Jump to content

Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Resource BusinessWeek and the Charlie Rose (talk show)

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The extent to which the protesters have been discussing the Volcker rule is not entirely clear to me but this Business Week source seems very appropriate per WP:NPOV. I wonder if others have opinions on it. Dualus (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource Occupy Wall Street: The Right Focus

"Occupy Wall Street protesters are wise to focus on unequal income distribution-such as the outsize gains reaped by financial-industry companies. Pro or con?" Read the debate by guest columnists John Schmitt and Tim Cavanaugh and watch the video with Bloomberg.com’s Suzanne Woolley

  • Pro: A Growing Disparity by John Schmitt, Center for Economic & Policy Research
  • Con: An Unrealistic Goal by Tim Cavanaugh, Reason.com

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is completely consistent with [1] forming two independent reliable secondary sources with very substantial, significant coverage. Include with [2]. Dualus (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: Title of the Dualus's provided link is Equality and Efficiency on Finance & Development section of IMF.org, September 2011, Vol. 48, No. 3 by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry. 99.35.14.164 (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

resource The Million App March

Mobile apps and websites created by software developers sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street October 27, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Karen Weise BusinessWeek 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What section do you think this would work in? Dualus (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the Internet is international, how about in Occupy movement? 99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What?

Nothing about the obvious left leaning of this movement? How all of its major funders (Tides Foundations Soros) are democratic organisations as well as the Communist Party USA. Also why is there no mention at all of the thousands of arrests that have taken place and the incessant amount of trash being left all over the place, or the many laws being broken? Not mention of the anti-capitalist signs, there is not a single American flag in the crowd, their turning away of homeless people wanting food, their self-proclaimed misuse and neglection of funds or anything controversial at all? Basically, why is there absolutely nothing controversial about this movement in the article? There is clearly a bias.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. Get some verifiable sources and we'll see what we can do. No doubt there are groups that are claiming their is trash, but there are also sources claiming the activists are keeping the area well cleaned. How high are these heaps? Why should we mention the absence of American flags? Is that notable? I believe I've seen a few, so how many flags would be enough? Should we do a count of every anarcho-syndicalist flag and anti-consumerist Adbuster's flag represented to? Rachel Maddow tweeted that she saw a Gadsden Flag, so that should get a mention. As for the Communists, can we get their tax records to see how many of the OWS shadow communards are bankrolled by the surviving KGB sleeper cells still sneaking fluoride into New York's drinking water? --Cast (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:LEAD does say that we are supposed to summarize controversies in the article's introduction. I have been told I am antisocial for violating consensus on this article for trying to make sure many reliable secondary source perspectives are included. It's an art deciding what to look for, sometimes. Do you have a source about funders? Dualus (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
NO...it says "we" are supposed to summarize "prominent controversies". It is upon you (or what ever editor wishes to include the information) to meet that standard.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources are included in links in these articles: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47009

http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/occupy-wall-street-organization-and-tactics/

http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/meet-the-ows-economists-a-nobel-laureate-a-marxist-a-debt-monger-a-tax-grabber-a-larouche-democrat-a-former-fed-advisor/

http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/lew-rockwells-the-evil-1-2/

I can also show you pictures of trash and mattresses and many other things left on the streets, sidewalks and everywhere. I am also wondering why there are no mention of the thousands of arrests that have taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are quotes and sources in this article describing the misuse and neglect of Occupy funding: http://constitutionclub.org/2011/10/25/occupiers-suffer-deadly-attack-by-money/ --174.49.24.190 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but constitutionclub.org and rogueoperator's wordpress (coincidentally (probably not) edited by the same people) do not constitute a reliable source of information. That is a right-wing self-created content with no verifibility. An article/blog called "Court Jester says Lord Obama will Continue to Rule by Edict" proves how unreliable this source is. If you try and put this crap on the article, I'll remove it myself. A short mention is already in the article George Soros supporting the movement is in the article in the business and banking section, we don't need a reference who refers him to as the "Radical anti-American billionaire." — Moe ε 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Moe, you might need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I said the sources are IN the articles, not the sources are the articles. Obviously I did not intend for these articles (Which were written by people with PHD's in political science and other things) to be my primary source of content, if you'll notice there are certain words in the articles that are hyperlinked in the same manor as wikipedia to more respectable and reliable sources. I simply didn't want to spend the time picking out each link and putting it on here individually because I have homework to do, among other things. If you will take the time to click on the links and read the sources, I'm sure you will find them reliable.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Why do you include "right-wing" in your list of things that are unreliable as if the fact that it is right-wing makes it unreliable? I want to point out that the article title you referenced was an obvious use of satire, which also does not constitute being called unreliable. That coupled with the credintials of the authors, in my opinion, makes the articles themselves reliable sources, but like I said, I did not intend for them to be, so please check the internal citation on the articles for more reliable sources.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Link provided in rogueoperater are links to e-mails and YouTube, which are not reliable. However at the end of every rougeoperator article, it says the articles were taken from http://www.politicalcrush.com/ which is a blog. See WP:BLOGS: Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Try an actual news organization. Costitutional Club provides the following links:
— Moe ε 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I love the story about creating a credit union. Include! Dualus (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article has a neutrality tag, but how would one know what the issues are - you can't expect an editor to read the entire talk page. Could those with neutrality issues post them here and we'll see if we can correct any problems. Obviously, one would need to be specific and not merely say "the article seems biased to me...".Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The intenational reactions section is the only ludicrously imbalanced part that I see. Some of the rest of this has WP:NOTSOAPBOX issues that are more problems of presentation and organization and tone. There's a lot of primary source info, and honestly I think we should be very careful that we don't take sides within the protest itself by endorsing one view over another (e.g. the Liberty Square thing). Our "one demand", as it were, for the article is that Wikipedia must actively resist influencing the outcome of the protests. SDY (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
People have been attempting to remove controversies from both the introduction and the text. The interaction of Lawrence Lessig and other proponents of constitutional amendments and OWS has been repeatedly removed citing false claims of overwhelming consensus, when the same material has remained in other articles with only minor quibbles from other editors which were easy to address. Some people think this article should include reports of people defecating, the endorsement of the American Nazi Party (I can not make this stuff up) and other reports of antisemitism. Please do not remove the neutrality tag until these disagreements are resolved. Dualus (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are numerous cases of people defecating as well as leaving trash all over the streets. Nothing has been said of its connections with the communist and nazi parties, sourced here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-is-the-comprehensive-list-of-those-supporting-occupy-wall-st/ . In fact, this article lacks anything that shows a dim light on the protest, almost as if it is intentionally so. Fact is, it is a messy, crime ridden protest with thousands of arrests pending and numerous suspicious connections. As well as their claim that their are "grassroots" and "leaderless" which are blatant lies. Their obvious leaders and major funders are known liberals making it ludicrous to state that the movement has no political leanings.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The neutrality tag is asking editors to check the article and I made a thread showing the two ANI discussions that refer to this. Yes...we do expect people to check the threads, but any content on the page is a matter of consensus, so whether it stays or not is not a requirement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As the nominating editor who placed the tag and started the discussions, I have removed it. Silent consensus exists that neutrality check is not needed at this time. The article is far from neutral but the ANI entries produced no discussion on the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Do I need to show you in the archives and diffs how you and others removed the {{POV}} tag I placed long before you placed the neutrality check tag? Why do you think the disputes referred to above are resolved? Dualus (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

How is it not both OR and POV-pushing for WP editors to keep plastering user-generated photographs together with enthusiastic, unsourced captions all over the article? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:OI isn't a blank check to include any relevant image. It does gloss over the whole WP:OR issue, but it does not change our unflinching demand for WP:NPOV. The captions can in some cases be sourced or should not contain content that is likely to be challenged. SDY (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:OI:Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which specific images are at issue here? Dualus (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies in introduction?

WP:LEAD says that the article introduction, "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

Currently the intro says, "In late October the General Assembly of registered for tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3)" citing only Huffington Post as a source. According to the comments about this article on WP:RSN, Huffington Post is a blog without substantial editorial discretion and is therefore not reliable.

What are the controversies surrounding Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement, and are any of them more notable for the purposes of this article than the alleged 401(k) 501(c)3 application? I would suggest that the controversy surrounding the 99 Percent Declaration has the most coverage in reliable published sources at present. Are there any reasons to the contrary? Dualus (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say there are no reasons other than the college kids who do damage control 24/7 on this article. I would also agree that Huffington Post is not a reliable source, especially if we are going to call some of my (blog) sources unreliable only because they are "self-published blogs"; would that same principle not apply to the Huffington Post?
First, I had that info in the Funding section where I think it belongs and an editor moved it to the lede. As for Huff Post, please review the lengthy discussion we had about their reliability. We decided that a freelance blogger was not acceptable but that a regular Huff Post journalist is. Review their site for more information. I'm going to move the funding info from the lede back to the Funding section for now. Gandydancer (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
How is a Huff post journalist more acceptable than a "freelance blogger"? And btw, Rogue Operator isn't a freelance blogger, he gets payed to write articles for many sites. He is a political analyst and opinion-editorialist, with articles published at AmericanThinker. He holds a Master’s degree in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies and is a PhD. student in Political Science, with specializations in International Relations and Comparative Politics. He speaks fluent Russian and worked in Moscow as a copy editor for the economic news agency Prime-Tass (prime-tass.com) and was International Programs Manager for Russia’s first liberal arts college. Please tell me how this guy isn't reliable. And give me a reason why you are removing the funding information to the funding section when it is clearly an important part of the movement. Give me a reason before you do move it, or else I will move it back.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, give me a reason why Rogue Operator is not a reliable source given his credentials which I have named above. Also, your argument that Huff post is reliable simply because it has regular journalists is an 'Appeal to Force' fallacy and is not good enough for me to include Huff Post as a reliable source. If you can't give a good reason why Rogue is not a reliable source, then I will begin adding information to the article cited to his website.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
You will need group consensus to add the 501 info to the lede. I found that it has been in the funding section where I put it and apparently someone moved it to the lede as well. Who is "Rouge Operator"? What is his connection to this article? Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Rogue Operator is the one you are calling a "freelance-blogger". He is, in fact, not that, although he does publish his thoughts and findings in his own personal blog as well as many other sites and blogs. And I believe that he can be considered a reliable source despite that his findings are published in a blog and he sometimes uses satire. His personal blog can be found here: http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/ If we are going to call Huffington Post a reliable source, then you must certainly consider him a reliable source.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not my idea that the ref is acceptable, it is and this was settled once already. I have never heard of Rough Operator - I was speaking of HP blogger Kingkade. Gandydancer (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If we wanted satirical works as a reference for reliable information on this article, we'd use The Daily Show or The Onion as a reference, and you can probably see the problem with that as well. — Moe ε 04:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The 99 percent Declaration has not yet become a controversy in relative terms to the sources that mention it...yet. Maybe it will become one and maybe it will just blow over with events. Who knows. Right now this is almost exclusively an internal dispute and has not reached the eyes and ears of the media to claim it's a true controversy and many editors resist "controversy" as a description for many of the disputes from within the OWS movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ACORN

Now someone added that "ACORN is participating...." How is that even a controversy? That's just like the American Nazi's endorsement: an attempt to smear. ACORN doesn't even deserve to be independently controversial. Dualus (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? How is that a controversy? Do you not watch the news? It is a controversy because ACORN was revealed on national media to be a corrupt company that defrauds it's donators and sets up undercover prostitution and human trafficking channels across america as well as many other things. This got SO much attention that the government pulled ACORN funding because the evidence was so condemning and it was too embarrassing for the government.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Point of view of the editor, possible POV pushing to include the information under the rationale you provided.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Your sentence no verb. To whom are you referring by "the editor" and "you"? Dualus (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am the editor and I find the news that ACORN is behind the protests very important. I knew it would be removed almost immediately, but I put it there just to test how far the cheerleaders of OWS are willing to go. Criticism and REAL motives behind the protests is always immediately decried as blasphemous. It doesn't surprise me and I won't add it again, but just know the real editors are watching this freak show. S51438 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Knowing it would be removed immediately looks like you are trying to prove a point rather than constructively edit. — Moe ε 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like User:Dualus as well. Perhaps one of his "Off wiki" communications is getting a tag team together. He attempted to ask me to contact him off wiki as well even though I have asked him to stop contact on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picked list of "international" comments

Strange how 100% of them are supportive on a controversial issue like this. Certainly wouldn't want to include one critic, who I found with a search that took me less than five seconds. The claim that there must be active discussion to have such a blatantly biased section of the article tagged is really quite troublesome. SDY (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

When this section was first created by an editor it was to include the only countries that had given statements about it: China, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Since that time I have sought to balance it out by being comprehensive. There has not been one foreign leader who I have not looked for and not included. If you find one foreign leader then please do add it, but they are all there (I included Blair moments before you wrote this) The section is NPOV because of its comprehensiveness. --David Shankbone 05:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe I read that, but there it is. One speaker from twelve or so out of the 200ish nations on this planet, in many cases not a current part of the government, is a "comprehensive list." Speaking of lists, I'm taking this page off my watchlist, it's just too ridiculous. SDY (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have gone through the entire list twice, the first time when you brought it up a few days ago and again just now since you still feel that it is a "cheer leading" session of the movement. I did remove a section that had lost its ref and expanded a little in one case, however other than that I did not find any problems. Blair's criticism is mentioned already. You must realize that we can't manufacture references out of thin air. If you can find more critcism, by all means please let me know and I will include it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Organizational Support

I created a section under System Support called "Organizations". There I listed groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the movement. Each with multiple very reliable sources and it was deleted. The reason given was "not notable". What? It's not notable which organizations and people support the movement? That statement doesn't even seem credible to me. I ask for consensus on whether or not to put a list of organizations, individuals, etc. that support the Occupy movement.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a reaction section that has some of this information already and the way it was written was un-encyclopedic in tone.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you're going to start your dicussion with dishonest postings about why it was deleted, you may not gain much support. The reason given was " Weight, not notable, POV".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not notable to this article to reference whatever fringe groups decide to support it. Are there reliable sources that indicate that this organization has sought this 'support' from this fringe organizations? In any case, this(or one of the fringe groups) has been discussed in once of the articles concerning these protest, and there is little to no support for adding them, per fringe and undue weight, among other reasons. Dave Dial (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Jacksoncw, you might wish to create a list article called Supporters of Occupy Wall Street, listing people and organizations. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Please note that if a Supporters of Occupy Wall Street article was created with the same reason (to list "groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement", several names would also have to be included, such as Mitt Romney. — Moe ε 04:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Do not conflate the "I understand where some of them are coming from, but..." of those such as Mitt Romney with the truly expressed support and active participation in the protests by numerous organizations such as Communist Party USA. And just because it's embarrassing to you OWSers and OWS sympathizers personally (and you editors know who you are as you read this), doesn't mean it's not notable. Don't use the same "hide the truth for the Cause's sake" reasoning certain folks did recently when they attempted to cover up rape.
As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges. [3]
Given polling and other data from Gallup et al, OWSers are fringe themselves. -- Glynth (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no, if he was doing it for the reason "groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement", the current article reads "Romney later expressed sympathy for the movement, saying, "I look at what's happening on Wall Street and my view is, boy, I understand how those people feel." Now, I would love to add references of support and endorsement for who is actually supporting them, but consider the source for who is supporting them. I wouldn't add the Nazi, Communist, or Blank Panther group of supports for anything on Wikipedia, because fringe groups are just that. If, for some wild reason, Herman Cain started to suddenly receive support from the same group of individuals, and Herman Cain denied that he was affiliated with them (as he probably would), we wouldn't be having this issue, would we? You are just as biased. — Moe ε 09:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
First off, I would like to say that the groups and people I added were VERY WELL sourced by multiple sites each including each group's official website with it's official self-declared support of OWS. I can also add people like Obama and Nancy P. as well as other people and government, but it was just a start as I did not have time to include every group and person at the time. But claiming that it is not notable is just ridiculous. It most certainly is notable which organizations and people support OWS and you have given no real reason as to why it shouldn't which is why I am re-adding it when I get home.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, Moe, you assume that "we wouldn't be having this issue,".If these undeniably hateful and discriminatory groups started to support Herman Cain, I would be VERY suspicious, so no, I am not biased, I am truthful. And according to legitimate, reliable sources, the groups I listed, including Communist party USA, American Nazi Party, Hugo Chavez, Student Marxist Union, Black Panthers, etc. all express support for the Occupy movement and it is ludicrous for anyone to claim that that is not notable.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Here you go 174, here's a full list for you. [4]. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point with the blog. Of course the "official" websites of fringe groups will say it, and that doesn't make it notable nor does it make them any less of a fringe group. My point with the Herman Cain comment, was that even if this was a staunch Republican who was getting these kinds of unwanted supports, then I still wouldn't be adding this to their article, or even discussing it, unless the people/person they are supporting is actually accepting of this endorsement. I also recommend you read our policy on giving such inclusions to articles undue weight. — Moe ε 23:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Your point makes no sense. If you wouldn't add that to Herman Cain's profile that's your problem. If someone is supported by multiple "fringe" groups like this, that is definitely something with enough "weight" to be included in the article. I have read the policy on undue weight and this definitely does not meet the description. And your claim of fringe is arguable on groups like the Communist Party USA. People like Obama and Nancy Pelosi can be added as well, or any other organizations that support it.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't my problem, and it isn't Wikipedia's problem to try and prove some kind of conspiracy. — Moe ε 00:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The list of supporters as supplied by Jacksoncw is extreme POV. The list seeks out the most unpalatable-to-the-mainstream groups as sympathizers (communists, socialists, Black Panthers, Islamists, Klan members) while largely ignoring the popular and mainstream sympathizers. As it stands, the list violates WP:NPOV. I recommend that the list be made into its own article where there will be ample room to list all of the popular supporters and sympathizers along with the extremists. Such an article will also have ample room to describe whether the stated support/sympathy is an empty press release or is it backed up by money or man-hours. A truly neutral list would be huge and cannot be supported within this summary article. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a separate article would be the proper avenue for that. a Criticism of Occupy Wall Street may reflect the alleged support/sympathy and the criticism of such as well. — Moe ε 05:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Organizations or individuals who do nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support" should not be mentioned at all. Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable. The only reason to mention despised fringe groups like the ANP or hostile foreign governements with little or no moral legitimacy like Iran or North Korea is to smear the movement for purely propagandistic purposes. It serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. We don't mention Hitler in the article on vegetarianism, do we? Same rule applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing number

This recent article says 555 arrested in New York, which is somewhat lower than our numbers. Does the number in the article reflect all of the occupation forces, not just New York? SDY (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen reports of the total OWS arrests around America to be above 2,500. I don't have that sourced right now but I can find the correct references for that claim.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

Would like to add citations for information already found in this wikipedia article. Example - The first protest was on September 17, 2011. [1]

Let me know if I can be a registered user to make citations such as this throughout the article. Thank you.

Controlgovernment (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You are a registered user, but not yet auto-confirmed. After 4 days from the creation of your account, and after having made a minimum of 10 edits, you will attain auto-confirmed status and then be able to edit semi-protected pages such as this one.--JayJasper (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced POV tag

I replaced the POV tag and deleted sections, added sources, etc. Compare to the current version. Dualus (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Care to discuss why, or were you just letting everyone know? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Typo

"Let me draw a distinction. Virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually very American has a reason to be worried." I think "very" is supposed to be "every". It's bothering my OCD. I'd fix it myself if the article wasn't locked. XCygnus (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It looks like an obvious typo. The problem is that it seems to be the Huff Post's, not ours. I've replaced 'very' with '[every]' for now, which I think is the appropriate way to deal with this. We shouldn't edit quotes without acknowledging such edits, as I understand policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Or we should delete information from the Huffington Post outright because, as moe said, "self-published blog"s are not reliable sources.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
But HuffPo's liberal, so it is a reliable source, right? At least on controversial pages like this. Lolinder (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

repeated broken cite situation

If you delete something stranding a cite ref, will you please look at the page to see what you've done? I've fixed one of these for the second time. Lycurgus (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Simply put, it is the formatting of this page that is the problem and not the editing of it. If you want that to stop, change the formatting. While it would be nice to see each editor clean up the red linked error messages left, it is not a requirement, as many people making edits do not know how to make such corrections and by requiring them to do so, may make them stop editing on that account alone. There are editors who understand how to make these corrections and task groups specifically formed for clean up of major pages such as these. If you know how to do it but don't wish to I understand, but if you know how to, do so and then berate others...that is not editing in good faith. All edits done in good faith, regardless of mistakes are welcome...like bad spelling, we collaborate to improve the encyclopedia. You have been helpful, thank you. Please continue to help.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not my impression that Lycurgus was berating other editors, but that s/he was just posting a reminder. Actually he made this post after I had screwed a reference up - someone had added funding copy to the lede and I moved it to the funding section, but they kept putting it back in the lede, I think perhaps they did not realize that it had not been deleted but merely moved. On the other hand, I really appreciate Amadscientist speaking up for those of us who don't know how to manage doing references properly. I learned to type on an old-fashioned black manual typewriter, so you know it's been awhile!, and what I've learned about using a computer I had to learn on my own. So I really am grateful for editors that fix mistakes I may have made. Gandydancer (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
You're a very gracious editor Gandydancer. I just wanted to be sure and mention that anyone has the right to edit, even if they don't know how to correct the mistakes that the formatting causes. The choice of formatting was never discussed and agreed upon by consensus. I checked. It took a very long time but I saw that it was simply done and no one either noticed or cared at the time. Since then I have seen this excuse used by some editors to suggest others refrain from editing if they cannot fix the errors they create. I am just as guilty of "assuming bad faith" as the accusation I made against User talk:Lycurgus. Thanks for the reality check, and my apologies to Lycurgus! =)--Amadscientist (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the little gnomes that work behind the scenes should be appreciated by all. Gandydancer (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I had to check to see if you'd said "brigades" but it was "task groups" :) As my talk page indicates I'm a gnome/dragon hybrid, maybe a fire breathing gnome.On the matter at hand, it is better/easier/more efficient for the person that introduces a breakage to fix it by taking the common sense measure of looking at the whole page after their edits. It's not too much to ask and groups tasked with such clean-ups could be better employed. The fixes I applied might have been better done if I'd understood their original cause, i.e. had I caused them. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought that gnomes would be so crabby and say that others were lacking in common sense. In my defense, it was the third time that that particular edit had been reverted. The second time, when I did it, I put it in the funding section and when it again appeared in the lede it did not occur to me that just removing it was problematic since I knew that it was in the funding section...blah....blah...blah.... Anyway, I do usually try to click my refs to see if they are OK, but did not that time because I did not see a reason to. Anyway, I'm sick of arguments and am done talking about this. Gandydancer (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

This is a request for corrections to the following section:

Week 6 (October 22–28)

On October 25, Scott Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and a member of Veterans for Peace, suffered a skull fracture caused by a tear-gas projectile or smoke canister fired by San Francisco Bay Area law enforcement officers acting in Oakland.[263] Police officers in riot gear were attempting to clear the Occupy Oakland encampment early before dawn.[264][265] The raid was described as "violent and chaotic"[266] and resulted in over 102 arrests.[267]

This section is inaccurate because:

(1) it erroneously conflates two different events, occurring more than twelve hours apart: the early morning removal of the Occupy Oakland encampment from Frank Ogawa Plaza, and a subsequent protest march beginning at approximately 5:00 p.m. which ultimately led to a crowd of several hundred protesters unsuccessfully attempting to "retake" the encampment, and being rebuffed by the law enforcement personnel with tear gas, etc. Mr. Olsen was injured during this second event, not during the early morning clearing of the encampment;

(2) it states, in definitive fashion, that Olsen's injury was caused by an object fired by law enforcement, when in fact this is only an allegation made by some of the protesters;

(3) the source material's unattributed, apparently editorial, description of the early morning raid as "violent and chaotic at times" has been truncated to "violent and chaotic," which exaggerates and distorts the description.

I would propose that the section be replaced by the following:

Week 6 (October 22–28)

In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared and closed two Occupy Oakland encampments in Oakland, California.[263,264] The raid on the encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza, outside Oakland City Hall, was described as "violent and chaotic at times," but resulted in no injuries to the public or to law enforcement officers.[266] A street march later that afternoon protesting the closure of the encampments culminated in a confrontation between police and protesters, who sought to re-establish the Ogawa Plaza encampment. During this confrontation, protester Scott Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and a member of Veterans for Peace, suffered a skull fracture which Occupy protesters allege was caused by a tear-gas projectile or smoke canister fired by police.[263, 265] A total of 102 people were arrested on October 25, the majority before dawn.[267]

(Citations are all to the existing sources in the article, which, at the time of this writing, are as follows: 263 ^ Gabbatt, Adam (2011-10-26). "Scott Olsen injuries prompt review as Occupy Oakland protests continue". United Kingdom: The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-10-29. 264 ^ Bulwa, Demian (25 October 2011). "Police clear Occupy Oakland camps, arrest dozens". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 25 October 2011. 265 ^ JESSE, McKINLEY (27 October 2011). "Some Cities Begin Cracking Down on ‘Occupy’ Protests.". Retrieved 27 October 2011. 266 ^ Farooq, Sajid (25 October 2011). "Occupy Oakland Gets Shut Down". Retrieved 25 October 2011. 267 ^ Bender, Kristen (25 October 2011). "Early morning police raid ousts Occupy Oakland". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 25 October 2011.)

Thank you.

208.127.245.137 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I have used your copy (with minor changes) to edit the article. However, I thought that it was found that the police did indeed throw the projectile that wounded the vet - I will do a search and see what I find and add that as well if need be. Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the references but I am curious as to why there is no mention of the grenade thrown into the crowd that had attempted to aid the Marine by the officer backing away from the police line against procedure and training. Is that not mentioned? My own prose here is not worthy of inclusion and is simply a question. The point being that the actions we see and hear in the media and the references do not always match and sometimes we write from a view less neutral that we may think. If it's in the references it should be added for neutrality...not balance.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this is as good a time as any to ask if inclusion of the time line is undue weight to this article...as we do have an article on the overall protests and I assumed this was about the New York protest. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I watched a video that shows the projectile which hit Scott Olsen came from crowd of bystanders. The vid was taken down on youtube, but here is pic: http://www.copblock.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/scott-olsen-oakland.jpg Everyone has a camera phone nowadays, and I agree that this article has a big problem of neutrality. Anyone have the link to the vid anymore? (showing the projectile coming from a crowd of about 10-15 people about 5 feet from scott olsen's face?) 완젬스 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I also agree the timeline can be taken out of the article, because it's grown too much weight, just by adding more weeks. It already has a timeline article, so I say link at bottom of article, and link at top of article, so no one will miss it (or be unaware we have a timeline). 완젬스 (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Re the photo 완젬스|완젬스 included, as far as I know that copy is total BS. Seems to be human nature to manufacture details such as that to prove their POV. Re the Timeline, in the first few days of the article, who was to know that it would grow like it has? A lot of editors were solidly against even starting a separate Timeline article. We were making sections re the pepper spray incident, etc., and they ended up being included in the timeline, but in my opinion, even though they really do not carry the weight that they did at the time, they are early milestones in the movement. Same for the bridge incident, and for this incident as well. Clearly we will need to make some sort of decision re the timeline - it can't go on forever - but milestone incidents do, IMO, need to be included in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we keep the milestones then, but incorporate them into the body of the article? (sorta the way we used to have to rework the trivia sections into the bodies of articles without breaking the cohesiveness of the article) Even the title "chronology of events" is misleading, because OWS is one continuous event, rather than an accumulation of events. In fact, if we renamed that section "critical events" we can simply cherry-pick the most notable elements of our timeline, and still keep the setup of "Main article: Timeline of Occupy wall street" the same? I like it, what do you think? Because even now, the current setup is "week X" then we just list 1-2 notable days during the "week X" and there's no other reason why "weekly" makes sense, other than the initial convenience when there were just a few weeks. This movement is expected to last right up through the Nov 6th 2012 election which means there will be over 60 weeks! :-O So talk about a very long article if we don't cherry pick the top 5 or top 10 most encyclopedia-worthy elements from the timeline, and leave the rest of them on the timeline page, rather than the main page. 완젬스 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
While I really want to try to get back to other articles I have been neglecting, I just have to add that I concur that the Timeline could simply be removed and the major milestones kept in some form. It could be in the body of the article or even in a small section, but yes....the length of the section will eventually overtake the rest of this article and seems to be undue weight now and it's just going to get "heavier".--Amadscientist (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

specific sub-discussion on #2 from original poster

  • (2) it states, in definitive fashion, that Olsen's injury was caused by an object fired by law enforcement, when in fact this is only an allegation made by some of the protesters;

Does anyone have that video anymore? 완젬스 (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is available at some of the sources used. But that will not do much good as the scene is chaotic. I have seen it several times and it appears to show the police throwing "something", and the vet standing next to the vet that was injured has been interviewed and states it was thrown by police. A quick google found several recent reports from reputable sources that state matter-of-factly that it was tossed into the crowd by the police. Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've spent an hour, and the best article I could find to answer this OP's question is this article. I still can't find the video I was looking for, I watched it and it was a throw from the crowd. If I can't find the video, there's nothing we can do until OPD releases its report (which says they raised it to level 1 priority) so it will take a few weeks. Also, I was surprised too because eye witnesses said it was thrown too, just like what you've read. To me, the only thing which could crack his skull is something like this but in the video it was a black/brown object that was about the size of a softball thrown from right side of screen to left side. It was a cell phone video which was about 20-30 seconds long. Oh, and here is a video claiming it was a tear gas canister and interviews his roommate. 완젬스 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, we'll have to wait months per this source which says A source at the review board said the investigation will begin in the next few days, and is expected to last "several months". I can't find the video I was looking for, sorry *208.127 but we have to take the eyewitness accounts as reported by reliable sources. If it's important enough to you, then you should wait until the investigation is over & a few news outlets pick up on it. Then you can try again. 완젬스 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The events in question here must be handled and written with some care. I read through the first reference and just have to dispute the neutrality of the writing. As I said, it is sometimes difficult to see or own perceptions creep in. Especially with matters as emotionally charged as this. To write about these things in a respectful way while still attempting to be encyclopedic can be a challenge. What we have now is this:

In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared and closed two Occupy Oakland encampments in Oakland, California.[266][267] The raid on the encampment was described as "violent and chaotic at times," and resulted in over 102 arrests but there were no injuries to the public or law enforcement officers.[268][269] A street march that afternoon protesting the closure of the encampments culminated in a confrontation between police and protesters, who sought to re-establish the Ogawa Plaza encampment. During this confrontation, protester Scott Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and a member of Veterans for Peace, suffered a skull fracture which Occupy protesters allege was caused by a tear-gas projectile or smoke canister fired by police.[270][271]

What I think might be more neutral, accurate and encyclopedic, is this:

In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared two protest encampments in Oakland, California. An on going demonstration at Frank Ogawa Plaza and another encampment near by were closed.[266][267] The raid was described as "violent and chaotic at times," resulting in over 102 arrests. There were no injuries to the public or peace officers.[268][269] A street march that afternoon, protesting the closure of the encampments, culminated in a confrontation between police and protesters, who sought to re-establish the plaza encampment. During this confrontation, former Marine veteran and protester, Scott Olsen suffered a skull fracture allegedly caused by a police projectile.[270][271]

--Amadscientist (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Now, some of the changes were made simply to be a little more encyclopedic in tone. I removed some redundancies and the overly descripted and unnecessary reference to Veterans for Peace. While accurate, it's just to much weight for the section and comes across as a glittering generality. Also, the alleged portion was written in a fashion that went further than the reference in order to be more original, but was also unnecessary.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I made some changes - see what you think. I did add that some of the protesters were using violence as well. Of course, as always, others may improve it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar?

"The introduction to the draft document has read"? Is the sentence implying that the intro to draft changed since then? I know the answer now from edit summary, but it will confuse a reader and give them a "comprehension hiccup" as they're reading. How can we re-word it? (and if there is a source, why was it changed? when? what date? by whom? the NYC GA?) 완젬스 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

er...I wrote that (blush)... Yes, it does sound odd. Here's the link [5]. What I meant was that it's a wiki so it keeps changing. Maybe you could write something completely different? Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll try to figure it out myself and search google news and educate myself today, then write about it tomorrow. I'm so glad the page is peaceful and we can work on the article, lol. I've fixed two instances of a sentence or section title ending on the word "and" 완젬스 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes! Finally a few hours of peace in which to actually look at the article rather than battle about Batra or Lessig or the Demand group and so on. Did Dualus finally just pass out or did he get banned? I started reading the article from start to finish this morning - don't remember how far I got. I found some little, but glaring, mistakes as well. But yes, this is more like Wikipedia editing is supposed to be like, not endless bickering. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Temp block for edit warring along with another editor for 31hrs. Be back tomorrow I assume.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

USA Today resource, relating to Occupy Oakland

Oakland protesters condemn violent clashes; excerpt ...

Occupy Wall Street supporters who staged rallies that shut down the fifth-busiest U.S. port on Thursday condemned the demonstrators who clashed with police in the latest flare-up of violence.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

99% economic statistics section

This is a very controversial section, or rather one which attracts partisan attention. As with all statistics it's easy to find, or calculate, a statistic which seems to show what you want it to say. I don't want to OWN this section, but I find myself reverting a lot of changes which don't meet the careful sourcing necessary for the section or have other problems. I would appreciate it if other people watched this section and tried to make sure any information added isn't simply partisan manipulation of statistics or OR or whatever. Be——Critical 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

But I certainly cannot be the only person trying to keep people from doing their own math or whatever and trying to decide that their OR has enough WEIGHT for the OWS article. I try to only use sources which are either talking about OWS itself, or sources which are 1) cited by sources which describe OWS and 2) used merely for clarification of points in the sources that talk about OWS. Be——Critical 21:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help out. You are referring to Occupy_Wall_Street#We_are_the_99.25, correct?--Nowa (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit and asked it be discussed first. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Right Nowa, that's the one, thanks (: and thanks to Gandydancer. Hey, is huffingtonpost considered a good source? I know it's used all over Wikipedia, but I'm not sure exactly what degree of reliability it's considered to have here. What I've read of it seems pretty good so I haven't questioned it where I've seen it used. Be——Critical 22:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
What exactly are we trying to say in this section? Right now we have 16 references that basically say "We are the 99%" is a slogan for OWS and this slogan refers to the growing income/wealth inequality in the US. Would it make sense to start weeding duplicate references and just keep the best ones?--Nowa (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
[EDIT CONCFLIT] In this case, no I do not believe that the Huff Post ref is acceptable. He is not an expert in the field nor is he a journalist employed by Huff Post. You could say, "xxxx, filmmaker (or whatever), says....", but that would hardly do. BTW, I believe that it was a good idea for you to bring this to the talk page. This article has been so disruptive that there has hardly been time to check edits, refs, grammar, etc., to improve the existing article, let alone add new stuff. I think from now on any drastic edits should be reverted and the editor be asked to bring their thoughts to the talk page for discussion by other editors. This article can NOT continue to be so chaotic and simply MUST be brought under some kind of reasonable control Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've made a bunch of drastic edits myself... I think we at least need to bring it to the talk page if there is an impending edit war. I agree about the Huff post, having researched it on the RS noticeboard. But some sources like Mother Jones, while partisan, seem acceptable. The thing is, we aren't going to get anything that is NON-partisan. I think we need to notice what articles are themselves well-sourced, as well as go with major news outlets. Be——Critical 23:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, apparently no one had a problem with your drastic edits since your name is not plastered all over this talk page. I for one am sick to death with spending all of my time in never ending argument. I'm not a newbie and I've seen my share of controversy, but this article has been a nightmare. As for Ma Jones, yes I believe she is OK. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I was in a bit of controversy here as well... Don't give up, maybe when needed we can pull in other editors, go to the noticeboards and such. Nowa, culling the refs would be good, as long as no one is going to challenge things because of it. Be——Critical 00:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an RS, can you comment? Be——Critical 01:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if we swap out the current graph, which has been nominated for deletion, with this one from Wealth inequality in the United States. It presents the same data. And when I say "swap", I mean put the other graph here in case others find use for the references presented in it's comments section.--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before the economic crises.[2]
We can find non-partisan sources for this information...the IRS figures. I edited this article last night to reflect the information the IRS just released a few days ago. Of course, because it was non-partisan and contradicted the partisan references already quoted in the article, it was removed. More importantly, the tax information I posted was from 2010. The 2010 information was removed and replaced with the erronenous 2009 information. Why can't we have the actual facts about the IRS being described? Why are we turning this page into the pet project for a bunch of left-wing radicals? Occupy Wall Street is about truth, not bashing Republicans.

Please include the current 2010 information, the 2009 information is outdated and irrelevant.FreddyPickle (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the outdated information. I hadn't noticed that. I left a note for the original author to see if he can upload an updated graph. I'll also asked him to make the font bigger.--Nowa (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like if we're going to do the average incomes bit, it should be averaged over many years. Certainly, including the income for a year when the markets were down or just crashed is misleading. We might just take the specific figures out and do only percentages of growth; but these also should be averaged over time, not just from point a to point b. If not averaged over time, then the market crash gives a misleading result. What I mean is something like "from 1980 to 2010, the average yearly income of X was $Y and increased Z" instead of "between 1980 and 2010, yearly income of X went up from $Y to $Z." That's basically what you have with "The average income of the 1% was $280,185 in 2010" [6] if I understand things right. Be——Critical 02:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the references to see which ones use a figure like this to illustrate what is meant by “the 99%”. New York Times, October 25, 2011 comes the closest to making a clear connection between this graph and what Occupy Wall Streeters mean. So one can certainly argue whether or not this is the “correct” presentation of the data, but the real issue is what graph, if any, reflects what the Occupy Wall Street view is. --Nowa (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Owen Muza: a dubious source

The source for the lead line saying OWS is preoccupied (no pun intended) with income growth is not usuable. It is from a certain Owen Muza writing, the short description at the bottom of the opinion piece he is a " a banker and managing director of TFC Capital (Zimbabwe)". Besides the general aversion of WP to use opinion columnists for establishing facts - and in this case Muza of Zimbabwe is the only source used - he is not an author of note; his opinions can not carry weight. He has not published a book, is living in Zimbabwe and merely has the opinion “We are the 99%” alluding to the fact that the share of income growth gains going to the top 1% of income earners is at its highest since the 1920s". He makes no mention of what he used to arrive at this view, and can not have done any reporting himself. Unless Muza's lack of notability is not so, or an actual RS shows the income growth is a main concern of OWS, the mention of income growth can not stay in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And the second source? I'm sure that doesn't measure up to an obvious statement either. Be——Critical 05:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, since no defense of Muza is forthcoming, I'll presume we agree that he's a crummy source. What relation does the Economist ref have income-growth-is-a-big-deal-to-OWS-meme that we gotta keep it in the lead? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't agree. You've been asking for sources for the obvious, for information that many of our sources discuss in relation to the meaning of "we are the 99%." The sources are explicating what that statement means, what it refers to, and many of them mention as significant the income growth inequality. There is in fact no need to source the statement as it's already sourced in the "We are the 99%" section. In other words, what the protestors mean by the statement is not important, but rather what our reliable sources say the statement means. And they make it abundantly clear that income growth inequality is a major factor/statistic. So please stop misinterpreting how sourcing on Wikipedia really works. Be——Critical 05:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No defense or validation of Muza was attempted. And whether he is a RS is the issue. Be has yet to deal with that, and until then, there is no reason to play whack a mole with tertiary arguments of avoidance. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Seek agreement from other editors before editing based on your POV about what needs sourcing. You may take out the Muza source so far as I am concerned, but the information it's sourcing is appropriate for this article. Be——Critical 20:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Timeline

The scope of the article is New York Occupy Wall Street. Why are events for Oakland in the timeline for weeks 6 and 7? Shouldn't that go to the "Occupy Movement" article?--Jeff (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good time to discuss the timeline, since I proposed yesterday having just a few "milestones" and cherrypicking a "best 10" select highlights, in paragraph format (per WP:MOS and just linking to the timeline) which I mentioned yesterday. I'll formalize my proposal in a few minutes. 완젬스 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree we need separate timeline article(s). For both the original and the movement? Dualus (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean this article or in addition to the main one? 완젬스 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need the battle box here?

Seems awfully pointless when it's not a battle. ScienceApe (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox obviously derives from the discredited analogy some people attempted to draw in the start between the "Occupy" things and the Arab revolutions. —Filippusson (t.) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparent Synthesis of Economist article and OWS Income Growth Meme

The Economist source has been used for synthesis to foist on the lead an assumed fact. The following lead line states "We are the 99%", refers to the difference in wealth and income growthin the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population". Yet the Economist ref (the only ref used, and one without a signed author) does no more than state that income growth disparities have occurred. The body of the text says nothing of how this relates to OWS. The subheading, which apparently is the only thing the editor relied on, says a recent study of income difference has provided a "boost" to OWS. But how the report or the facts behind it resulting in OWS forming its "We are the 99%", the Economist is mute. Though the editor's assumption is certainly a plausible and reasonable intuition, we need a secondary RS actually making the connection. If there are better and actually relevant sources, great, but the current ref is woefully inadequate and will not allow the income growth meme to stay in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I already explained this above, where I said "You've been asking for sources for the obvious, for information that many of our sources discuss in relation to the meaning of "we are the 99%." The sources are explicating what that statement means, what it refers to, and many of them mention as significant the income growth inequality. There is in fact no need to source the statement as it's already sourced in the "We are the 99%" section. In other words, what the protestors mean by the statement is not important, but rather what our reliable sources say the statement means. And they make it abundantly clear that income growth inequality is a major factor/statistic. So please stop misinterpreting how sourcing on Wikipedia really works." Be——Critical 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Though all of that did strike my curiosity in it's first presentation, it was too tangential to the strangely prolonged matter of getting rid of the shoddy Muza ref. Please, let's approach one thing at a time. Since there is no defense of the Economist ref forthcoming, is there any reason it should stay in the lead? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
As I already said above "You may take out the Muza source so far as I am concerned, but the information it's sourcing is appropriate for this article." There were no good reasons for those sources to begin with, as the information is a summary of a section already well-sourced. I was only trying to placate you. Be——Critical 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Why you threw the apparently crummy Muza source under the bus is not my affair, I only mentioned it to explain why it has taken so long to get to other issues. Now, and again, please let's try focus here, why should the Economist ref stay after I detailed have shown that's it useless in the lead? Anything showing my apprehensions to be in error would have to compel me to agree with you. Of course that will require specificity. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained how your arguments are in error. I'm not one of those editors who writes volumes re-explaining things. I see you've continued to edit war this valuable information out of the lead. This is something which can only be decided by other editors. Some of them already reverted you in the past before your block for edit warring over the same thing. Be——Critical 01:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now why you wanna hurt me like that? Unless you address the Economist ref directly, something no one has done yet, you have no way of objecting to its removal. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
As I already said above, "There were no good reasons for those sources to begin with, as the information is a summary of a section already well-sourced. I was only trying to placate you." Be——Critical 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Very good and very reasonable. Forgive my over cautious. I certainly hope we have heard the last of the Economist source. Time to move on to the other suspicious refs. There are many. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
There may be. But your interpretations of sourcing policy are in error, and I'm not willing to argue with your singlehandedly. If other editors like your edits or don't object, they will stay in the article. Be——Critical 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice (:-}>. If you could point out my errors in "interpretations of sourcing policy", I would be grateful and may benefit. Of course, I feel no entitlement to being favored with such an edification. 02:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not repeating myself here to be a dick. But you don't seem to be internalizing what I do say, and the alternative is to restate in different words which is a waste of time. So, "The sources are explicating what that statement means, what it refers to, and many of them mention as significant the income growth inequality. There is in fact no need to source the statement as it's already sourced in the "We are the 99%" section. In other words, what the protestors mean by the statement is not important, but rather what our reliable sources say the statement means. And they make it abundantly clear that income growth inequality is a major factor/statistic." Be——Critical 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we could say something like: "In October 2011 a Congressional Budget Office report was published that points out that income inequality between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population in US has risen over the preceding 20 year. We are the 99% Occupy Wall Street protests got boost from that CBO report." based on Economist. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
We could. Here is a quote from an RS:

The Occupy Wall Street movement has, for the most part, been formed around the idea that wealth distribution in America is unfair, and that the economic system is skewed to reward the already wealthy with the highest gains. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office appears to have confirmed that. Specifically, it has confirmed that the rich really are getting richer.

[7] We could paraphrase that. Be——Critical 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Oct 3, 2011 The Occupied Wall Street Journal publication?

As various news organizations twist and skew what OWS is/was all about, I think its absolutely noteworthy that a lot of the history and impetus of the movement was summed up in OWS first official publication, created by consensus vote of the General Assembly, "The Occupied Wall Street Journal". This four page newspaper-format publication covered a lot of information. http://www.businessinsider.com/occupied-wall-street-journal-2011-10-03?op=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.175.230 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this straighforward enoough to be included

From 1992-2007 the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. saw their tax burden reduced to 37% in 2009. During the same period the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes saw their income increase by 392%.[3] How is capital gains figured in this? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please edit things better before inserting them on the main article? Two typos in half a line -as with the heading above- are fine for the talk page, but not for the article. And sometimes your wording doesn't make sense. Be——Critical 04:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Two typos - which I fixed _ over the worst writing possible. Not a bad trade off. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox civil conflict

I think the Template:Infobox civil conflict is perfectly appropriate for this article. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems to fit the parameters of the template. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Free Network Foundation

This appears to be a relaible source. [8] and has some good information about free communication towers being supllied and some fund raising. Also is more sourcing for the communications section.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Support System>Library

Could you change the line: In addition to the physical collection, the library maintains a web site and an online catalog that is updated as materials are received, and posts updates on Twitter, , and Tumblr.[220]

to: In addition to the physical collection, the library maintains a web site and an online catalog that is updated as materials are received, and posts updates on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and Tumblr.[220]

Could you add a link to the following articles: A Library Occupies the Heart of the Occupy Movement Christian Zabriskie, American Libraries, October 18, 2011 http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/news/10182011/library-occupies-heart-occupy-movement

Occupy Wall Street's Library Keeps Growing Shelley M. Diaz, School Library Journal, October 20, 2011 http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/home/892496-312/occupy_wall_streets_library_keeps.html.csp Ali3r4K (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever nominated it gave no reason why to delete it, so there is nothing to discuss.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced POV tag

I replaced the {{POV}} tag on the article due to unresolved issues about inclusion being discussed at Talk:99 Percent Declaration. Dualus (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Noting user above currently has an indefinite block due to disruption. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Noting the irrelevance of 72's note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It's irrelevant that Dualus has been blocked for disruptive editing, such as replacing the POV tag against consensus? I have trouble understanding your logic. Bowmerang (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Bowmerang, logic/reason is not the way of 174.49.47.34, note eir comments in Criticism thread below. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Media section information removed

I question the removal of this information from the media section. The edit summary suggested it was too much weight and dated. However I believe that since it is from a media theorist it is certainly not too much weight, and I do not see it to be dated as well.

Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized the mainstream media for dismissing the protesters. "Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher."[4] Rushkoff says that Occupy Wall Street is the first true Internet-era movement, and as such, it does not have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint. Unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus.[4]

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I read his Wiki page and this sentence pretty much erased his qualifications to be used.
  • He is currently a PhD candidate at Utrecht University's New Media Program, writing a dissertation on new media literacies.[11]
We could pull anybody's opinion from the entire movement, and nobody is more qualified than another. I expected Douglas Rushkoff to be a harvard professor or someone who is especially qualified to be the only unique opinion used here. It's just a matter of whether this whole paragraph really justifies special inclusion, when it doesn't add anything insightful, unusually interesting, or broadly encyclopedic. What is it specifically you're trying to add to the article, which is found in this deleted paragraph? We can simply add whatever information you think the article is now lacking? Even his comment is outdated, since now there is plenty of news coverage every single hour on all news networks. Also it's an opinion piece, but please don't make me cite specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines unless you're really, really wanting a thorough/robust response. It's also a little bit soapboxy, even if we agree with him. 완젬스 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, his calling a "media theorist" falls short of empirical social sciences. It's not even a "historic viewpoint" yet. 완젬스 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well no need to worry about "specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines", since I am the last person to know much about that! It sounds to me like you've made a good case for the removal. When I have time I will get back to it and post again if I still do not agree. BTW, I usually don't even look at your edits because I feel that they are always good - it just happens that I was using that information in another article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Also truthfully, I get kinda paranoid about looking for Lawrence Lessig type of stuff, ever since we had that nightmare editor Dualus still around. Every time I see "self-promotion" now, I always get very analytical and read into it critically to make sure it's not another type of soapboxing. Every time I see a paragraph which seems superfluous, I get highly cautious about how to deal with it. I read his wiki-page and I learned so much about what's worthy of inclusion, when we fought against Dualus trying to pervade all the OWS pages with plugs to Lawrence Lessig, so forgive me if you were the one who originally added it, since I trust you too. Feel free to add it back if you want it since I definitely want you sticking around as an editor on this article! I'll bend over backwards to keep you here, now that Dualus is gone. :-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have had time to again read Rushkoff's article here and the CNN article and I find that we are in complete disagreement. Actually I did not make this edit, however I remember that when I read it some time ago my reaction was, "What a great find by a person so well-able to know what they are talking about!". Firstly, I can't follow your thinking when you say, "Yeah, I read his Wiki page and this sentence pretty much erased his qualifications to be used. He is currently a PhD candidate at Utrecht University's New Media Program, writing a dissertation on new media literacies." When I read his page I was very impressed with his accomplishments and felt that they were unusually well-related to the issues. I find his take on "the first true Internet-era movement" and "Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus" to be very important to the article. As I said, I only realized that his info disappeared from the article while I was in the process of working on some additional copy to the "Occupy movement" article, which suggests, I guess, that I really do find it important! Well anyway, our trust is mutual and you seem to have no objection to putting it back...OK? Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no objections, and if I knew it was remotely significant to you in the first place, I would have never taken it out to begin with. :-) Happy editing, 완젬스 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the "Social Media" section in this article?

Why is there no section in this article about this protest coming to fruition in the age of FACEBOOK and TWITTER? Or is that tacitly understood already because of its being an outgrowth of the Arab Spring (which I disagree with for the most part). HOW could Occupy Wall Street have survived this long without social media, ie., without Facebook, twitter? If you need just one example: how about when Brookfield Properties (the 'private' owner of the 'public' Zuccotti Park) and the NYPD were going to clear "Zuccotti Park" for cleaning last month? What happened then? Facebook, twitter, etc., got the message out to their peeps and a couple thousand showed up overnight. Brookfield Properties and the NYPD decided that maybe it wasn't such a great idea. That's just one example of how this movement LIVES & DIES because of the importance of "social media" and networking. I bring this up because I just had my edit deleted with these hashtag references. Ok, maybe it doesn't belong in the "lede" section (ie.,t #occupywallstreet; #ows; #occupywallst). And look at this reference: According to Twitter there are more than 100,000 hashtags used in these protests. ~~> http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/occupywallst-ows-or-occupy-over-100k-different-hashtags-used-in-occupy-protests_b15109. Just sayin'....! Christian Roess (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it gone? We had it here for awhile. If it got "disappeared" (Catch 22) I believe it should be added again. Gandydancer (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC) But not in the lede! Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you may be right. It got "disappeared"! But I don't remember much mention of it here, ie., this is becoming one of the more "successful" social movements (ie., because mainstream media is covering it)... that is if it isn't already surpassing the Tea Party, etc, as the most successful (so far in the "Age of Twitter") "social movements" in this part of the world (ie., North America). And it's success is clearly due to "social media". Maybe what I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt mentioning the hashtags in the "lede" if only for this reason: there are probably folks out there, believe it or not (real young in age, for example), who keep seeing #OWS in text messages, etc., but haven't made the connection. Should probably set up a few "redirect pages". Someone may put in the search term #occupywallst and not be making the connection. Again, just sayin'...!! Christian Roess (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 November 8, a resource ...

99.181.135.155 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of this image in the "Media" section

What is the point of this image? [[:File:Nytimes occupywallstreet.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The New York Times had changed its media coverage of the event on October 6th]]

Realize that online newspapers change their headlines, sub-headers, and article content very often. It happens hundreds of times per day every day in the United States. There are several main reasons - initial sloppy copy-editing in the push to publish first, evolving stories, a victim's family was then notified and so they then posted the name, etc. Very rarely are any of the reasons due to self-censorship, and rarer still are the reasons sinister. So the NYT simply changing their headline is entirely non-notable (WP:NN).

Also, I think their first header is more POV than the second. The first headline seems written by an OWS supporter while the second is bland, boring, but balanced -- how a newspaper should be.

What is the point of the image? Make a statement which can then be argued on its merits. No more weasel images!

Ufwuct (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldlike to know what authority you have to state that newspapers change their headlines etc. very often. I find that it is less often an update when pertaining to the New York Times than it is their failure to get correct facts among other things. Also NYT is a very liberal paper so I garuntee that anything that have to say about Occupy won't be anything bad.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The image is POV and UNDUE and should be deleted. Bowmerang (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Seems to have no context to the prose and the content is based on general updates that most news services make daily. No controversy in this and non notable.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the image. There appears to be consensus to support its removal. Bowmerang (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it again earlier today. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: discussion of reliable sources & Re: does OWS have an encyclopedia-worthy, non-negligent amount of antisemitism

Regarding the above discussion of reliable sources & whether OWS has an encyclopedia-worthy, non-negligent amount of antisemitism, then this article is proof in the pudding of why the consensus process here at Wikipedia works. To the editors calling wikipedia "mob rule" I'd like to respectfully point out the vilification process by your "right wing" corporate media empire. The editors of this article are under attack both from the outside, and from the inside. It's clear by looking at who's for OWS and who's against it, by realizing who wants to make constructive edits verses wanting to make destructive edits. Let us resist the pressure to sabotage OWS under the guise of including a "calculated subjection" to antisemitism. If we let antisemitism get a foot in the door, then we'll be hard-pressed to disallow nazism next, as we're currently seeing. 완젬스 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, it proves that the editors here who openly voice support for the OWS mob have taken control of this article. The fact that a reliable source has mentioned sexual abuses at the protests and drug and weapons being found is notable, why not put it in the article? Your censorship here is disgusting in the extreme, you cannot just continue to praise this mob and censure all reports which may cast them in a bad light. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want this movement to fail? The media companies (cnn, abc, cbs, fox, nbc) control the news and if you blindly believe what you're told by those you believe in, then you're trapped in what you believe. Wikipedia works by consensus, and we can think on our own, and form consensus in whatever way we decide. That's why the freedom of ideas is more powerful than the powers of freedom. Wikipedia is run by donations and volunteers. Wikipedia itself was a "big idea" that nobody could have envisioned would change the internet as we know it, or be conducive in "censoring" (your words) the type of impediments which could bring the OWS movement to a halt. Wikipedia itself has grown and survived because it overcame the limiting factors of explosive growth. You know, and everybody knows, that violence and rapes and antisemitism and defecating on police cars would only hurt the movement, if publicly known. Please watch all 3 videos, and ask yourself where do you stand? 완젬스 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

FNC? OWS at this point is the kitchen sink for all that discontent which doesn't fall silent or into the Tea Party discontent. If there's a Nazi or Antisemitic group that supports them that would only seem to be notable if it was, if you'll excuse me. You know if it was like most every single group satisfying that designation or something, they were being noted elsewhere as particularly prominent at occupations, etc.. Otherwise it would seem to be at worst an attempt to smear OWS and at best a lack of discernment. The same standards should apply as to the Tea Party article(s), where btw, this is probably a more likely issue. If FNC refers to Fox News, it's less than clear, it doesn't occur prior to the title of this thread on the page ATM. Lycurgus (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to topic, I think if we allow 1,000 cuts to OWS, starting with allowing the antisemitism to erode support of OWS the same way racism eroded support to the tea party, then it will be death by a thousand cuts to the vibrant spirit of this article. 완젬스 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the Last angry man said, you are cencoring anything and everything that might paint the OWS in a bad light. OWS is, according to Gallop Polling, a fringe group. And at the very least you must admit that it is extremely controversial, so why are none of these controversies in the article. Why would we not add the rapes, trash, deification, violence, arrests, suspicious support? Why? The only reason you give is that it "would only hurt the movement". So you admit to censoring the article to protect the movement from being "hurt". I advise you to stop editing the article because of your nonconstructive, self-proclaimed, censoring of any and all controversies for the stated purpose of not "hurt[ing] the movement".--174.49.47.34 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I was writing my post, when someone messaged me on Facebook about the Fox article, so my thought process was 90% about the previous discussion (and even my first sentence made that clear; my fault on the section titling) but my comment was too long for the section above it, regarding whether to include antisemitism or not. I made a very good point warning other editors not to give in to antisemitism because then it will lead to inclusion of other equally viable angles to ferry in undue taintededness for our article. I want to be brief in the voting section immediately on top of this section, but to explain my reasons as well as offer future guidance on improving the article going forward. I feel I have every right to voice these pertinent concerns, per WP:TP, on the talk page of this article. 완젬스 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You should recuse yourself from editing this article, you POV is blatant. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Editor (forgive me if I don't know how to refer to you) should recuse himself as an obvious WP:COI. It is obvious from his statements above that he wishes to use WP for propaganda purposes to promote OWS. His actions go against all that WP stand for, and ironically what OWS would claim to stand for. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to second this idea. The editor has clearly not only shown a POV, but a lack of willingness to edit from it despite that POV. Toa Nidhiki05 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What about someone using WP for propaganda purposes to disparage OWS? Does that imply a COI too? Given the number of times that TLAM has been shown that there is no justification, and no consensus, for the material he has been trying to get included, I can't see how he can be seen as any less culpable than 완젬스 here. This is clearly a controversial article, and partisan accusations against editors based on their opinions (as opposed to their actions) are hardly going to improve tempers. I think this talk page has got diverted into marginal issues far too often, and we should maybe bear in mind that readers are less likely to be interested in trivia about fringe groups and questionable claims than they are about the broader issues raised by the occupations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia content is not designed to appeal to what the people want - it is designed to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't cater to their readers, they are meant to show verifiable fact. And it is verifiable fact that OWS is not utopia. We can't sugarcoat content because 'users don't want to read it' - the support from fringe groups is widely reported in the media, as are the cases of sexual abuse and violence. This needs to be reported rather than censored. Toa Nidhiki05 03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly what I have been trying to say. Many of these groups support the OWS, that is fact and that is controversy. We wouldn't add Jay-Z and Canadians because that isn't. People have said that it isn't well sourced and it isn't notable but that is just blatantly wrong. I have provided many, very reliable sources for each group and to say that their support is not notable is POV.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd honestly consider invoking WP:IAR if this keeps up - active censorship is not consensus and is not acceptable in any case. Toa Nidhiki05 21:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/17/technology/occupy_wall_street/index.htm
  2. ^ The Paris School of Economics World Top Incomes Database
  3. ^ It's the Inequality, Stupid By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot in Mother Jones, March/April 2011 Issue
  4. ^ a b Rushkoff, Douglas (october 5, 2011). "Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it". CNN. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_15&oldid=1140418844"