrite in order to fit under WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:WORDS. For example, this sentence: "For Obama's re-election efforts, 244 elites are directing at least $34,950,000 -- money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee." While this might be sourced, the way that it is written (the inclusion of coffers, for example) invokes a negative mental image and seems to be editorial in nature rather than encyclopedic, and comes close to violating WP:SOAP if it is not a direct violation thereof. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Occupy Wall Street Could be Disaster for Democrats, Commentary magazine, October 4, 2011
  2. ^ This Is What a Mob Looks Like, by Ann Coulter, Human Events, October 5, 2011
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_4&oldid=1142773282"