Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Occupy Wall Street

Pre-Mediation Discussion

Amadscientist's dispute of "Issues to be mediated" This statement: "There was only one sentence which seemed to be objectionable to those removing text, although they agreed that the sentence was factually true." is not accurate. The entire section was in dispute as being OR, undue weight, and a host of different reasons as the discussion progressed and the information and references were being scrutinized.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Editor stalls talk page and reverts as much as he accuses others, but one particular thing is the way other editors comments are just slightly altered when referring back to them. All parties at the DR/N agreed that mediation was "the best next step" as posted by RegentsPark, not a "necessary next step". Similarly, the supposed policy explanations that User:Dreadstar and User:Littleolive oil made that are contrary to removal of content is an exageration of facts. I even stated this to Becritical that Olive was not explaining policy but giving her input that removing content was disruptive and Dreadstar stated that removal of content without discussion is disruptive after warning AKA for the same and then placing a warning to all on the talkpage of the article. Niether contradict what I did, as Olive feels any removal of content in itself is disruption and is not a policy statement but her valid opinion and Dreadstar's statement does not contradict what my edit was as I did discuss the actual removal of that content in detail.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC) "A recent discussion shows a clear consensus that although BRD shouldn't become policy, violating it still means policies were violated. PS. Amadscientist even attempted fuitlessly to gain support for his position at that very policy discussion." Horse dung. I see no clear consensus as stated that "violating it still means policies were violated" and what the heck is Equazion talking about with "attempted fuitlessly to gain support for his position" that section only stated that there were points that were brought up about BRD having a lot of issues. It isn't my position, it's what others were stating and my intent was to darw editors to it to make changes to improve the essay. Which I did myself. This is not the first time I have seen BRD argued as policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC) What? First I am not edit warring. I have not reverted multiple times and I think that should be cleared up right now. Becritical uses argument to overstate issues and over state policy and overstae conduct and behavior. What is he saying in that above post? The same thing he keeps saying on the talk page. Constantly saying "This is an example of this editors [insert behavior here]". Then going on to post a wall of text that shows no example, does not attempt to explain the accusation, but just post text. As much as possible at times. But here he states that my above disputes with his issues for mediation are an example of not being able to get me to understand "them". He then posts the proper policy but where is what he is trying to say to anyone, let alone to me? What was the point he was trying to make. That I edit warred? No. I did not and it is NOT a part of the issues to be mediated. No 3RR report of me, no warning from admin or AN/I report of me edit warring. So why mention it? It's a non existing conduct issue. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Hmmmm. Sounds like an issue with Equazcion and AKA....no wait it's still a conduct issue. Less agressive editors? That is by far the most POV statement coming out of you yet sir. You are even more aggresive than the ones you are accussing. Bold edits have lead to discussions that have lead to you losing your temper and threatening Dispute resolution or Administrative Notice Board actions to PUNISH others. You really want editors to be punished for behavior and editing style that "YOU DON'T LIKE". You are NOT collaborating and attempting to work together to write and encyclopedia article. You are looking for a set outcome to your discussions to gain your version of "the truth" and you are aiming at removing editors in your path using the DR process and administrative notice boards like weapons, not tools. It's not here for you to intimidate and threaten others with. Its for content disputes. I believe this request fails the preconditions, 1) The dispute must relate only to the content of one or more Wikipedia articles; 2) The dispute must not relate to the behaviour of a Wikipedia contributor (which is the purview of Arbitration, not Mediation); 4)All involved editors are disputing the relevant article content in good faith; and 5) No involved editor is unwilling to engage meaningfully in mediator-directed discussion or to genuinely consider compromise and concession.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC) One user unresponsive User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous seems unwilling to participate here (which comes as no surprise). If he doesn't respond within the 7 days, would it be possible to remove him as an involved party and proceed without him? And, if this is not possible, I think we'd all appreciate advice and where to go from here. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I believe the mediation request has failed a number of prerequisites and I believe that there are issues that may mean this should be declined and/or passed to arbitration.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Which prerequisites have failed? Equazcion (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC) We should work out the content issues. ArbCom is for behavioral issues. We could do both at once, but why not try to work out the content, and by that time there may be no behavioral issues to resolve? Be——Critical 13:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I was thinking the same, that the behavioral will sort itself out with the content, hopefully. Of course that's dependent on AKA signing. PS. one stipulation of mediation is that no related ArbComs can be open at the time. Equazcion (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC) So what are you saying, take it all the way to Arbitration if he doesn't sign? How long do we wait? Be——Critical 15:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC) He has 7 days, according to the guide. Apparently, after that, if all named parties haven't signed, it will generally be rejected. I'm not sure if we have the option to withdraw the request, if that's what you're getting at. Arbitration seems like the next step I guess. I don't look forward to it though, and I'm hoping there's an alternative. Equazcion (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I should just study the regulations like you did. Arbitration is not what we want if we can do mediation. Be——Critical 15:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC) For content disputes, yes. But this seems to me to be more about issues you both seem to have with conduct and behavior of two other editors. I think we would be wasting the time of mediators when the meat of both sides seems to be conduct issues and how each other is acting on the talk page more than edits in the article. What is the content dispute. If you look at the discussion there is so much that has been discussed and colborated on in the version that sits there right now and the discussion continues there. it has become a far more active article with much movement and a lively discussion of sources, policy and views on them to better the article. I don't support or criticise in my contributions there. I am neutral. I make mistakes when defending my view and I apologise for those mistakes, but please do not haunt me with the past only represent what my actions are right now. I have not edit warred. I isn't even a part of the dispute your bring up at DR/N but that my SINGLE revert of this information and the subsequent discussion I began was disruptive. I disagree and say they were just bold removal of content that i justifyed in summary and immediate unsolicited discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC) We've both cut conduct issues out of our statements both here and on the main page. You're the only one who allows them to persist here. We could utilize mediation to take care of the content issues at least, if you'd do likewise, assuming you're still interested in doing that --- though it seems you might not be anymore. Equazcion (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Mediation will allow discussion of any specific issues, or a determination that no specific issues remain. Be——Critical 16:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC) ? That doesn't appear to be accurate but I will leave that to mediators.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC) It appears that the other user is not going to join us. However, this user is still very active at the article, and is involved in the debates which this mediation is meant to resolve. What is the appropriate course of action now? Be——Critical 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC) I like his edit summary :) If you guys are looking for some simple content to sort out, my suggested content seems reasonably simple, as it's just summarising ledes into reactions. But arbcom would be cool for me, as I need to become more familiar with the process. I just don't really like the 'divisions thing' which the 'all editors but one' flavours this mediation thing with. The one thing I hate more than conflict is comradery born from ganging up on someone else, it feels so juvenile. But meh, I can probably get over it by disliking you lot. :) ah, who am I kidding. If you lot can't play nice together then the lot of you should be banned, it would have fixed everything weeks ago. hmm, well that's sortof dislike ? I don't know. Blah ! whatever, I can't be bothered with conflict. Still I can't see anybody letting go of the article all voluntary like. Man what a burden to sort out that article history. I should think I'll get full marks for shutting up for once (in the article history) that'll be a first for me. Penyulap ☏ 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Without speaking to the question of whether this mediation will be accepted or not, if there are appropriate conduct issues, a Request for Arbitration may be the next step. I would be sure you read their guides to the arbitration process and familiarize yourselves with the requirements for their accepting a case. Lord Roem (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Hey ! everyone is here now, cool, we'll be closer as a team now, because instead of ganging up on each other we can all gang up on the mediation team now, and forever curse the day they made their bad decisions (as there is no compromise that anyone ever likes completely) so we can just blame them :) the only question now is what can we blame you for mediation committee ? lets get started finding reasons why we don't like you :) (just kidding) (sortof) (hey it's your job to be unpopular after all, so stop frowning about my remarks) Penyulap ☏ 02:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I'm excited about the level of sophistication you'll bring to this process, Penyulap. Equazcion (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Good editor in my opinion, capable of not holding a grudge over disputes and reasonable in collaboration and consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Don't be mean to him. Penyulap, it would be great if you italicized the points you want to make that have to do with the article, or listed them as bullet points or something, because most of us are on a tight schedule and really, we don't like to read. We edit Wikipedia between other activities. Same goes for you MadSci: it's hard to read the walls of text, and it's often very hard to figure out what you are referring to. Be——Critical 15:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello everyone! I am Lord Roem, and I have been assigned as the mediator for this case.

A few quick things as we get started: Firstly, please be sure to watchlist this page so you stay updated on all the developments of the process; second, please remember to keep your cool when discussing, be open-minded -- we are here to find a solution that everyone can live with, not to make a point. Lastly, I think its important to remind everyone that mediation is a privileged process. Everything you say here is only for the mediation, and can't be used in a later proceeding. This should incentive free discussion, which I'm sure will happen here.

Turning to the present case. I would like all five parties to email me a brief statement, no more than 300 words, with the following information in a short, concise way: (1) A statement of the issues, as you see it -- bullet points are perfect (2) A statement of how you want those issues resolved

I think this mediation has a high chance of success, if you all stick together on this throughout what may be a tough endeavor. I'm always free for questions on my talk page or via email, whichever you prefer. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you. Statement of the issues emailed. Done--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

me 2 Penyulap ☏ 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Got everyone's besides AKA Mr Anonymous. If someone could ping him, that would be great! Lord Roem (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just tell me how to do it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You can just direct email me at <reubenlack1@gmail.com>. Lord Roem (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment as an editor uninvolved in this dispute. Based on my experience with both the article and the editors involved in this dispute, my personal recommendation would be that the mediation not proceed without Artist AKA. Take that for what you will. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I just pinged him.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: Opening discussions will begin in about 24 hours, as I compile your opening statements sent by email. In the meantime, take a break from editing. I suggest a nice cup of coffee or tea -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary Agreement

While we await the final opening statement (via email to me), I ask that all involved parties sign the short agreement below.

I agree to freeze editing on Occupy Wall Street and its related articles pending the outcome of this mediation, barring obvious and unambiguous attempts to vandalize the page. I will also watchlist this case page.

• I will if they will, and if other editors -besides those in mediation- don't make editing necessary or highly desirable. B^e——C_ritical 00:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• WooHoo ! I was not looking forward to fixing it, as it is such a big job, Thanks for the excuse to put it off ! Penyulap ☏ 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree to the freeze once all the other parties' agreements are here. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree to freeze all editing on the Occupy Wall Street Article, related articles and the related project pages pending the outcome of this mediation, barring obvious and unambiguous attempts to vandalize these pages. This page has been watchlisted.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't and I won't. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring us?

Extended content
[1] Be——Critical 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC) What a helpful and telling way to kick it all off. Good suggestions available upon inquiry. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior.

I will not tolerate editors accusing other editors of anything while this process proceeds. We have just started, no need to stress out.

I'm sure all of you would prefer a solution this way than imposed through binding arbitration where sanctions can be issued. This is all parties' only warning to be respectful.

If you have a problem about another editor who is a party to this case, you will email me directly, in private. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. The problems which Wikipedia has been having are partly caused by the fact that things aren't out in the open. I want everything to be 100% transparent, in the belief that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I also do not take kindly to being, apparently, accused -yes, accused- by the mediator of an "accusation" which is merely an observation, and one with a question mark on it at that. The appropriate response by AKA would have been "Nope, not ignoring you just not paying attention" or something like that. Perhaps we need a different mediator who will keep things on-wiki. I have absolutely nothing to say which I cannot say out in the open. The only thing which private emails accomplish is to allow people to make accusations or otherwise tear each other down in ways which would hurt their reputations on-wiki. However this is more appropriate to arbitration, not mediation. Mediation is supposed to be about content, not user behavior. I would be happy to paste here the emails I sent to Lord Roem (or for him to do so), and I would urge the others to do likewise. If Lord Roem isn't going to make decisions of some sort based on emails we send him, then he doesn't need the emails. If he is, I'd like to know what kind of decisions he is going to make? Alternately, we could just start over with having everything on-wiki. Do any of the other parties feel the same? B^e——C_ritical 02:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You gravely misinterpret the point of the emails - for me to craft a series of issues that we'll discuss. That will be posted below, shortly.

Arbitration is a very serious process, one that you should not take lightly. I will do everything I can to guide you to a successful outcome, but I do not want parties making any ad hominem attacks (or anything that could be perceived as such). That means, assuming good faith. The title of your post was "Ignoring us?", which I don't think is appropriate. That's a judgement call, but one that I'm making.

As we begin discussion of the content issues, I do encourage you all to be open with each other. But that means focusing on the subject matter, not the person. So long as you keep that mindset, this process will be smooth. Lord Roem (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm generally a fan of keeping things out in the open; though I'm not sure if keeping behavioral issues off-wiki would exactly be a deal-breaker for me. The ideal of keeping things open seems great til you see how accusations just bring a rash of counter-accusations til the content issue gets lost.

Nevertheless, I didn't see BeCritical's comment as an accusation, and the mediator's agreement with AKA on that took me somewhat by surprise. He was kinda just saying, "So what's up with this?" which is a concern I share. AKA's initial agreement also took a while despite his being aware of the request for some time. If he's going to make us wait like this through each step of the mediation, I don't think that initial agreement means very much. I hope this isn't seen as an accusation too.

Since agreement-signing seems to be par for the course here, I'd suggest another one for this case, since it now seems somewhat necessary: Participants would be constrained to a generous time limit for responding to requests from the mediator. Participants would be allowed to inform the mediator beforehand of isolated instances where they foresee not being able to meet the constraint. Anyone who doesn't sign this new agreement (within a similar time limit), or signs it and later breaches it twice, has their initial mediation agreement officially rescinded for them. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. It would keep the process from getting bogged down. B^e——C_ritical 04:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Time out, cuz I'm not that big a deal, really. Mediation could, and could have gone on without Any presumption of hostage taking is just too peculiar for me to comprehend. I suggest letting our mediator set conditions, and not tell him how to do his job. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure you are you're part of it, and we need you here so your concerns can be part of the process of consensus. B^e——C_ritical 05:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WowThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Issues

Here is a draft order for discussion, in terms of the issues to discuss. Please sign below if you think the list is complete/order is appropriate. Any and all suggestions are fine, in this structuring phase. Once we get this list agreed on, we can start with the first point.

Remember, this is a rough outline, not sticking us to any position or specific method of attack.

Edit: This comes from the emails. Lord Roem (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft outline of Mediation

1. Determine appropriate secondary sources, broadly defined
2. Determine if sources itself are verifiable
3. Determine whether conclusions on the "goals" or "concerns" with Occupy Wall Street are a proper or improper synthesis of information
4. If found to be proper, discuss what information to include
5. Determine if selected information complies with the verifiability policies
6. Determine/discuss proposed changes in the article, re: Reactions to OWS

• --Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm good with any process which determines what problems, if any, exist in our text. I will post the latest draft below if the mediator allows it. I didn't know this mediation covered anything in the reactions article? B^e——C_ritical 04:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would be great if you could post the disputed text in a stand-alone 'section' (with two-level section headers) below. Lord Roem (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• No POV issues. What's up with that? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In step #4, "determine what information specifically to include", we'd look at giving due weight to whatever is included. So POV issues would be handled in that step. Lord Roem (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed section

This is the disputed section. It is partly the result of the latest DR/N discussion with Amadscientist, as well as some copy editing. It does differ from previous versions including the one recently removed, but it's substance is about the same.

(see below)

Issue I. Determining Appropriate Sources

Misunderstanding concluded with meditiation still intact

Removing myself from mediation.

So far editors have made accusations, asked for a new mediator and been allowed to alter posts after being replied to and the mediator removed my request of Becritical to refer to me by my username. OK...so he altered his post...without lining through and then Lord Roem removed my request and now it looks like Becritical just referred to me as normal. What happened to speaking in the third party? The editor uses my name specificly and in an innacuarate manner. We didn't cover this mess he wants in the artilce at the DR/N. That's it when it was suggested it come here. Sorry, but I don't like the way this has been going but I was willing to give the mediator a chance. The mistake is a matter of open and honest discussion. If Becriticals insults and rage are going to be left up...why the hell was a simple reminder to respect my username removed and not his mention of me in the first post. Hey, if he wants to make this about me...he can take this to arbitration, but I no longer see him working in good faith and that is important enough to me not to participate further. Thanks you for your time.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As mediator, I reserve the right to refactor or remove comments. There is no reason to leave because I moved one sentence of yours. Let's begin discussion of sources as I posted above. Lord Roem (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good move: playing the authority card again, which has worked great so far. And acting like we can all just get back on track without discussing civility issues. What the hell is that? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Civility issues are conduct issues, and not appropriate for mediation. Lord Roem (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Conduct issues are tearing this shithouse down, and they're your bailiwick just as much as anything else. It doesn't have to happen, and there is nothing to stop you from dealing with them. In fact, you have dealt with them, harshly, that is with the threat of arbritation and telling us what is "unacceptable behavior" and other bossiness. You picked up the oar on that one and now you want to stop rowing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got my own beefs. The moderator has let slide an accusation of my taking the whatever-the-fuck-this-is hostage. Becritical jumping my shit, and holding that as his prerogative. Finally, I have little confidence in Lord Roem. This has turned into a fiasco, and a skilled mediator is supposed to keep things calm, not agitate the participants by bitching them out in this public forum. One word: email. When cordiality and comity need repair, you think a moderator would clearly define etiquette and dispute resolutions, including those of the butthurt variety that are jamming us up. On another note. I've called Madsci Madsci, only 'cuz I'm a lazy mofo and don't want to spell the whole mother out. I'll assume the same of Be. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I will have to close the mediation request due to the withdrawal of parties. The next step on the DR ladder is a Request for Arbitration here. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak, you can't clean up your own mess, run away and decide to carry through on forcing arbitration, instead of getting the ship on course. Which, believe it or not, is possible. It just requires ordinary diplomatic skills. But you didn't go there. Think about not moderating any more. And could you request another moderator? We just need a decent one, not the extreme of arbitration. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation must close if not all parties agree to mediation. Lord Roem (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak. Again. Do some work, and don't resort to mechanistic responses. You messed up big time. Man up and fix it. Wanna try talking to Madscientist? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed the reference to him from "MadSci" which I thought was a friendly/respectful way of referring to him to "Amadscientist" because he asked to be referred to only by his proper username. I did that to try and be respectful and friendly. I did have an issue with the emails which I consider put to rest. I do not have a problem with Lord Roem, and I do not think he has been given a chance. B^e——C_ritical 17:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well put. I've asked Amadscientist to keep returning as an option, and if we could allow a decent interval for him to consider, we might be able get out of the ditch and back on the road. A little patience from all of us could help a lot. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry...but I was singled out in an inaccurate manner in the very first post of this mediation. Clearly the issue the editor has is in regards to editors as individuals. If the removal of my request "to be refered to respectfully" is met by removing that request AFTER the post in question had been altered, why would I want to participate further. This is VERY odd. I give the mediator the benifit of the doubt as to his good faith here, but obviously he is allowing one editor great leeway and when I say nothing to all of the above drama and sign the next agreement (by the way, I suggest editors look over exactly how those agreements were signed by some editors) immediatly after he posts it...the first post by Becritical singles me out, uses a bastardisation of my username and inaccuratel states facts...but my simple request to refer to me respectfully is removed. I can accept Lord Roems reasoning that he may keep or remove any content at his discretion...I question whether or not his application in this mediation has allowed one editor to run rough shot over a priviledged process and make a mockery out of what is suposed to be a voluntary collaboration on a content dispute. If The mediator would like to scrap this attempt and start over, I am willing to do so if they are willing.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I hereby give you permission to use my username instead of oblique references to an unnamed "editor." In any cases where you're actually referring to me it will make understanding easier. Use of my username will not be taken as an attack by me. B^e——C_ritical 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be an ongoing issue with some editors, let me be clear. Becritical uses the username thing often and I have taken issue with it before. He is simply dragging the incivil behavior here. We should NOT be referring to the editor but to the edits. I think we should stick to that as part of any new ground rules...that and just yes or no to the agreement. Don't try ammending it in a statement before you sign. Just sign it or don't.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to remove your request about being named, only your post on a 'Discussion'. As we are to do a more structured approach, I sought to create a single discussion area for each issue, as we move along, to keep discussion centralized. I apologize if you misinterpreted what I meant by that removal, but my intentions have only been to get discussion moving. If all parties are willing, let's begin in the discussion above with secondary sources. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's adding insult to injury, and you have seemed to have learned nothing, as shown by with"I apologize if you misinterpreted it". Spare us non-apologies that in effect blame the other party, and patronizingly so. You removed a sensible, innocuous request of Amadscientist on how he would like to be addressed. If I hadn't been aware of it due to your misguided deletion, I would not be aware of the courtesy asked of us. He was right to take exception and call you out on it. Give a little, and straight up apologize. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Lord Roem has acted badly. At the most, he made a very slight mistake. B^e——C_ritical 22:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Lord Roem did not act badly...you have.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am interested to see your objections above concerning the proposed text. B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in hearing you justify each one and show how they are within policy, guidelines...and consensus. Since this mediation is stale...back to waiting for you to explain your justification on each item and reference like everybody else.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your concerns are fair. To begin that discussion, I ask both editors to begin working on secondary sources, per the section above. That will be the first step in moving forward. Lord Roem (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So we begin without all parties? Equazcion, AKA and Penylup have not signed the last agreement.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly asked to justify my sourcing without having been told what may be wrong with it. It seems obvious that sources like Forbes are WP:RS. As in court, the prosecution should state its case first, and then the defense will know which information or arguments to bring forward. Although I have been accused of OR, SYNTH, and NPOV violations here, it is much like being asked to defend one's self on the charge of murder, without having been informed who the victim is alleged to be. B^e——C_ritical 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

To Amadscientist -- the last agreement is not necessary for us to discuss sources, which is a key content question for us to resolve. Let's move our attention to that; to Becritical -- This is not a court context, much different. Editors seeking inclusion need to justify their sources just as much as editors seeking to exclude. We actually need you to begin here, as I would like to see a specific outline of each specific source (URL/link) used. We're not assuming anything here. Please then post those sources in the format described above, in the above step one section. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood. No need to wait then, we can proceed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I understand your reasons for removing the statement and that it was done in good faith exactly as stated. It is not your actions that I questioned, but how the application of the removal on top of another editors exremely aggressive behavior here, even after you have closed/collapsed other discussions and given warning to all was seemingly ignored. It gives the impression to the other editors and reader that my actions were in the wrong and that anothers were in the right. If you don't wish to scrap and start over, we can just move on, but all agreements that each editor has been asked to sign must be regarded as "agreement in full" to each step regardless of any statements that contradict the signing agreement. And we should not begin until all agreements are signed by all parties involved. I will unstrike my signing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Let's get started!

I would like each individual source to be discussed in a level-three (===) header. We'll then discuss each individual source and determine whether, on a broad general basis, it speaks to the issue at hand. We won't go into WP:V or POV issues yet. This is a foundational/preliminary step. -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job Becritical! Now, I would like each party to look through each individual source, and answer whether you think the source, on a broad general basis, speaks to the issue at hand. If you think 'no', please list your specific reason. If you are in favor of saying 'yes', respond to the no comments with questions, or arguments the other way. I think if you bold your initial feeling (like Yes. Source generally appropriate) that would be helpful.

And one last reminder, we aren't looking at WP:V or POV issues yet. Just whether the source itself, XYZ News Agency, Mr. John Smith, talks about the issue at hand. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So we're saying whether OWS is mentioned? Not all the sources mention it, and those sources are included as a courtesy to the reader. They are usually/always the sources used by our other RS. B^e——C_ritical 03:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Not whether the source has the words 'Occupy Wall Street'. Just a very basic look into whether the source, in some way, speaks to the disputed text in question. Issues of synthesis, POV, etc., will be handled in turn. This though comes first. Lord Roem (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Where are the corresponding claims we are checking against for each reference source? How are we to judge what the context is? We have sources....now....what are we checking exactly?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I see That the editor has added "meets WP:RS" but does not state HOW it meets this. I can't reply to any of these until the claim for each is included and if the editor is stating that it meets some criteria, he will need to explain how and why before I can respond. --Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If the claim is that each source meets criteria for RS then please explain how each of the parts that comprise a reliable source are met:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in no hurry. I will wait for something to discuss. All there is right now is a list of sources with no argument or discussion. Once there is something to discuss I will reply. Lord Roem, is there something specific you would request of me at this point to speed things along?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll look through what's here and try to match the claims to the source and keep track of it on my own computer and decide if meets the above criteria and just assume this is the minimal amount of information needed to argue at this stage. I will assume the WP link is simply a conviniance link to policy and not a real statement that the material is, in fact, RS or an actual argument from Becritical. As I see how the above intsructions are written, Becritical provided the basic structure of the dispute and is at this point waiting for a "no" response to reply with questions or arguments.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you have laid out a good framework and test for meeting the standard. While Becritical can match the source to the statement he wishes to include -- without regard for POV issues or the like, just looking at whether it basically 'matches' the statement -- I think good work for others would be to look at each individual source and maybe make a summary of how they think it can be used. That way, each editor can clearly demonstrate how they perceive each source, so there's no confusion further down the road. Lord Roem (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[2] B^e——C_ritical 21:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times

The New York Times, [3] meets WP:RS

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

Source author information

? I can't find any byline.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Source article information

Hmmm. This is interesting. Its a "Times Topic". It is not an actual article; "About Times Topics: Each topic page collects all the news, reference and archival information, photos, graphics, audio and video files published on topics ranging from A M Castle & Company to Zyuganov, Gennadi A. This treasure trove is available without charge on articles going back to 1981." I don't know what to call that except a tertiary source of archived information from other publications summed up with no byline. This shouldn't be used as a source to reference facts. It lacks a great deal of information.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? B^e——C_ritical 20:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why What?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying this is not the NYT?

He's saying that is a collection of multiple articles, not a single article where one could find a sentence to cite from. Are there specific articles within the Times Topic that you are trying to use? Lord Roem (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Only the text linked to. There's nothing in policy which says a meta-summary from the NYT is not a good source. Actually, sounds like Amadscientist upgraded it by saying it is a tertiary source. B^e——C_ritical 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

To use a tertiary source, one would need to know were the source originates. Tertiary on means it is a type of source...not that it is an upgrade to reliability. We still require all parts of the criteria to be filled to claim the source is "reliable". There is no author information and the source is NOT the NYT but another "unnamed" source. If this were the Encyclopedia Britannica and it was making a claim, it would cite the originating source such as Pliny the Elder as written in Natural History (Pliny).--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you say that the source is not NYT, you must have some evidence for saying so, even though it is on the NYT site. What is your evidence? B^e——C_ritical 00:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...where did I say the source was or was not any particular publication itself? I just said that the reference is a tertiary gathering of information from different sources summed up without a byline or information to state where the information is being archived from. I do need to prove it is not the NYT. I only need show that this does not meet all the criteria for RS. If you cannot provide the needed information in this argument to even meet criteria, the discussion is basicly over...isn't it?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You said "There is no author information and the source is NOT the NYT." I say it's published by the NYT... so unless you have some evidence to the contrary, it's NYT. B^e——C_ritical 00:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah...I see, back to a "logic argument" to win by default instaed of discussion. Alrighty then...so, even with your own "logic" you still lose until you show it is whatever publication it actually is, WITH the author information to prove I am incorrect (the fact of which is still irrelevenat to the discussion). But winning or losing is not the point is it? No...the point is you have been asked to supply information and are now becoming difficult and arguing for the pure sake of arguing. I ask that you provide the source and author of whatever information it is you are using with this "link" so that the discussion can continue in earnest or close as "conluded" please.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The link is to the NYT. I see that as proof it is the NYT. This is getting silly, why would you question it? And no, we do not reject a source because the author is not stated. If published by NYT, we can assume it is by staff of the NYT, who are held responsible for NYT standards. B^e——C_ritical 01:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's work on this source debate first. Its clearly one of the key sticking points. There were about 20-30 edits since I last logged on, and I think I saw a question directed to me. I lost where it is, so if someone had a specific question, feel free to leave a 'ping' on my talk page so I don't miss it.

Here is where I think we can move forward on the NYT source. Some of you want to use the summary that is posted on the topic page, while others object to the reliability of such a statement. I think there is some merit to both sides, but I think there can be a middle ground for those seeking inclusion: maybe one of the articles within the topic provides the same information you're looking for? If the summary is based off the secondary source newspaper articles...shouldn't there be a specific article that goes in more detail? The "inclusionists" here would have a much stronger argument with that approach, in my view. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Source publication information

This publication is not questioned.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Establishing the New York Times' reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),

The piece is a tertiary "summary" of collected, archived articles from various sources. Summary is inadequate for a reference as it contains no information for to varify. This criteria is not fulfilled and is therefore  Done unless an article can be named.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),

There is no byline to the "Summary" which means no author information. This criteria is not fulfilled and is therefore  Done unless an author can be named.

• And the publisher of the work

There is no publisher information for the source of the information beyond the tertiary "summary" which is inadequate as an article or source. The publisher of the link cannot be considered as a "tertiary source" unless the above information is included. This criteria is not fulfilled and is therefore  Done unless a publisher can be named that contains information for verification.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

Impossible to judge reliablity to the statement if the link only shows a "summary" of the actual source with no further information to check true context. No way to explain context and or know quality of source for context. This criteria is not fulfilled and is therefore  Done an article can be named to check against listed criteria.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times, [4] meets WP:RS

Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."

Establishing the Los Angeles Times' reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

Forbes

Forbes, [5] meets WP:RS

Nope, fails RS: it is a guest opinion piece of a lit professor appearing a personal finance online column of Deborah L Jacobs, author of such weighty works as What To Say On LinkedIn When You've Been Laid Off and 10 Things To Do When You Win The Lottery. The Lit Professor, who in her opinion piece draws upon experiences from "teaching a course to college freshmen called 'Pathways to Freedom' that explores African American history in Brooklyn", finds parallels between the rhetoric of her class subject and OWS "striking". This is not where or who you go to for micro economic theory. RS asks for sources that are "the best such source for that context". The lit professor fails that test. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We've had extensive discussion of this. It is an RS. B^e——C_ritical 16:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Becritical, could you link to the most recent discussion?

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, my question to you: The RS policy you quote comes from the section on having sources in context, not the qualification of the source. I think a better source to mark your concern would be the statement that "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Wouldn't that be a more appropriate policy line for your argument? Lord Roem (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm startled to hear context will matters so little here. Even more so when the context is a unauthoritative author writing an opinion piece, in which the Forbes editorial process is imperceptible. I'd like to know what makes a lit professor a decent source for micro economic theory. I'm also wonder why the policy "The reliability of a source depends on context" is a factor that can be waved away in the case of ForbesThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions through a lot of the talk page especially here, and also here. There are other sources for the same thing. Nothing the source says is controversial, and it is Forbes. The article is overseen by a Forbes senior editor, Deborah L. Jacobs. It is a guest post under her name. That should by rights put the matter to rest. B^e——C_ritical 17:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Forbes source was extensively discussed in the last DR/N. It was part of the actual dispute that led us...here. (I will return to discuss and link in a bit) The Forbes peice is an Editorial, it should be treated as opinion and attibuted to the author and Journal.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

DR/N discussion.[6]--Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Source author information

OK, so who is Deborah Jacobs and what is her expertise? Her website [7] describes her as "...an experienced writer specializing in legal and financial subjects, including all aspects of wealth management and preservation. A lawyer by training, she has spent most of her career as a writer, “translating” complex subjects into plain English." While the last portion may seem to support the ideal that Ms. Jacobs is experianced in explaining complex ideals in english...this is not a field of expertise. It is not like a translation of Latin into english. Anysuch explanation is "opinion" and not a literal translation.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, relating some statistics from a source is exactly like translating Latin to English. You should not be challenging the factuality of the source. If you want to have an argument, try saying that there is a problem with our taking for granted that these statistics relate to OWS (even though that's not controversial). But the facts are not opinion, and, actually, must not be attributed in a way that suggests that they are opinion. Further, you are leaving out the Forbes senior editor who oversaw and signed off on the piece by publishing it in her space. This is just as reliable as any other Forbes content by Forbes staff. The source is not being used to push an opinion as fact. It is merely being used to relate some statistics. The only opinion is that these stats relate to OWS... which we know to be uncontroversial. We are thus using the source responsibly without attribution. B^e——C_ritical 23:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an example of a common point of contention in this dispute: Whether not only publications, but author credentials as well, should be researched and subjected to some validation standard first. I've never heard of this requirement. But since this is one of the arguments that never gets anywhere, the mediator's input would now be helpful before this turns ugly yet again. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a clarification from the mediator on this point. Does the Author and their expertise have any bearing on the source being "relaible' for use on Wikipedia. I see this as a non issue myself as we have already established that much as a framework for determining what is RS as established within policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it depends on the context it is being used for. As this convo has been lengthy, could the editor wishing to use this source post the sentence you want to put in the OWS article, and the line from the source you want to attribute it to? I think a direct side-by-side would be enormously helpful in me giving advice on this question. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would refer mostly, but not exclusively, to the Forbes source (number 2 above). And that is being used mostly to give some statistics. It's used more than once or I'd quote the sentence. Because it's being used for stats, I contend that the author is of less relevance than if it were used for opinion. B^e——C_ritical 03:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me make my point clearer: the piece would need attribution were we using it to state something like "OWS loves Commies," but we do not need to attribute when the source is merely quoting statistics. B^e——C_ritical 23:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as we've stated on the talk page and at DRN, the statement is one of fact and would've been fact-checked by this publication's editorial staff. It's not an opinion. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You know this how? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What you are both arguing is that the claim being made in the source is a fact and not opinion, which we may discuss seperately however the "article" itself IS an opinion piece.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That was never disputed. B^e——C_ritical 00:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well actually yes it was, but that is niether here nor there now. As for the actual claim of facts we should discuss that under WP:V seperatly and discuss context the statement has.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Source article information

The article itself is an editorial opinion piece by a senior editorial staff member who writes an opinion blog for the publication called "DJ Working". The description in the article does not refer to it as such, but calls it a "Post". It is not a news story or piece of journalism but an editorial by a senior editorial staff meber as a guest in the section "personal Finance".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Check again, it's by a lit professor, not a senior editor. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at her little profile she states: "I’m a Forbes Senior Editor with an entrepreneurial spirit. Having worked as a lawyer, I gravitate towards legal subjects, especially law as it intersects..."--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The link says "This is a guest post by Deborah Mutnick, Professor of English at Long Island University in Brooklyn, New York".[8]

Oh yes, that is correct. The post is a guest spot within that section. It is actually common with Forbes and that section and I see it used with others as well. But the source itself does identify her as a senior editor. The "guest post' actualy is referring to it as an opinion and not a report or article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this reliable for the statement being made and is it the best such source for that context?

This reads as an attack piece and is unacceptable per WP:BLP as well as WP:NPA. Per Lord Roem below, "make your objection in the form at the bottom of the page, and please write it more concisely" and without making personal attacks on the subject. Dreadstar ☥ 21:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The context is micro economic theory. The crummy source is a blogger (so-called "senior editor", but her boss call her a staff reporter -oops.) who doesn't do anything else at Forbes but post on trending topics, e.g. Jessica Simpson, Linkdn, the Lotto, etc... She is (very) often on easy time by letting others write guest posts on hot trending topics per Google Trends. Before waving the magic wand of "but it's Forbes", wait a sec, it isn't, it is in fact Forbes.com, which has been busted for SEO shenanigans more than once and then played dumb while keeping at it. Jacbobs is also very aware of how to game Google by propagating link spam. It is very doubtful she is on the payroll. Paul Carr at TechCrunch reported on Forbes.com as a "mish-mash of celebrity slideshows and tacky lists of ‘Americas best paying blue-collar jobs’ and ‘hottest summer convertibles’. Since the column was posted, I’ve spoken to a number of former and current Forbes employees who (off the record, naturally) have expressed agreement with my criticisms. Forbes’ obsession with page views at all costs (or, rather, no cost) is just plain embarrassing". Jacobs' output fits these disparagements to a T. As for the canard of editorial oversight, she has none; all her boss Lewis Dvorkin cares about is web traffic. Of his bloggers (remember our source is a blog) he says Jacobs and others of her job description '"act more like product managers, working with our sales and techology [sic: editorial oversight anyone?] teams. and For example, Dvorkin points to Jacobs' article on estate planning related to the movie "The Descendants". She said I didn’t need an editor’s approval for the idea, or find an editor somewhere who would pay for it. That carte blanche, she told her boss most obsequiously, “'has allowed me to find my voice.' Her voice, in turn, is what enables Deborah to attract hundreds of thousands of users to her page". One word; damning. But shoot, I can't blame a girl for her hustle. Because of the above, the sourced is besmirched, impugned and can't be used. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please make your objection in the form at the bottom of the page, and please write it more concisely. Lord Roem (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Source publication information

Not questioned or disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Establishing Forbes' reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

Guardian

The Guardian, [9] meets WP:RS, as discussed here.

This source is used several times.

I dispute the claim that consensus was reached in this discussion linked above, that the Guardian is a reliable source for use here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No one made any claims about consensus, but I contend that the Guardian data blog is in fact a very reliable source for statistics explaining why OWS is mad, as used. Using attribution and how much is a matter of judgment. Were any of the statistics disputed, we would have to attribute a lot. But I do not think that is the case. The source is used more as a way of relating stats to OWS than as a source for the stats, which are directly from more official sources. B^e——C_ritical

Establishing The Guardian's reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

CBS

CBS News, [10] meets WP:RS

A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth.

Establishing CBS' reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

David Cay Johnston

[11] Referred by The Guardian [12]

Establishing David Clay Johnston's reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

University of California, Santa Cruz

University of California, Santa Cruz, [13] is a good RS and is referred to by another RS.

• Becritical, which source refers to the University? Just want to be clear. Lord Roem (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Forbes for one, and I believe others but I'm not sure. The text reads "The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%." Link included. B^e——C_ritical 03:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Establishing the University of California, Santa Cruz reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

Levy Institute

This source is referred from another RS.

Establishing The Levy Institute's reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

The Washington Post

The Washington Post,[14] meets WP:RS, may have been included just as a courtesy to the reader, as with several sources here.

Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less.

This also has other sources, including The Guardian. The other sources are included as a courtesy. The Guardian says "since the 1970s, median pay for executives at the nation's largest companies has more than quadrupled, even after adjusting for inflation, according to researchers. Over the same period, pay for a typical non-supervisory worker has dropped more than 10%" Which is actually a quote from the Washington Post, and thus the Guardian is only being used to connect OWS to the information. B^e——C_ritical 17:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post 2

The Washington Post with Bloomberg,[15] meets WP:RS

Establishing the Washington Post's reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

CNN

CNN,[16] meets WP:RS

I'd like to also discuss the way this news organization is being used as overarching opinion and whether it can be established that such a single media source can or should be used in this manner for this type of controversial article and not give undue weight to such opinion?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You've questioned using CNN before, seemingly singling it out. But whyever that may be, WEIGHT relates to viewpoints, not to sources: we aren't compelled to give sources due weight, only viewpoints. B^e——C_ritical 00:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Establishing CNN's reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[17] Referred by another RS I believe

Establishing the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' reliablity of source to context

• The piece of work itself (the article, book),
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• And the publisher of the work

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Please explain the context each source has to the subject and how it is reliable for the statement being made and why it is the best such source for that context.

"Alternative" Source discussion

I propose to just continue, or more accurately, start over WITHOUT DISMISSING THE ABOVE CONTENT, but simply putting off, for now, the discussion of reliable sources, verifiability, POV or ANY other concern other than determination of whether, on a broad general basis, the source speaks to the issue at hand in the prose itself. And no other concern. I begin and lay out all my concerns at once and then others may follow if they wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations. Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."

A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth. According to The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%. According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.

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

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

Reference 1

Compromise underway

Prose A:

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

Prose B:

Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%.[4] Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes

Source The New York Times

====Does the source speak to the issue at hand? ====

Not applicable per above discussion. Compromise is to replace this reference with an article from a secondary source listed at the tertiary link.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference 2

Prose

Prose A:

Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans.

Prose B:

Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes.

Source Los Angeles times

Reference 3

Prose

Prose A:

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

Prose B:

According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.

Prose C:

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

Source Forbes

Reference 4

Prose

Prose A:

Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."

Prose B:

According to The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%.

Prose C:

Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%.

Prose D:

In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.

Prose E:

Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less.

Source The Guardian

Reference 5

Prose

Prose A:

A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth.

Source CBS

Reference 6

Prose

Prose A:

According to The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%.

Source United in Our Delusion By David Cay Johnston October 11, 2010

Reference 7

Prose

Prose A:

According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home)...

Source Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff, not the University of Santa Cruz.

Reference 8

Prose

Prose A:

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

Source Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department

Reference 9

Prose A:

Prose B:

Source []

Reference 10

Prose A:

Prose B:

Source []

Reference 11

Prose A:

Prose B:

Source []

Reference 12

Prose A:

Prose B:

Source []

Reference 13

Prose A:

Prose B:

Source []

Talk

Wow, I wish there were a talk page for this talk page. I don't know what's going on here. Why is Amadscientist's criteria being outlined in bold for each source, with his own conclusions on whether they are met after each? What do his "done" marks mean? And what is this "why it is the best such source for that context" I see in that criteria? I wasn't aware this was something required for sources on Wikipedia. We need to show that a source we use is the best one possible? How do we show that, and is there a policy that says this? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the way this is being conducted. I see Amadscientist outlining criteria for acceptance of sources, some of them being pretty original from where I'm standing, and he apparently then decides himself whether they're met. We have to meet this criteria for each source, not only offering publisher/author/title but explaining the context each one has to the material? Each one? Really? I think it's pretty obvious for most of them, and this seems like a ridiculous burden to place on Becritical and myself. Aside from the evidenciary burden this would just take too much time, and there's no need for it. We've brought our sources and everyone can see which statements they're supposed to back up. Perhaps we can get directly to the issues our opponents have here by them pointing out problems for us to address, rather than making us defend every single source's use...? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bolding made sense as to not confuse the formatting on what the mediator agreed was a good framework for determining RS. I don't see why I would not be allowed to conclude the criteria is not met and state an obviouse unambiguous end to that criteria. My first attempt was not indented and that was a mistake and flaw. I also stated it as done but didn't leave room for the possiblity that one might actually just find a source and use that...but then that does end the discussion on the summary link and would mean that another source would need to be found and added for discussion. Lord Roem suggested that (nearly simultaneous to my edit) that we could move past this by finding a source from the tertiary topic page and use the one that the summary is using, or says the same thing. The formatting is straight from WP:RS and lifted nearly word for word but individualized to each source. I don't know how much time is required for mediation. This is my first one, but I agreed to discuss these issues and mediator has set the formating from both Becritical (from his initial edit) and I. What suggestions or changes would you want? And I am sorry, but yes...each one individually. These are the steps required per the mediator but if i am incorrect in something, please let me know.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that each source's context needs to be fully described by us, as if this is now guilty-until-proven-innocent. You just get to point out an entire section you have issues with, no specifics necessary, and then we're expected to defend every single part of it or else lose it? It's an unnecessary burden to place on us. If our opponents object to something, let them say what their objections are so we can start discussing the actual issues here. Burden has been fulfilled from where we're standing, and if others disagree they should state why in specific terms. Becritical and myself shouldn't be expected to devote all this effort to defending everything just because our opponents have waved their hands and merely said "We have a problem". And, once those issues have been outlined, I don't think Amadscientist should be the one deciding whether criteria has been adequately met, nor deciding which criteria should be met, as not only is he not an objective party but some of his criteria doesn't make sense. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think both of you are right. Amadscientist is right that some of the tests about the reliability of sources that are posted above, is part of policy; Equazcion is right that we don't need to look at complete context, at least not at this stage.

To clarify, this is a very preliminary inquiry. We are to look at a sentence in the proposed text, see if a source matches it and that source is reliable. We'll look at synthesis and POV issues later.

So, to ensure we get moving on these discussions, I'll complete another run-through of each individual source discussion, and propose a specific method of moving forward. I may even look for more sources, if there are any (for example, on the NYT topic issue). This way, we make progress. Lord Roem (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest sticking to the original goal of this stage. This particular part of the process was started by the mediator with a relatively simple goal in mind, that of determining if RS is met with regard to:

• the piece of work itself (the article, book),
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

The context issue was added by Amadscientist, but it shouldn't be required at this point. It should wait until specific issues are brought up with regard to the context, rather than requiring it of every source now. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I phrased this stage even broader. Simply, does the source "speak to the content that is sought to be included". Its a very basic (maybe even objective) test. I'll work with each source tomorrow, but I'm off to bed. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add the context part. It is in WP:RS but is below the first three....I just added that afterward when I reliased I had forgot it with the other three...but I agree we can get back to context later. But, this looks likes it going to be a lot longer than I anticipated as we are simply putting off one part of RS for the next discussion and perhaps we need clarification that each part has a start and end and then we assess it alltogether...or am I wrong?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

The answer seems pretty simple. I am reminded of Martha Davis and the Motels....take the RS out of the discussion and get this part over fast. The first source needs to be replaced as the mediator said and we can balnk the sections of everything except Becriticals original sectioning WITHOUT the "Meets WP:RS which made this a part of the discussion to begin with. Making the claim that each source meets RS at this stage was met with a full listing of criteria, which does indeed include "context" to be argued against. (I have so many Perry Mason jokes inside my head right now)--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The context issue has no "line" right now. A lot can be said about whether something meets context requirements, and since that is pretty much the entire reason for this mediation, the discussion in this stage could continue endlessly to address the overall issue (which is what has happened). This RS stage is apparently only meant to be a simple/preliminary process though, so if we are to start discussing context at this point, the mediator would need to limit that context discussion here somehow, and I'm interested to see how he plans to do that. Until then let's put this on hold. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Er? I am sorry, but I am not following you. Of course there is a "line" right now. The line of prose which is a claim being referenced by a source which one editor has stated meets WP:RS. Context is a part of RS. Either we are addressing RS now or we are not, regardless of whether we put off one section until later.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

...and since that speaks to the overall issue, and we're not supposed to be addressing the overall issue right now but performing a preliminary stage, there would appear to be a problem. Which is why I'm waiting until the mediator comes back to specify how this should proceed. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you do whatever makes you happy, but I am not saying that. I am saying that the mediator appears to have clarified that HE had actually spoken about this section of mediation in broader terms: "...discuss each individual source and determine whether, on a broad general basis, it speaks to the issue at hand. We won't go into WP:V or POV issues yet. This is a foundational/preliminary step." But Becritical did add verifiability issues by making the claim "meets WP:RS in each section....you know sort of like how you both complained about my use of {{done}}, but I discussed this issue and laid out my concerns and the mediator compromised between the TWO discussing editors who were engaged AT THAT TIME. I have made sure to keep you in mind sir, but you were not here and the two editors who were discussing, along with the mediator created the format to move forward. Thank you for disrupting that. Now, we can put off context as I have stated, but we are already in the middle of an agreed on formatting that you are now questioning. Fine. But then the middleground to that is for me to reserve the expectation/right to do the same later. Otherwise please just allow the discussion to move forward as is. "Late comers will be seated at the first break and please turn off all electronic devices". (humor)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad Equazcion stepped in. As I stated in my initial email, my only reason for engaging in this mediation, instead of arbitration to address the disruptive editing, was as a last-ditch effort to get those opposing the actual text to state specifically what problems they have with it. Please, I would like to know that now. Letting one of the parties control this page is not within the spirit of mediation. The sources used are excellent relative to the manner in which they are being used. They are being used to say "OWS is mad, and this is why, these are the statistics they are mad about." The sources are not used as opinion pieces to push a POV, they are used to present solid facts about why certain people feel the way they do. These are the facts behind OWS, and no one has even challenged whether or not they are facts. These facts are drawn from solid primary sources and presented by the secondary sources as relevant to OWS. Lord Roem should think about how Wikipedia is harmed by making authors jump through so many hoops even after they have met all the prerequisites set forth in our policy. Certainly, the section could be re-written to take account of criticism. I has been in the past, but since that criticism was badly defined, the rewrites failed to stem the tide of criticism. I don't want to continue wasting time on countering thinly-stretched arguments over sources when potential problems have not been clearly stated. I also, as Equazcion, hold open the door to Lord Roem presenting us with a plan of action which will quickly lead to understanding what the alleged problems with the text actually are. And I await Lord Roem taking and keeping control of this mediation as a mediator should, instead of handing it off to one of the parties. As just one example of my good faith attempts to solve this puzzle, please see here where I ask Amadscintist whether he has a problem with the Guardian source. He responded "I am pretty sure it was the consensus that Gaurdian should be treated as opinion and attributed to them and the author of the piece so please use if no other choice is there, but it would work for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)" Whereas now he says, after I rewrote the section, "I dispute ... that the Guardian is a reliable source for use here." B^e——C_ritical 06:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't agree to it... You could say it's disruptive to voice concern over a process already under way, but that was necessary. The way things were going seemed imbalanced and counter-productive, so I had to speak up. I've been following the discussion since it started, though I didn't realize the extent of the problem until now. And, yes, if you (Amadscientist) have a problem with a process at some point in the future, I would not discount it outright merely because you brought it up too late -- as long as your issue had merit, which would be up to the mediator to decide, it would need to be addressed. Thankfully the mediator has agreed to specify how this should now proceed given the issues that have been pointed out, so I think we should wait until he does so instead of getting into an angry unhelpful tiff. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

"We're gonna need a bigger boat". "Jaws" 1975, screenplay by[18]--Amadscientist (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I will follow the mediators lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

break 2

• Comment. BeCritical stated that

The sources used are excellent relative to the manner in which they are being used. They are being used to say "OWS is mad, and this is why, these are the statistics they are mad about."

Frankly, that sounds like a recipe for OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the format listed above in Alternate source discussion is a great format - directly linking the prose to the source. I would like us now to move forward, source by source, to answer the preliminary question. This may (and likely will) be an exhaustive process, but getting it done now saves lots of stress and frustration down the road. Let's start with Reference 2 - the LA times article. Let's look for a specific NYT article for the first reference in the interim. Until then, let's focus our discussion on Reference 2 and (for now) only reference 2. Lord Roem (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's happening here exactly. As I understand it, the Alternate process will determine if sources are merely relevant to the issue? And in Reference 2, not all of the quote is sourced to the LA Times... B^e——C_ritical 16:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

While we want to ensure the prose matches the source, reliable source issues can certainly come into play here. That's fair. We'll discuss it point by point. As to reference 2, if the whole quote isn't entirely sourced to the LA Times, then there needs to be a note on what other sources are explicitly being used for that prose passage. Lord Roem (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you already have my input on these matters, since I did most of the sourcing. The sources in the proposed draft are intended to be relevant to the text. B^e——C_ritical 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting all those quotes matched was not easy, if I errored in any way Becritical, please feel free to make the needed changes. I attempted to start at the beginning of the sentence directly after each citation. But this was a draft to get started and since it is still incomplete and, as you say, has errors you can certainly contribute to the formatting for corrections.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what "quote" we're talking about, but if there are multiple sources being used for a statement, they're already noted in the draft. I don't get this process either. The draft contains this stuff already, and is laid out to show which sources are backing up which statements (as wiki text always is...). We're now re-stating which sources are used for each statement, but in longer form than 'statement[footnote]'? Seems the questions presented now are just due to the fact that the long form is incomplete because not all the sources stated in the draft for a statement are noted in the long form for the same statement. I don't see the point of this, it seems superfluous. It looks like we're desperately trying to find a way to handle this in an extended step-by-step way, but let's not resort to an entirely superfluous process in doing that. Everything this new thing above is meant to do is already done. Just look at the draft. What now? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then please suggest another form of doing this that goes through each source one by one to compare the prose against the source, because that is the basic needs of the section. Do you wish to discontinue mediation or are you saying you simply don't want to discuss each source to each claim? I really don't understand what you want.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I tend to agree with Equazcion. I'm rather bemused and confused. It's like random searching at an airport where the children and grannies get stripped. There are supposedly problems with the draft so severe that it was blanked in spite of having a lot of sources. Presumably, Amadscientist knows what those problems are, or he wouldn't have blanked the section. How about he makes a list and we can discuss each item? Or take it sentence by sentence, and deal with any problems of sourcing or text? Amadscientist, if you feel you don't understand how the sources relate to the text, then I suggest you go through the process you state by yourself. Our input isn't needed, that's part of your homework you need to do so you can say fully why you object to the text. However, I have no idea how you managed to determine that there were problems with the section prior to blanking it if you didn't know how the sourcing and text were related. It's a puzzle. B^e——C_ritical 20:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You are free to presume anything. What I feel is not something another may state. If mediation has fallen into argument and no basic format can be decided on to even begin reasonable discussion, I am at a loss on what to do next. I suggest we all back away for a cool down period of 48 hrs.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind going through each source if it's to determine something that hasn't been determined yet. Copying the short form to a longer form and then laboring over making the long form match the draft is useless though. I was at a loss from the very beginning on how this mediation should be handled, and didn't think it was on the participants to determine that anyway. Though the participants appear to be making those determinations, they don't seem helpful. So far, the one process the mediator started became mangled when the participants started attempting to change it, and their attempt to begin and direct a new process entirely is similarly counterproductive.

I understand wanting to do something that addresses each source, but an outline of the manner in which they're arranged to back up each statement in the draft is already IN the draft -- so if we're going to address relevance, that step is done, and if there's a problem with the way it's been done in the draft, I'd say you should state what the problem that you see is. Or the mediator can start this over with whatever he thinks should happen. I think the best thing that could happen would be for the participants to stop trying to outline the process we should follow here and let him direct things. That's what we're here for. Directing things ourselves was not working at the article talk page and there's no reason to think it'll work here. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And isn't it true that there must be problems perceived in the draft? Why is it that we can't just paste each sentence into a new heading, discuss whatever problems there may be, and then go on to the next? Am I wrong to assume that the people who took out the section know why they did so? B^e——C_ritical 20:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there are some major misconceptions, presumptions, contradictions and redundant statements being made that are counterproductive. If no direction can be found I guess we leave it to the mediator to rule if there is any reasonable manner for moving forward. An attempt has been made by this editor to comply in earnest with the original request made by the volunteer for the discussion. I didn't even know if I was supposed to wait for the dispute to be layed out by the editor who requested the mediation or if I, as the editor with the concerns was supposed to begin, but letting the parties hash this out was not a bad option in any mediation. All parties generally do have a say in how proceeding take place. I think one thing is very clear at this point. The contributions made by involved editors to formatting the discussion is not accepted by either side regardless of the others perception of adherring to the request. Let us simply allow the mediator to set the format in any manner he feels is best for this mediation.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason for the confusion is the difficulty in understanding what the objections to the text is. For my perspective, it seems that most complaints come out of POV and WP:V issues, not so much with these sources. Now, parties have a few options here, and I'll let you all discuss. First, if you prefer, I can go through each source and present basically a 3O - a third opinion, based on what I think and consultations with the Mediation Committee. That approach would move things forward the fastest. I may end up siding with some editors some times, and others on other sources. If you don't want that hard-line approach, then we can move to the second. Namely, I would ask those objecting to sources to write a specific objection, to initiate discussion. If no objections arise, we would move to our next step, which (as I outlined at the beginning) would be looking at WP:V policies. That's the second fastest option. Lastly, as a third and final option, parties could continue the present format, where we discuss each and every reference in turn, trying to slowly come to consensus on each point.

I would like each party that's still discussing to post in bullet points below which option they prefer. One, two, or three. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Option 2. Option 1 would be fine except that as you say it is a hard-line approach and I would rather go to the noticeboards for third opinions. That allows more sunshine on the process as well. I don't mean to sound mistrustful, I just like more heads involved in a more open way. I would prefer to go over it sentence by sentence and deal with both sourcing and text at the same time as is usual in WP discussions. In that way we might be able to come up with a new consensus draft. B^e——C_ritical 21:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just clarify real quick -- I think 3O was not the best way to put it. Rather, it would be a pretty substantial justification, taken from input from other committee members. I'm fine with proceeding with option 2 (that's why I listed it), I just want you to know what Option 1 would actually entail. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Second option. Probably obvious by now that I feel addressing the specific objections is the most direct route. We've had third opinions before and that didn't do much. I'm a little apprehensive about what happens after that though -- the objections would certainly "initiate discussion", but that discussion will not have an end, if history has shown us anything. Will the mediator be closing/determining the outcome when that discussion disintegrates into dramatic blather? Equazcion ^(talk) 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Lord Roem (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in then. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I do feel that many of the problems have not been fixed in the past because I didn't know what to change. If we can determine what to fix, I will be happy to work hard and suggest text and sources which take objections into consideration. B^e——C_ritical 21:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Option 1 I have problems with some of the sources alone as they are being used over and over as puffery and with opinion being used to source fact in some places where there is already a source properly used that makes the claim. I think the main problem is in advocating the subject and not just covering the details in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. As a stand alone section I object as I think it is undue weight for the subject and overshadows other legitimate issues within the subject. I think that many of the sources are being used for promotional purposes of the subject to push a point of view against the consensus of collaborating editors. I think the intent of some editors is to take a single undisputed fact (that income inequality is an issue with OWS protesters) and extrapolate and levitate importance of random facts and statistics to similarly elevate the importance of income inequality over all other issues of the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Option two states: "I would ask those objecting to sources to write a specific objection, to initiate discussion. If no objections arise, we would move to our next step, which (as I outlined at the beginning) would be looking at WP:V policies" The reason I do not choose this option is simply because it is nearly the same as the current "Aternate source discussion" where I simply formatted the set up of that very thing. I had not even began to make any written objection when objections to JUST the formatting were voiced. If I write a specific objection, to initiate discussion then it would not need to be made in a new section but added to the one Ialready proposed. Since the only other option is #4 and is exactly what I just stated...the only other option I feel is appropriate now is 3O by the mediator along with cosultation with the mediation committie. I really see only two options to continue, one which they already object to, so there is no expectation they will not hold up mediation in a similar fashion. Regardless of these things, I still think a 48 hr cool down period be should be intitiated. If others do not agree to that I ask them to respect a personal 24 hr cool down break by this editor (me), away from the mediation. I have made good faith attempts to move this forward. I believe 24 hrs is not unreasonable.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sentence 1

I am just posting this to show how I think the process could move forward. If it is not helpful, please just delete it. It is not my intention to take over a process which should be controlled by the mediator. B^e——C_ritical 22:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait just a little bit before moving on to this. If you don't mind, could you remove this section? I'd just prefer to be in charge of formatting. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Objections

1. The source is no good because...
2. The text is POV because...
3. c
4. d.

Thank you for your suggestion. At this time any option that requires the "objector" to make an argument against claims to sources has no requirement of structure to use, just that those objecting to sources write a specific objection, to initiate discussion. Yet another header to add to the mess is not needed. My specific objections can be written in the "Alternative source discussion" section under "Does the source speak to the issue at hand?" where I can continue to make use of the prose organised so that I can easily assess. If this is not acceptable, you should consider option one for speed alone so that we may move on and continue this mediation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If Option Two is what parties wish for, your suggestion Amadscientist works perfectly. Lord Roem (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then I will intitiate the discussion by raising specific objections to each source against prose where needed. If there is no objection at all I will not list it, however I should at least state that I have had concerns with almost all the sources for one reason or another and at this time there may seem to be a lot of issues I have. I invite the mediator to strike out whatever he feels has been addressed enough to move on, one way or the other with comments if he feel are needed for clarity. I will begin within the hour.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hold your horses one moment. I left a clarification above on Option 1, that I want the editor to think about before sticking to his vote. Then, I'll make a decision on which option we'll proceed with. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you still want me to remove this section now there is this discussion in it? And one thing, each sentence may have several sources, so going by each sentence, instead of each source, makes more sense. B^e——C_ritical 23:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Horses held. So far all I have done is to continue to set up the section to access the prose directly without a redirect to another portion of the page and changed ref 1 to reflect the compromise in place. I haven't started to write anything up or argue any point of the content. I did find the error in the # 2 reference that I removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in no hurry and just assumed I was getting a green light to just go with the other editors vote for option two, but you may still see my vote to just let the Mediation Committie and yourself make this call either way. I assumed. My bad. Sorry.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to denigrate all of Amadscientist's hard work above, but does anyone else find the format totally confusing? What's the use of all the formatting anyway? Can't we just have regular headings? I'm getting afraid I won't be able to keep track of what's happening. It's already hard. Before it gets any harder couldn't we just break it up as suggested here? If no one else feels this way then okay. And again not trying to rain on Amadscientist's parade. B^e——C_ritical 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'd rather just start new ordinary headings below, created only for parts for which there are objections (rather than laying out a catalog of everything). Just one level-3 heading for each objection. Maybe a subheader for each to separate the objection summary from the discussion, but that's it. Keep it simple. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, as the editor "objecting" I wish to stay with what the mediator has stated.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You stated it; he agreed, I assume as long as no one had a problem with it. I think the complexity above is entirely unnecessary and distracting. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but I have to ask other editors reading this if they don't see something a little odd with all the stalling by other editors to keep mediation for actually happening. Will someone Ping me when we have decided what we are doing from the vote. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That is rude though. I'm not trying to stall anything. I rather want to get on with this, and I'd appreciate you assuming good faith in the future. Lord Roem requested above, when Becritical created a new format, that he'd like it removed and "I'd just prefer to be in charge of formatting." Same should go for Amadascientist's layout. I think the mediator should be the one to actually create a skeleton format for this, as he stated. I've offered my suggestion, which goes with Becritical's -- a level-3 header for each new objection, with Becritical's summary format under each, and a level-4 for discussion under each. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it does seem that these two editors do not wish to move forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not feeling comfortable with everything you do does not mean we do not wish to move forward. Maybe we don't want to move forward in the same way you do. Really Amadscientist, I just want to know and respond to your objections. Do we need a lot of confusing formatting to do that? Couldn't you just state your concerns? B^e——C_ritical 02:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you want and I have been VERY uncomfortable with both you, Becritical and Equazcion. I do know the direction given us. I challenge both editors to simply let go, and allow the mediator to consult with the mediation committee on this portion and to allow the mediator to direct us each to make the level header formatted in whatever way he deems is needed for whatever objection or response he feels is fit going forward, and to argue only the facts, issues and concerns of the content dispute of this mediation. I commit to such.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just as well (that you don't know what we want), as it's not your job anyway, though you've been operating that way. Becritical and I have been letting go, but you've been imposing formats for this mediation so far. They've made me rather "uncomfortable" too. These delays wouldn't have been necessary otherwise. I agree the mediator should be the one to outline the formatting from here on, and the participants should definitely let go -- as in, refrain from going ahead and creating those formats as they see fit. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No one has a job here. We are all volunteers. I dispute your interpretation that I am creating delays by imposing my formatting. Read the mediation. It does not bear that out as accurate at all. If you agree to allow the mediator to direct us each to make the level header formatted in whatever way he deems is needed for whatever objection or response he feels is fit going forward, and to argue only the facts, issues and concerns of the content dispute of this mediation then perhaps you would also consider allowing the mediator to consult with the mediation committee on this portion to move forward?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He can consult whomever he likes. I never said anything about that, nor is it something the parties would need to agree to. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear me. Everything I leave the computer for an hour, I have to read 30 edits. That's fine though. I'm glad you're all active. :P

Anyway...to resolve this formatting business- I like the idea of having an objection three-level header, and discussion under that. I've set up an example below (supposed to be humorous, btw) Lord Roem (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

X's Objection 1

I think the source from The Onion is not reliable, since its a fake news source. Therefore, the sentence that says "Occupy Wall Street has elected 54 members of the Senate" shouldn't be involved. - [awesome editor]

I disagree. The Onion is totally reliable. Everyone knows that! - [newbie]

I'm forced to agree with newbie. Only because I tend to doubt experienced editors. (this is much more fun than actual mediation btw) Equazcion ^(talk) 03:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

X being user X?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. So like "Lord Roem's Objection 5". Lord Roem (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. B^e——C_ritical 04:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems fine. Are we in agreement with this then?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a safe assumption given the responses. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it and I think the original version is better. I don't have time to read anything in great detail right now, but I don't the change is warranted at this time. You should get some more experience in making suggestions and try it in your sandbox first. We have to be careful, this is a featured article you know. I think if you keep making suggestions like this WE may need to consider if further action should be taken against you for tendentious editing, flogging a dead horse, failing to get th... hey wait a second this isn't the ISS... *#&%, where am I ? who am I again ? Penyulap ☏ 09:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll set the following timetable. I would like all objections to be listed in the style shown above by 1:00 17 May (Wikipedia time) / 9pm Eastern US time Wednesday. I would like those who are not making objections to take a break from editing, until the deadline. Once we hit that, we'll begin discussions. This provides that perfect opportunity for a pause. Whomever makes the first objection, feel free to remove this example section. -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

...but don't remove Lord's comment, which is also in the example section (right?) Equazcion ^(talk) 11:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. Just remember the stated deadline. Lord Roem (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it. B^e——C_ritical 15:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I don't really fall into the objectionable category here, I'm more an additional kind of person, I figure I have outlined approximately what problems I figured there were with the article, so, can I pretty much skip making objections for now ? Penyulap ☏ 05:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want your problems discussed, you will place them in the objection format outlined above. Editors have about 36 hours to write up objections. -- Lord Roem (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that any stop to editing the article fell by the wayside... I'm more inclined to edit now because of recent events. But if this is considered in some way disruptive to the mediation I'll hold off. I made these edits. I'm not intending to edit the section being discussed here. B^e——C_ritical 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as you don't edit on the text in question, you're cool. Lord Roem (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably have my objections up by the later tonight. Could be a little bit later than most will be awake for. I don't have a problem with editors editing the article if they don't edit the section in question. Just my two cents worth.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But since they are editing the goals section which is a part of this mediation and are now disputing every policy point brought up, every definition etc., and threatening to add even more content dispute here, I request all parties refrain from any further edits on Occupy Wall Street except for vandalsim until the end of this mediation. Just Because AKA has been indef blocked does not mean anything changes. How do we know this was just his concern if these were all sent by e-mail. Or...does his being blocked mean the mediation has to close since one editor is now gone and two others are actively editing sections in dispute?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Up until now the economic section was the focus of this. Goals were mentioned in the beginning but they seem to have dropped off (your own intermediate box of objections just contained the economic section, neglecting goals). See this discussion -- I forgot about the goals section, but if it's still a focus of this, I'm fine with not editing it as well, and I'm sure BeCritical would agree. PS. He didn't exactly edit it, just wanted to add a summary of another article, and that seemed the most appropriate location, so he put it in a subsection. I'm not trying to lawyer here, just explain the thought process. As I stated at the talk page just now, I was fine with allowing a revert to correct our mistake, if we indeed made one, and that's been done. I'm also fine with further agreeing that no one here should edit the article at all until mediation is over. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, AKA was the only person who didn't want to sign the agreement. And all other interested/involved parties are actively participating here. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist has struck out his name from the mediation agreement, and he was the last participating member with objections to the content in question. Lord Roem, please let us know if/when this is officially closed, though I'm open to waiting to see if Amadscientist changes his mind. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why he struck his name. I was expecting his listed objections, now that everything had calmed down. I really think we have a shot here, if he's willing to stick on.

And, I hate to bring it up (but I must), if I close this mediation, then the only form of relief for you guys is a RFAR. I would hate to see good-headed editors like you all to get wrapped up in such a process. I sincerely hope we can resolve this here, and now. Lord Roem (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It would appear he struck it due to the events described here, I'm not sure if you saw that. Not that I think that was any reason to withdraw, as it was settled rather quickly. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The goals section is part of this mediation? Is the mediation to close? Amadscientist says that AKA removed a mention of the 99% declaration and that there was consensus not to have it in the article, but I was entirely unaware if this was so, and also unaware that it had previously been in the article. I haven't been paying close attention sometimes. B^e——C_ritical 04:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I, Amadscientist, cannot move forward with this mediation:

• with all parties not involved.
• I am uncomfortable with a mediation held up by constant complaints of minutia by two parties. I cannot move forward after format changes were made several times that the mediator and I were forced to agree with to keep pace with constant complaints that resulted in a loss of reasonable expectation by this editor to achieve any kind of reasonable end.
• I cannot move forward when editing the sections in dispute were made even after agreement from the mediator and I, as long as editing did not involve the sections from this mediation.
• I have tried my very best to keep fluid and change with changing needs...but we couldn't even get past the first part of mediation and things became very unusual. An editor was indef blocked and editors were allowed to edit the page itself that only led to violations of agreements and more issues. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Much of the early issues were caused by the disruptive editor. Now that he is gone, we have three parties who are all active participants, ready to get moving. I don't see anything strange about the first part of this process, it may have been messy, but I think that's okay. People got their emotions out, and now we're into the structure. Lord Roem (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps extending the deadline a bit for posting objections, given recent events and the absence of the other objecting party, might make Amadscientist more amenable to sticking with this? Equazcion ^(talk) 12:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was the deadline, then I am of course ok with extending it. Lord Roem (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The original formatting was so complex and, sorry, but so controlled by one editor, that I didn't feel I could adequately respond or understand, and I wanted a very simple format so that things would be clear and arranged in normal threads. These were not minutia to me but a real concern, not just the formatting but the control and marking things as "done" and dictating "compromise." I was completely unaware that the goals section was included here, if it was. I thought it was only the economics section. I'm saying this mostly for the record since he's already withdrawn- didn't want to say it before for fear he would leave. It's disappointing that he's withdrawn because we might have been able to work things out, and everyone already put in a lot of effort, especially Amadscientist [19]. B^e——C_ritical 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)