Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Antisemitism

I read through the discussion on Talk about the anti-Semitism section several times and I still can't find the reason why it was deleted (without discussion).

Did you delete it because you don't believe there is anti-Semitism at the demonstration?

Or because you didn't think there was a WP:RS saying that there was anti-Semitism?

Or some other reason? --Nbauman (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

i don't see any reason anywhere why it was taken out. as far as i'm concerned, it should go back in there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the second version was excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Diff URL please. Our article is named Antisemitism. Dualus (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&action=historysubmit&diff=456291906&oldid=456291420 Bowmerang (talk | contribs) (→Fringe antisemitism: Deleted as per previously established consensus)

I don't see any previously established consensus.

There is no consensus. Some of us disagree. We disagree because we have objections that nobody has answered. We disagree because nobody has given us a good reason that doesn't violate WP:POV for removing it. When there are unanswered questions, there is no consensus.

In the previous discussion editors said that it should be removed because they didn't think antisemitism was significant at OWS. I don't think so either, and neither does the ADL, but that's not the point according to WP rules.

The point is that there are many WP:RS, for example David Brooks of the New York Times, who have accused OWS of antisemitism. The way to deal with that is not to delete all viewpoints, but to include all viewpoints, which I think clearly show that there is no antisemitism.

For conciseness, this section doesn't give a long list of WP:RS of newspaper columnists in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and elsewhere who had charged OWS with anti-Semitism, but if the problem is WP:RS I could add them. It's clearly notable because of the many WP:RS claims of antisemitism.

Unless somebody can give us a good reason under WP rules, I'm going to restore it. Which is the way WP is supposed to work. --Nbauman (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this deletion of the antisemitism section was legitimate, IMO, because videos like this aren't WP:RS. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=prev&oldid=456032177

You may have gotten consensus on that deletion, but that's a different issue. --Nbauman (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to restore it. Going once .... --Nbauman (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

as i said, i think it should go back in.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Going twice .... --Nbauman (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To establish WP:WEIGHT, here are some WP:RS that endorse or repeat the claims of anti-semitism.

This article from Commentary looks like one of the first and clearest WP:RS calling the protest anti-semitic.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/ Occupy Wall Street Has an Anti-Semitism Problem Commentary Abe Greenwald | @abegreenwald 10.11.2011 - 2:29 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/us-occupywallstreet-idUSTRE79H8DE20111018

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/charges_of_occupy_wall_street_anti_semitism_find_audience_on_the_right.php

All of this nonsense about so-called antisemitism is a fringe POV attack on OWS made by POV warriors. It is .00000001% of the sources. Commentary is not [WP:RS]; even ADL is on the POV side. The so called Emergency Committee is tantamount to running a fraud - they plucked one idiot out of the crowd, himself Jewish, and tried to viralize. One person out of 100,000's. Oh - and one nutty woman who actually was Antisemitic. But User Nauman is not only doing a POV war, he is trying to do [WP:OR] by analyzing videos on his own and using them as a basis. To "include" means to have a "balance" of POV's, not mildly paranoid (ADL) with archly paranoid (Commentary). How about inclouding statements from OccupyWallStreet itself and its apparent bona fide leaders rather than propaganda screeds based on isolates? Wikidgood (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Should the existence of manifesto-style books be indicated in headers?

My inclination is to shorten headers unless there is a specific reason to lengthen them. Dualus (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shorten. --Nbauman (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny; the book whose existence you think should not be mentioned in that section header is the only thing even remotely linking Lessig to OWS, in that a single reporter suggested it could serve as a manifesto for the group. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh brother. I've never read it till now, but I guess that this line should send a red flag up: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters would arguably support... I'm going to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall I also remove the other material that lacks any established link to OWS? Never mind, I see that's what you actually did. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's now been restored by Dualus — without the contextual hook I had previously added. I notice he also moved it back up within the section, so that it now appears before actual discussion of OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "contextual hook" (many protesters would arguably support...) was not very encyclopedic, and it's misleading given the source showing Lessig's direct involvement as an Occupy DC speaker. Dualus (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cart before horse. Without a contextual hook, the material does not belong in the article at all. The material you're edit-warring over is also, itself, quite misleading. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the section in proper chronological order showing Lessig's direct involvement in Occupy DC (where he spoke) and with the missing references replaced. Dualus (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior on this and the George Will bit amounts to edit warring. You're forcibly adding POV-pushing material that is either poorly sourced, misrepresents the source, lacks a connection to the article topic, or has other substantial problems that other editors have raised. You have ignored all these objections, and the editors raising them, while edit-warring to keep the material in the article even though you appear to be the only editor that supports inclusion. Please stop. Dropping a template on your talk. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the above, but there's a source which shows Lessig speaking at Occupy DC and there are other sources with him speaking in New York and Boston. How do you think which source is misrepresented? I've discussed every edit. What problems do you have with the current state of the George Will quote? Dualus (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? The objections by other editors that you ignored are in the exact same place we were previously discussing this issue; they haven't moved. Also, simply mentioning on the Talk page that you are making an edit that every other editor discussing the subject has objected to is not what is meant by discussing edits at the talk page, nor does it reflect any attempt to achieve consensus prior to editing. That's great that Lessig has spoken at an OWS event (if you're not somehow also distorting that source); but this doesn't mean that everything Lessig does that could possibly be of interest to OWS protesters becomes part of this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well at the moment there are sources in the article saying Lessig joined the protesters and he adds credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna

I agree with this edit.[1]. We need to scrupulously adhere to BLP in dealing with this sensitive issue. However, perhaps I've missed it in this long article, but I see no reference to media reports that Bologna is being disciplined and may be docked vacation days. That is relevant and belongs in the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that edit. WP:BLP allows accusations of crimes and misdoings as long as they are well-sourced to WP:RS. The Guardian is clearly WP:RS. There have been lots of articles about this in the New York Times and other major WP:RS, which you can easily find with a search of Google News. The police department said that Bologna was suspended from his duties (with pay, as I recall), and that the department of internal affairs was conducting an investigation. The Patrolman's Benevolent Association issued a statement defending Bologna. And one of the civil liberties law firms has sued the city for Bologna's actions. The legal documents are public records, and the news stories based on them are WP:RS. Google those sources, insert the links, put it back in the article, and there are no problems with WP:BLP. In fact, WP:NPOV requires it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This article may help in the above argument: 'I'd do it again,' says police commander filmed pepper spraying the faces of women at Occupy Wall Street protest (Last updated at 3:04 PM on 21st October 2011) --207.237.7.144 (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good addition in the spirit of bending over backwards to be fair to the accused. --Nbauman (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of events

I think the chronology of events should go at the end.

I can't imagine anybody getting through it anyway. In my understanding, it's a collection of material that we should try to move elsewhere where it belongs.

Any objections? --Nbauman (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention

Dualus, would you please stop putting that section into the article until you can find some reliable sourcing to back up both the connection to OWS and that it is actually going to be anything. Treehugger, among others, is not a reliable source. Much of the section is synthesis of material simply referencing books on the topic without any context to the current event. None of it seems to make the connection to OWS other than a tenious connection which takes synthesis of material to reach. Arzel (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are referring to this section:

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, and others.

which both you and Gandydancer have deleted. You claim the sources are not reliable, but TreeHugger is an established Discovery Communications blog with a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I will ask on WP:RSN. Dualus (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Treehugger article is not written by a journalist, but by their Social Media editor - the guy who pimps the site via Twitter, Facebook and whatever else in the social space can help promote Treehugger. His writings are hardly serious journalism: one of his articles such as as this one of which the lead sentence is "What's your favorite pair of old shoes?"|, and is essential a shopping guide for the green minded. Mr Tackett's makes it clear that he has never worked as a reporter. Their is no way the Treehugger article can be seen as reliable. TheArtistAKA 19:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Tackett is not a journalist? The link you say says he's not a reporter begins, "After earning a degree in Journalism...." I've asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Lawrence Lessig part of the Occupy movement? Dualus (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"...and Strategic Communications" is what the degree is , which the Universtiy of Kansas tells us includes marketing. Again, I'm am not able to find anything that indicates that Tackett has been a professional journalist, nor is he now one. TheArtistAKA 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with Arzel, Gandydancer, and TheArtistAKA on this one. Bowmerang (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just absurd, and further evidence of WP:TAGTEAMing. If you have a degree in journalism and underwater basket weaving and you work for Discovery Communications as a daily blogger for a site ranked better than 1,600th in the US then you are a journalist. It is unbelievable and petty that people are seriously trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Froomkin and Shane have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You have offered no proof of meatpuppetry, and have only shown nothing more than baselesss suspicions of it. Do have anything to show that Tackett has ever been a professional journalist, such as articles with real reporting, not agrregating? TheArtistAKA 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note also Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin's comments, "Occupy the Constitution." Dualus (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Linking is not a substitute for discussion. What are we supposed to see here? We are not obliged to guess what is obliquely referred to. TheArtistAKA 21:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. The second paragraph of that piece, posted yesterday, is a single sentence which states:

So far, at least, Occupy Wall Street protesters have not made claims about the Constitution central to their mobilization.

These are the same OWS protesters who you seem to think are responsible for Larry Lessig's proposed constitutional convention and book about political reform, right? And I suppose the book, published on October 5th, was dashed out and fast-tracked through the publication process after three weeks of intense collaboration with the leaderless resistance movement? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if that out-of-context quote was representative of the entire piece, you still have not addressed Dan Froomkin[2] and Peter M. Shane[3]. Dualus (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please address at least one thing we are supposed to get not "out-of-context" so we know what your point might be. We can't read minds. We are not inclined to go on what may be wild goose chases. TheArtistAKA 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Two other sources that also don't say that OWS was somehow responsible for Lessig's book and conference? What is it I'm supposed to be "addressing"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Eleven additional news sources

Here are three more news sources mentioning the constitutional amendment: [4], [5], [6]. Here's a Politico story devoting four paragraphs to Lessig and OWS, including, "Lessig suggested that a constitutional convention, which would require states to force Congress to call one, would be an appropriate vehicle for fundamentally reforming the nation’s campaign finance system." Here's Greg Mitchell's "OccupyUSA" blog: "Cenk 'Young Turk' Uygur launches his WolfPac, which asks citizens to occupy their local state houses to force the states to call for a Constitutional convention to pass an amendment that bans corporations from buying politicians. Also at www.Wolf-PAC.com," with confirmation from ThinkProgress. And here's a story, "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" mentioning, "a ban on private contributions to politicians seeking or holding federal office and instead public financing for campaigns, and a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision." Dualus (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are three posts by Lessig on OWS: [7], [8], [9]. Here's a Slate story with a third party account of Lessig's support for OWS, indicating that he and Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lend credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the point/pupose of this barrage of links? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You and others have suggested above and in this sub-section's section that inclusion of the paragraph on the constitutional convention is unwarranted because it is insufficiently sourced. I intend to address that issue. Dualus (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please identify specific text for any source and the claim you believe it supports. It is not possible for the discussion to proceed without analysis of specific text. Simply listing sources is not helpful; it simply makes work for editors just to figure out what you are talking about. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact I have quoted such passages in the paragraph above. You will note that in addition to being listed, I have also described all but six of the sources. Would you please state your remaining objections to inclusion of the paragraph, in light of these new sources? Dualus (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming every source whose text you quoted is acceptable (I didn't check), what you've got is substantiation for saying in the reaction/commentary section, not the background section that Lawrence Lessig has spoken at some OWS events and made very encouraging comments, and that Dan Froomkin thinks his recent book might serve as a manifesto for OWS because its message is relevant to their interests. The rest is general stuff about Lessig and others that should not be in the article. Regarding the conference and suggested constitutional convention, if I had to guess, I'd say even if you found all the most OWS-relevant sources out there, at most we'll be able to say that OWS protesters think that would be a really good idea. I sincerely doubt you'll find anything genuinely indicating OWS had a hand in either.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This never was in the Background section, it was in "Demands and goals." What do you think of the Slate article saying Lessig lends credibility to the movement because of his call for a constitutional convention? I intend to add that, along with the other summaries. What in particular are you referring to by "general stuff about Lessig and others that should not be in the article"? That 99% Declaration which you got such a laugh out of turns out to have been the only document thus far endorsed by the New York City General Assembly, and it specifically calls for a constitutional convention. Does anyone object to adding any of these facts, given these new sources? Dualus (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the sections are called, it should go in the section describing responses and commentary on OWS. I don't see a problem with discussing a Slate article that says what you just described, but of course you should take care in how you describe it. As for "adding [other] facts, given these new sources", whatever those are, you should discuss them here first before adding them. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should go in "Demands and goals" because the sources specifically mention those. Dualus (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my latest attempt:

The protesters have joined Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig's call for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution made at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig, who adds credibility to the movement, also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, Cenk Uygur, and others.

I added [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Should I add [16] too, to show it's a national position? Dualus (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is improved somewhat, but is still problematic — for one thing, it's very heavy on information that may be of interest to OWS, but is not about OWS. Also, I urge you once again to avoid simply listing a large number of sources without quoting specific language and connecting it with a specific proposition that you think each source supports. Look at it this way: if you are trying to make a point, do the hard work yourself instead of making it an uphill climb for other editors, who have to do a bunch of source reading just to figure out what you're saying. A lot more people will be willing to read and listen to your argument that way. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Centrify, especially about the direct quotes.

I couldn't find anything in the sources that supports the claim that "The protesters have joined" Lessig. On the contrary, the sources specifically say that the General Assembly hasn't aproved it. Can you give me a direct quote that supports it? Otherwise, there's a strong argument for deletion.

If the General Assembly has created a working group on a constitutional convention, I could accept including that qualified statement in the story -- as long as it made clear that it was a working group to discuss the issue, and that it hadn't approved it. Otherwise, it should be deleted.

If Lessig supports OWS, it doesn't follow that OWS support's Lessig's idea. That's reasoning from a converse. --Nbauman (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gen. Assy's Demands Working Group has called for a constitutional amendment and convention. The Slate article has a direct quote saying Lessig adds credibility to the protesters. Is that good enough? Those are already in there. Dualus (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, it is a bit frustrating to me that I am giving so much thought and detailed attention to discussing this issue with you (as are several other editors), yet when you find you aren't getting the agreement you want, you just go ahead and insert the material anyway. As previously mentioned, this is WP:edit-warring. Please don't persist in it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't figure out what changes you are trying to get me to make. If you are unwilling to read the sources, I will discount your objections as uninformed, just as I would hope you would discount my opinion if I refused to read the sources you summarize. Dualus (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now asked you about ten times to cite specific source text that you think supports specific claims you think should be reflected in the article. In virtually every instance you've responded by refusing to cite any specific text, making the highly general cop-out comment that "readers can judge for themselves", and often simply spam more sources without any specific text indicated or any specific claim we're supposed to check the sources for. And when I have taken the initiative of poring through entire sources to try to figure out what exactly it is you think the sources say, in every case it has become clear that you were exaggerating or otherwise distorting what was in the source.

You can't simply spam sources without specificity, declaring that they unequivocally support every single POV-pushing claim you've inserted, and call it a day. It's not up to other editors to make an exhaustive line-by-line analysis showing that the sources don't support your edits (ever hear of "proving a negative"? very similar phenomenon). Rather, you identify the text that does support your edit, and present that to other editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have cited and quoted specific passages, at the beginning of this section, so you are plain wrong. I will respond further to your essentially duplicate comments below at #Questionable claims of consensus. Dualus (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, I'd like to help you get this in, but I can't find the text. Can you quote the text from one of those WP:RS that says that the General Assembly appointed a Working Group to study the question of a Constitutional Convention? --Nbauman (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! "[demands] Number one and two are a ban on private contributions to politicians seeking or holding federal office and instead public financing for campaigns, and a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court."[17] I will look for more sources. Dualus (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage analysis through October 14

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/20/8415478-internet-talks-about-occupy-wall-street-media-listens Dualus (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the point/purpose of this link? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should be integrated into the "Media coverage" section for an update, as I hope the header of this section suggests. If you have read it, which parts of it do you think are the most important to summarize? Dualus (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(Regarding this and all links) I have no obligation or plans to read the sources. If want to incorporate them into the article, you could suggest on this talk page what text you want to add and see how others respond to it. In regards to Lessing, it would be helpful if you could fairly acknowledge the major objections of other editors to you suggestions, otherwise other editors may tire of repeating themselves. That would be a show of good faith. It would also be worthwhile to note that your record of convincing others is not very good, and your habit of making personal attacks, such as Meatpuppetry, may still rankle. Getting rid of this tendency would make dialogue much more easy, rewarding and productive for all. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

His name is spelled Lessig. Have there been any objections other than insufficient sources, e.g., third parties saying that Lessig is part of the movement, such as the Slate story cited above? I have never used the term "meatpuppet" -- I have said that from my perspective, other editors' behavior seems like WP:TAGTEAMing, but I have only circumstantial observational evidence. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it those terms mean more or less the same thing. It's not a nice thing to accuse others of. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended, but saying it seems like one is being hassled is certainly not the same thing as making a specific accusation of harassment. Dualus (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is all better left to user talk pages. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It seemed like you were pretty specifically accusing me and Artist on your talk page. But anyway, best to avoid. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to stoke a fight here... in fact I am basically just making a drive by middle child comment, but just wanted to point out that the lede for WP:TAGTEAM says "Tag teaming ... is a controversial form of meatpuppetry" so linking to WP:TAGTEAM (whether or not you intended it) may seem to other people that you are accusing them of meatpuppetry even if that was not your intent... this could definitely be a case of "message sent is not message recieved" and could be a isolated incident / ginormous misunderstanding not sure if it is time for y'all to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, but if there are personal differences, apologies, wikihugs or whatnot, you might want to handle them on y'all's talk pages. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

side note: if there are three editors involved in a disagreement, by necessity it will be two on one side and one on the other and potentially feel to the one like tag teaming. if there are four in a disagreement, there is a 57% chance (assuming random assignment of editors to sides and assuming disagreement) that it will be three on one side and one on the other, and thus really really potentially feel like tag teaming. the circumstantial evidence that i see here seems to me to point to nothing in particular but a reasonable disagreement carried out, at times, in a slightly bumptious but not actionable manner, as the two or three to one thing is more likely to have been produced by chance rather than conspiracy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

See also

Add link to New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.109.200 (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source establishing a connection? Dualus (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Defecating on our doorsteps"

According to the New York Post, local residents are angry about the sanitary habits of the OWS protesters.[18] Should this be included in the article? Kelly ^hi! 05:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

When you use as the title of the section the most inflammatory, hyperbolic quote in a sensational tabloid's article, I lean toward no. Do you have a more mainstream, reputable source for this meeting? WSJ or Washington Times if you prefer another conservative outlet. --David Shankbone 05:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the NYP not an RS in this instance? It appears they are on the scene and interviewed residents first-hand. Or are you suggesting they fabricated this? Kelly ^hi! 05:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Would this be a better quote?

"They have to have some parameters," said Tricia Joyce, also a board member. "That doesn't mean the protests have to stop. I'm hoping we can strike a balance on parameters because this could be a long term stay."

We should certainly include information about the meeting. Dualus (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that one random person saying "defecating on our doorstops" is hyperbolic, and unless there is some source saying that public defecation occurs commonly, we should treat this one-off statement from a random person as nothing more than that. If you want to include information about the meeting, something more representative and NPOV from a mainstream source is preferred. --David Shankbone 05:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's being widely reported as a central complaint of the residents. Granted, Kelly only listed one source, but the complaint is representative and there appears to be no NPOV problem with including it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Should reports of rapes and sexual assauts be handled the same way? Kelly ^hi! 06:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a question for the New York OWS article. --David Shankbone 06:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah - so no criminal activity at NY OWS activities? Kelly ^hi! 06:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. --David Shankbone 06:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the basic point is whether or not we should include instances when movement participants have been accused of criminal activity, or even unethical or immoral activities. Based on Tea Party movement, such statements are fair game in Wikipedia articles. Kelly ^hi! 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We would include it if there was a reliable source saying that the proportion of people committing a particular crime and involved with the movement was greater than the proportion of people committing that crime in the population as a whole. For example, if a tennis player kills someone, that won't make it into the tennis article. But if someone finds that tennis players are more likely than average to kill people, that probably will. There is always going to be a certain proportion of crime in any subculture. What kinds of crimes does our Tea Party article accuse them of? Are you talking about the racial epithets? Dualus (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This OR-infused rationale holds no water. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For the real lowdown on what protesters are doing in London, see Fox News UK at the Occupy LSX. Is this a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources that covered this meeting (google Occupy Wall Street "Community Board 1"), and it appears that every one of them mentions one or another complaint about protesters urinating and defecating in the streets. Other complaints were about protesters taunting and verbally attacking people on their way to work; breaking into buildings; blocking access to shops, parks, and other public places; playing drums constantly at a level of 117 decibels, where 110 is enough to cause permanent hearing damage; a guy screaming being asked by an old lady to stop screaming, only to scream at her louder to "get some earplugs" if she doesn't like it.

Also, editors may have their own invdividual feelings on etiquette, but I'm not aware of any reason why an editor should have to start a discussion off with a softball question or otherwise avoid discussion of a contentious topic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the New York City General Assembly's Good Neighbor Policy which I am finding unusual because it has so many expressions of "zero tolerance" which is usually associated with authoritarianism. Dualus (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are many thousands of homeless people living in NYC. Many of them are mentally ill and/or are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Many of them live on the streets and even of those that sleep in shelters, they are usually not allowed to spend their days there. It should be obvious that the protests have drawn many in for free food and what ever else there is to offer. To suddenly claim that the demonstrators are peeing in the streets forgets the fact that it was happening well before the protesters arrived at the park. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Dualus (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I did a Google search for Occupy Wall Street "Community Board 1". No one specifically said that they saw protesters were urinating or defecating in the streets. The only evidence is a photograph of a man who may have been mentally ill, with no evidence that he was a protester except that he was in the neighborhood. I would include that claim if it could be supported by evidence, but not otherwise. Quote the text from a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you missed the numerous articles, each of which mentions that specific complaint. I don't especially care about this aspect of the protests (it's a load of crap!) but I may pull some sources later on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Summary Neutrality

The second part of the first sentence of the introduction ("the protests were inspired by the Arab Spring movement, especially Cairo's Tahrir Square protests, and the Spanish Indignants.") appears to me to contravene the neutral position of the article. Having a reference to Tahrir Square presented so prominently in the introduction is clearly an effort to associate the OWS with these events. Without any intention to belittle the efforts of the OWS participants, the actual link between a protest involving several hundred people at virtually no risk of serious physical injury (pepper spray aside) and a protest involving millions where hundreds of people were killed and thousands injured is extremely tenuous. The links implied between OWS and the wider Arab Spring movement, which let us not forget includes the horrific events in Libya and Syria, is offensive.

I suggest this reference should be moved lower down in the article, perhaps to the background section. The fact that Adbusters took their inspiration from the Arab Spring is, at best, an aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.117.82.3 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Adbuster's site begins with this wording:

1. OCCUPYWALLSTREET is a people powered movement for democracy that began in America on September 17 with an encampment in the financial district of New York City. Inspired by the Egyptian Tahrir Square uprising and the Spanish acampadas, we vow to end the monied corruption of our democracy … join us! We're now in DAY 35.

it seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's tangential and took it out as TMI for the lead , but am OK if consensus wants it in, and I will not get in a pissing match on it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Prominence given to connection to Arab Spring

The {{"Occupy" protests}} template gives prominence to the phrase "Part of the impact of the Arab Spring". The only place that "Arab Spring" is visible in the Occupy Wall Street article is in Occupy Wall Street#See also. Either the template should be changed (move "Arab Spring" to the "Other" group), or the introduction and background sections of the Occupy Wall Street article should be updated to reflect that prominence, citing multiple sources including Cornel West (see this democracynow.org citation, currently cited here). 67.101.6.174 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It was in the intro, but people have been removing it on false and unfounded claims of consensus. Dualus (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop making accusations on this talk page. It is highly inappropriate. It is the consensus of editors who have removed it and enough people have "lived" with it to be true consensus. This was a perfect time to attempt to form another consensus but you took this route instead.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting may not be suitable for this article

The current reference formatting generates a list within the editing page. When a reference is deleted for legitimate reasons the reference must also be removed separately from that list. Since the generated list is not in the same order as the published Wikipedia page this becomes extremely difficult with the large number of references included in this quickly changing article. Perhaps we should switch to the more common form of reference formatting that will not create the large red error messages since we cannot stop legitimate deletion of references.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

== Dorian Warren addition ==

A recent addition has been removed as "claim unsupported by reference" for the following reason. The added information is this:

"Professor Dorian Warren from Columbia University has described the movement as the first anti-authoritarian populist movement in the United States."

But the article from the source, Democracy Now does not make this claim and neither does the professor. What is actually said is in relation to the "left" specifically, and a time period also included as "since the 1930s". I don't know if Professor Warren is particularly notable enough to place this at the top of the article, if corrected, or if it should go down in the section for reaction.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Professor stated that "It is the first anti-authoritarian populist movement in this country.". You need to replace the sentence I added which is supported by the reference. Please read references more thoroughly if you are going to remove editors contributions. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to cherry pick the quote you want won't work here. The title of the article is "Occupy Wall Street Emerges as "First Populist Movement" on the Left Since the 1930s" I read the reference and you may want to assume good faith. Professor Warren's words are clear in his opening statement for the interview.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The description as anti-authoritarian is appropriate. This description has been sourced to a Professor who is has written extensively on related topics. The claim is made by the Professor in the article, despite your initial denial. Do you understand that this is your error? The title of the article is irrelevant. His opening statement describes it as a populist movement on the left. This is a basic fact which is not contradicted by my addition which adds the description of anti-authoritarian. There is no cherry picking. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

::::You may not realize this...but that is the very definition of cherry picking. This time you are cherry picking facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So, let me see if I have this right. You don't want the actual meaning and words of Professor Warren to matter...just the phrases and comments he makes that fit what you wrote? And you think this is my error?

There is nothing wrong with the source. It appears to be a reliable reference and the professor notable enough to be interviewed for his opinion and can well be included in the article (somewhere).....as long as the claim being made on the article is substantiated by the inline citation. At this time it does not. If we simply stick to what he is saying and what the article is about there will be nothing to object to.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So if I was cherry picking what is it that you think I am ignoring which contradicts my assertion that the Professor described the movement as anti-authoritarian? Do you understand that being on the left is not contradictory to being anti-authoritarian? Perhaps you should read the political spectrum article. So to summarise, my statement is sourced, so your first reason for the removal is false and my addition of Dorian Warren description doesn't ignore contradictory facts so there is no cherry picking which was your second reason provided for your removal. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You have made no real attempt to clarify the issue. You are simply arguing and have not addressed the fact that the original claim you made in your prose is not supported by the article or what Professor Warren is recorded as saying. And no...cherry picking is what you have been doing in this thread. The prose was just false.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have clearly proved you are incorrect with multiple clarifications. The description as anti-authoritarian by the Professor is stated plainly and unequivocally in his second last answer for everyone to read. There is no contradiction, no cherry picking, no issue, except for the best placement. I didn't think the reaction section was the best because anti-authoritarian is a fundamental characteristic rather than a response to the demonstrations. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, there ya go. I agree. I have been arguing a different point and did not realize the specific wording added. You have now actually made a clear point differentiating the actual quote. Thank you for you patience! Now...how do you feel about it being place in the reaction section or do you feel strongly about the placement.?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You also deserve an apology for my mistake. I am very sorry that I did not get this right and caused you any distress from the mistake, and thank you for not reverting it yourself and sticking to the talk page and simply hashing it out until I understood my error.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Organizations

My inclusion of the fact that the American Nazi Party has publicly supported OWS under an "organization" section was reverted on the basis that it wasn't notable enough. [19] However, this has been reported in several mainstream news sources and has a lot of hits on Google, so clearly people are interested in learning about it. The Daily Caller, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times and others have all mentioned it. What is it specifically that makes the support of this organization "non-notable"? The ANP not having its own Wikipedia article does not seem like a good reason. If it should not have its own section, is there a better place in the article that it could go?Boothello (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are over 35,000 hits in Google News for "Occupy Wall Street" and less than 300 of them mention Nazis. Please read WP:UNDUE. Dualus (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is faulty logic and hardly suprising since the ANP only anouced its support publicaly over that past few days. If such a standard were applied evenly, much of this article would have to be removed. Is it your belief that everything need to be repeated or mentioned in every article about OWS before it is included in the article? Or should we start going through the article and remove everything that doesn't meet such an impossible standard? Arzel (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus discussed above to remove fringe antisemitism. Dualus (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From my understanding, that is because the claims of antisemitism in OWS are based on several reported instances of individual protestors expressing antisemitic opinions, which do not represent anything significant about the group. That's considerably different from wholesale public support of an entire political association. I understand if you think it's undue weight to create a new section for the ANP alone, but that doesn't mean the article shouldn't mention it somewhere.Boothello (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, reading the discussions above it seems like a stretch to say that a consensus has really been reached about the antisemitism issue. Nevertheless, it is not applicable to the question of the ANP.Boothello (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't already, please take a look at my comments above regarding guilt by association. I'd say this sort of material can go into an article on the ANP, but not here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that discussion. I think that WP:BLP does not apply to groups of people or protests but even apart from that, the association fallacy also does not apply here, because no one is trying to insert specific claims about OWS into the article based on the support from the ANP and the CPUSA. Making claims about the intentions or integrity of the protest by virtue of what groups support it would be POVish and undue, but that's not the issue here. The fact that recognized organizations support the protest is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article. I think both of these associations are clearly notable. [20] [21] Are there any other (non-union) organizations that have publicly announced support for OWS?Boothello (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying that fringe nutjob group X supports article subject Y implies some connection or similarity btwn. X and Y. The article on fringe nutjob group X can self-source all the statements of support for OWS it wants. On other pages, RS/NPOV/WEIGHT and a whole host of other policies counsel against inclusion of crap like this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So the article implies an innate connection between OWS and Hugo Chavez and Gorbachev, well-known socialist and communist? Or an innate implicit connection between OWS and myriad miscellaneous celebrities, like Radiohead and Jimbo? No, the article does not intend to imply such connections, because it is merely reporting notable people who have publicly announced support for the movement. It is not our job to pick and choose what the available information "implies" about the subject of an article. The support the ANP and the CPUSA have shown for OWS is well-documented in reliable sources and it would not be an undue weight issue to devote an entire sentence to them. And it certainly seems like it would be more of an NPOV violation to omit them rather than to include them.Boothello (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense - to give any mention of fringe groups like this is a clear breach of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, and you know it. Stop wasting peoples' time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your rudeness is unnecessary. I'll accept that consensus is against me in this discussion. However, it would be beneficial if we could get some input from editors not heavily invested in this controversy.Boothello (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The primary vehicle for doing that is at the noticeboards. In case you didn't see, I took the liberty of starting a discussion for you since you appear to be very adamant about this material. Two uninvolved editors have responded and both indicated their unequivocal disapproval of including mention of this. One happened to mention, as I did previously, that this can easily go into an article on the ANP itself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's absurd that the attempts to include this are by editors who want to use blogs and primary sourcing in an article that is not related to the source. In other words, absolutely not. It's undue weight, not reliably sourced and not relevant to the article. Dave Dial (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Ravi Batra paragraph

(I took the liberty to move this to on new contiguous section to make the discussion easier to follow. TheArtistAKA 23:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)) Here's what is being proposed:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[22] In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions [23][24] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[25]

This is as it now stands.Plankto (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved in too many debates at the moment to wade back into this one, but it seems to me you are wrong to refuse to wait for a resolution via discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)\

You misunderstand. I thought a fair solution had been arrived at. Now, going through further discussions is fine. At the same time, the process needs to be respected such that involved editors just don't wander off without resolving the matter.Plankto (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you had re-inserted the material. At the same time, remember that complex disputes regarding WP policy can be very draining and take a long time to resolve. Sometimes an editor may just be taking a breather.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my problem with the paragraph: what influence has Batra had on the movement? Not what influence is he trying to exert. It seems like he's just another econ prof/minor media figure to jump in the wading pool of OWS opinion. What makes him more important than Paul Krugman, or Matt Taibbi (the later who, if anyone has a right to steering up the the anti Wall Street sentiment felt by OWS, has had more effect on the movement). I think if we have to give Batra views/kibitzes weight, then we have to allow weight given to all the other notable and not so notables. Bloat would be the result. Actually greater bloat. The article is too big as it is. TheArtistAKA 23:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, one of my biggest sticking points is this sentence:

"In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and none have been provided that substantiates the above claim. Also, Batra's book published in 2007 has no relation to the OWS movement, and is clearly an attempt to advertise Batra's talking points. Bowmerang (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bowmerang, where do you think this concept of the "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" came from and the economic theory that a growing concentration of wealth causes speculative manias and a crash, followed by a depression? Do you think it came out of thin air or some establishment peer reviewed article? Absolutely not. It came in a book "Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions" in 1985, that went on retitled as "The Great Depression of 1990" (with a foreward by Lester Thurow) to become a #1 Best Seller in the Fall of 1987. The book was translated and sold around the world, to millions of readers. That is a verifiable fact. But you are right that it has yet to established in secondary sources. So far, I've only looked on the internet, but it doesn't go back to 1987, at most to the late 1990s, but a secondary reference to Batra's idea very likely exists in other published sources, either newspaper or peer reviewed articles closer to the publication date. For instance, one economics text book developed Batra's ideas and it was published in the early 1990s. However, this particular idea failed to catch on and make much of an impact in the economics establishment, as it was considered heretical. In a newspaper interview in 1987, a high priest of the economics establishment at the time, Milton Friedman, angrily denounced Batra's ideas. At the time, the role of the wealthy as "custodians of the wealth" and "generators of investment" went unchallenged, and hence the word "capitalism". Nevertheless Batra described clearly how a rise in wealth concentration was historically linked to growing bank failures and depressions. In the late 1980s, there was discussion by prominent Democrats about the unfeasibility of this concept being used in the national debate, as it was perceived as polarising and the economic thesis was not considered plausible. In recent years, this idea has seemed to become forgotton. Robert Reich then republished these ideas in his 2010 book, which could be the bridge to the OWS movement, but I haven't seen his presentation beyond the quotes shared here. As far as I know, his is possibly the most recent manifestation of Batra's original idea and I don't know if Reich makes an atribution to Batra in his book. The concept of the 1% (and the linked 99%) has relevance to the OWS movement, which has brought theis concept to the forefront of the national debate. The discussion is about the source for thes concept. Clearly, it does not originate with Krugman or Tabibi but with Batra. User:Plankto|Plankto]] (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's your analysis. Please understand that I have nothing against Batra. I find his opinions interesting, and he's clearly notable enough to have his own article on wikipedia. The problem I have is that the claims you make regarding Batra's connection to OWS lack reliable sources. You're probably right that Batra's opinions have influenced OWS, and that he isn't being given his due. However as WP:V clearly states:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Would any other editors like to chime in? Bowmerang (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear Batra has a buttload of bona fides, but yeah, where is the RS showing the DIRECT link to OWS and him? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You argue that there is no RS showing a "direct link to OWS and him". This is a mistakenly narrow requirement and not in the spirit of WP, which has rules but emphases judgement. Besides the evidence for a direct link in sources not deemed to fulfill RS criteria - even if this has been disputed, there is plenty of RS offering circumstantial evidence for the link between Batra and OWS. FIRST: Batra made a prediction of the current financial crisis. This was documented in an article in Huffington Post, where Ravi Batra was mentioned as one of ten authors "predicting the financial crisis"[[26]]. New York Times has online articles with coverage of Batra's predictions in the 1980s [27],[28], [29]. The financial crisis is exactly what is motivating OWS movement. SECOND: The sub-title of his 2007 book is "The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos". The OWS movement is a civil protest against political corruption and economic chaos. THIRD: Ravi Batra popularised the term "Wealth held by richest 1%". The OWS movement has used the "top 1%" and "We the 99%" as a catch term for its protest.[30] FOURTH: Ravi Batra has written an article in Truthout titled "The Occupy Wall Street Protest and the Coming Demise of Crony Capitalism".[31] In addition to its wide dissemination on the net, this article, which directly links the author with OWS, has been discussed on a nationally syndicated radio show, which bills itself as "America's Number 1 Progressive Radio Show".[32] The article predicts the OWS protests will be successful. The OWS movement is seeking to reform capitalism by reducing the influence of the wealthy on public policy. FIFTH: The Occupy Wall Street movement is discussing Batra's ideas.[33],[34], [35], [36] The OWS movement is discussing ideas to change policies. Batra's ideas about OWS are also being discussed by the Democratic Underground, a political movement for change.[37] Finally, here is a respectable political blog by Arlen Grossman about Ravi Batra's article on Truthout [38]. The above documents how this author has many circumstantional links to the OWS movement. The entry on Batra's views is therefore relevant, notable and merits inclusion in this article. Plankto (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

None of this established a substantial connection between Batra and OWS, and the consensus has held against including him. Since when has the quotes of a forum poster distinguished in no other way been elevated to RS and not rightly regarded, as it has always been, an attempt at performing WP:OR? I also regret looking at Batra's self-promoting, and self-published, and unintentionally self-prodying article, the last paragraph of which declares "O' brave protesters of the OWS movement, your effort will not only shape the 2012 elections, they will also end, once and for all, the brutality of the rich and powerful." (Which makes me ask: can I throw up now or do I have to wait 'til later?) I can't join a consensus based on crud like this, and unless others, besides one editor, feel otherwise, I don't see that consensus as having taken shape, and it probably never will. Time to give it a rest. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Artist, to use irony or cynicism to measure people like Ravi Batra misses the mark. The fact that Batra took chances with the marketing his famous book by naming it the Great Depression of 1990, doesn't do away with the fact that the core message of his work has been serious and insightful. To call his prose, crud, is a value judgement that doesn't belong in WP. To claim this is WP:OR also misses the mark by suggesting this is some homespun fantasy. It is simply a tactic to deny the circumstantial facts of the case. Moreover, the RS criteria is flawed as it relates to a well known bias of the media, including "respectable" newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. They don't like to cover reform groups or intellectuals. Even then, Ravi Batra has gotten coverage, including social parody with the IgNoble prize in 1993. But, in itself that's also notable although it doesn't seem funny today. The OWS movement has complained about the media bias and this is covered in the article itself! Despite missing his big prediction, Batra has continued on message for two decades, saying that a depression is on the way. What happened, there was a series of financial crises through the 1990s and 2000s, until the big one came. Moreover, he rightly predicted the emergence of a movement like OWS and its basic complaints. As such, his contribution is remarkably notable for its farsightedness. I'm afraid, the case is not closed, nor is the OWS movement going to "give it a rest". Nor are the social reforms that will flow from it over. If so, likely the contribution of Ravi Batra is just beginning to be recognised. I am not alone in supporting the inclusion of an entry on Ravi Batra, Dualus is also supporting it. Others have criticised the length or link but not the entry itself. Opposing it are you, Gandydancer and Bowmerang. That said, I will give the debate a rest and move onto other topics, while retaining my vote for inclusion, if others agree.Plankto (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're response is unlettered. Regarding cynicism - I don't don't doubt your motives at all and believe you honestly think Batra is a godfather of the movement. Irony, either in the contemporary or classical sense is also not used at all by me. I flat out think and directly said that Batra writes putrid prose. Though this is a not WP concern, but it exemplifies to me why he is of so little note vis a vis OWS. The movement has better taste and discernment than that. If there were RSs showing Batra as a central inspiring figure, and consensus went for it, I would not object. But we need RS, not a random forum poster extolling Batra. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I believe that The Artist has written an excellent review of the situation as it stands. Just a little aside information, way too little to get my point across, I have been around the block a few times and I remember back in the 70's that my group of friends and I (the "Back to the Earthers") were convinced that "The Great Depression" was just around the corner. We were reading Mother Earth Magazine like crazy to prepare for it. Actually my dad had written a book in the 50's predicting the fall of Capitalism. Batra is part of this New Age thinking, but he did not invent it as Plankto seems to think. The only thing that surprises many of us, is that it took so long to come about! Gandydancer (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, that is interesting information. Did your father's book predict the type of events that are now unfolding and more importantly, did his book become a national bestseller? Plankto (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Artist, the debate about the aesthetics of Batra and his appeal to the OWS movement is you own contribution but good to see you recognise your own transgression of WP rules in making such arguments. As for other objections, the notion of the term "intellectual godfather" was simply to make the point that Batra's insights and predictions relate to the OWS movement and inform it while also clearly predating it. Let's not lose sight of the main rationale for including the entry, it is simlpy this, Batra

1) predicted a boom followed by a bust followed by a popular uprising against the influence of the wealthy in politics;

2) based his predictions on a Indian theory of social evolution and invented economic analysis with the very concepts that now inform the OWM movement, well before it arose.

3) recently wrote an article to encourage the OWS movement and predicting it will succeed. Among the many people discussing his ideas, are a number of participants trying to create a policy platform for the OWS movement on the unoffical OWS website.

Each of these facts is well documented according to WP:RS. The proposed entry is this:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, has written an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of "crony capitalism". He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[39] In the 1980s, Batra popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions [40][41] and in 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[42]

My vote is still for the inclusion of this entry, while leaving the matter until other editors express their support for it.Plankto (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

On the whole, Plankto's has explained his arguments well and has fairly and reasonably resolved to let consensus settle it. A minor quibble regarding a "transgression", Batra, in my view is a low grade intellect, but that is only my view. On talk pages it's OK to express such views, as long as personal attacks against editors are not the goal of such observations. I have only the highest respect for Plankto's intentions and actions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Artist, your knowledge of Batra is clearly limited. He is beyond doubt one of the most accomplished in economics in terms of output. He has written two text books in a very mathematically challenging field, international trade theory, which have been taught at the graduate level in universities throughout the world. [43],[44] He has also written many related articles in the leading peer reviewed journals of economics in the USA. This legacy suffices to earn him a place in the pantheon of notable econonomists. His popular works, however, have been aimed at mass audiences and hence using direct logic and readable text. He thus avoids the language of priviliged discourse which an intellectual elite typically resorts to, because he argues this group is subject to political capture by the wealthy. This was also a part of the anger of the economics profession at him. There was a feeling of disdain that such an accomplished and promising member of the establishment had broken rank.Plankto (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be right, but we clearly disagree, which I don't see as a problem. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The real people of Occupy Wall Street

New York Magazine recently polled 100 "occupiers." http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/. One thing is clear, these are definitely not Harvard and Yale graduates. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we supposed to take that seriously? The three answers for how people would fix it didn't have tallies or percentages. I stopped reading there. Dualus (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm. . .they polled 100 'occupiers,' so that means when they list the number of responses it's that number out of 100. k? So that means if it's 10 peeps who say they have no clue about anything, that's 10%. Get it? Malke 2010 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So only three people had three different solutions? They don't sound anything like the solutions from the protesters being interviewed on TV. Dualus (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The ones on TV are the same ones on the street. They really are. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not kidding. This is an excerpt from that source:

The country with the best government in the world is … 
"Canada. It’s most like the U.S. but more the way I want.” 
“Denmark.”
“I don’t accept the premises of this question.

Did you vote in the 2010 midterm elections?
Yes: 39
No: 55
No, but only because I wasn’t 18: 5

Explain how you would fix Wall Street.
“A maximum-wage law.” 
“President Elizabeth Warren."
“Burn it down.”

Why do those first and last questions have no tallies or percentages, when all the other questions do? That throws the veracity of the entire story in to question. Dualus (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe this survey should be removed from the article. It was extremely informal as one can easily see by looking at the results. "Real" polls have since come out which are better suited for our article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's a joke survey for agit-prop. Dualus (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.fastcompany.com/1789018/occupy-wall-street-demographics-statistics is a far better survey with starkly contrasting results. Dualus (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Questionable claims of consensus

These deletions were made by those claiming a consensus, of anywhere between two and three, if I am counting correctly. My recent addition was deleted after being discussed here. The only objection was placement in the article, which was contradicted by the sources. Are the claims that these deletions were supported by consensus correct? Dualus (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any other editor who has indicated that the paragraph you inserted is appropriate? Because all I see, at this talk page and two noticeboards, are other editors telling you the different ways in which it's inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe you have correctly characterized the discussion at WP:ORN#Call for a constitutional convention in Occupy Wall Street? (where the one uninvolved respondent at WP:RSN asked to move the discussion.) Dualus (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll bite. What do you think would be a correct characterization of that discussion? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You were saying that suggesting a relation between the movement and Lessig was not supported by sources, but when I asked about the sources which said Lessig was speaking at Occupy events (primary, video, and Huffington Post) and that he adds credibility to the movement (Slate) you said it was a reaction. Someone else already added a source that says the New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group already called for a constitutional convention and amendment (primary and Huffington Post.) There is also [45] showing that other parts of the movement in the US are also calling for a constitutional amendment. Dualus (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Add my name to those opposed to including that information. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you care to say why you believe it should not be included? Because it is insufficiently sourced or some other reason? Dualus (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments about "two to three editors" and "the only objection" are pure hogwash and that's all I'll say about that.

Moving on, if you'll recall, I said I have no problem with discussing the source that said Lessig's support lends credibility to the movement. And at no point did I say there was no documented connection between Lessig and OWS. What I've said repeatedly, and it seems that other editors agree, is that you are exaggerating and misrepresenting this connection in the text you keep inserting.

Despite your apparent unwillingness to play along (by, say, citing specific article text and specific propositions you think it supports), which just creates more work for myself and others who are trying to entertain your arguments, I have already made specific suggestions as to how to rewrite the material so it does track your sources properly and abide by policy; you have apparently ignored these suggestions, claiming above that you "can't figure out" the changes I am "trying to get you to make". You've also seemingly ignored every other objection by every other editor who has participated in the discussion. These same repeated arguments have been rebuffed at the noticeboards, too.

You have not seen fit to consider the possibility that anyone else has raised a valid objection, even accusing others of some conspiracy against you; and rather than consensus, you seem to be seeking some kind of green light to go ahead and add the same objectionable material, which you went ahead and did quite recently despite the fact it was obvious that the objections had not been resolved, even after being warned that you need to seek consensus for inclusion.

I'll write this material up myself sometime in the next 72 hours, since the process of discussing this with you does not seem to be moving forward and is becoming quite tiresome. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that you will call me an edit warrior for reverting your deletions, but your arguments are wrong. It is not my responsibility to pull quotes out for you if you are unwilling to read the sources and say why they don't support the passages that they do. But I have excerpted at #Eleven additional news sources above, where you specifically say that you refuse to read those that I have not. I look forward to your write-up, but in the mean time I am replacing the material supported by sources. Dualus (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How does one prove that a source doesn't support what you're saying? Are you saying you expect me to paste the entire text of each article and comment, line by line, on why each specific sentence doesn't support X contention that you seem to be making, or Y contention that you seem to be making, and so forth? If not, on what basis do you reject my assessment, or that of others, that don't agree the material is adequately supported by the sources you present? Do you see how the alternative, where you simply identify text that justifies a specific claim or edit, is the vastly more efficient way, and the one that makes sense, and the one that most fairly distributes the burden of evaluating proposed edits, and the one that is least susceptible to abuse by aggressive and unscrupulous editing? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to prove anything. If you think a source doesn't support the text that cites it, then say so. You have said that instead of doing that, you don't want to read the sources; you want me to pull out quotes from each for each statement. How many quotes would that be? There is no requirement that I do your own reading work for you. You have given no reasons for your so-called assessment, so of course I will discount it, just as I would expect you to discount my "assessment" if I refused to read the pertinent sources. I have informed the warning administrator that I wish to make a formal accusation of tag-teaming against you for this behavior. I invite scrutiny from others on the subject of exactly which one of us is being aggressive and unscrupulous. Dualus (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think a source doesn't support the text that cites it, then say so.?? Really? What have I been doing for the past few days? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any of your substantive complaints which I haven't addressed. To which specific statements do you object? Dualus (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus all missing the point, the consensus if what we go by, and one editor not liking it can't change it accept through discussion. Unless we can be convinced that you are using good sources, AND, the info is of suitable weight, the standing consensus still stands and still governs the article. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, please remeber that when a deletion is made and a full explanation is given in the dit summary and you revert, it is upon you to explain the revert. It's not being a "Warrior" it's being difficult and goes against the spirit and guidelines of Wiki. Be patient. Allow the consensus to be formed. However you may also like to know that if you post your intentions first and no one replies...silence is concensus!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The weakest form, per WP:SILENCE. Dualus (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's the weakest form of consensus. Many people may simply have not objected because they didn't see it. And some attempt to use it as justification to keep a silent consensus that no longer exist once one objects. However, silent consent is the bases to which you begin work if you present what you plan to do. I see Silent Consensus (when no one is objecting) as generally meaning..."OK...let's see what ya got, and then we'll decide" or "Sure go for it, just don't mess it up". Because if your edit doesn't match your posted intention...people are going to object. That's how it works. When done in good faith it is merely part of FORMING a consensus and that is as strong as it gets, and a formed consensus is pretty darn strong.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)