Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

potential resource

Column: Occupy is about morality, not just economics by Leif Dautch in USA Today 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what CTJF said: "The edit template is for specific requests, not a list of sources you want integrated to the article."--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

More rapes

The WSJ is reporting that an "Occupy Wall Street participant was arrested Tuesday in connection with two sexual assaults at Zuccotti Park". The alleged perpetrator is self-identifying as a kitchen worker there. Kelly ^hi! 05:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has time, there are many things in this page to add to the Crime section. http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/ --Jacksoncw (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink suggestions

• United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
• Kleptocracy
• Wealth

99.181.152.185 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? I could see wealth, maybe, if there weren't more specific links already in the article. I'm not sure how "difference in wealth" became linked to income inequality in the United States, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong footnote 165 in section "Week 9"

The quoted text is not ín the linked article, which is much older. -- 77.7.163.18 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point (that Week 9 happened way later than the publication of ref165) so I deleted the reference in question. It is still used as a reference for something else in the article, so now reference 166 moves up to 165, and I hope no one adds it back in. 완젬스 (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal at the Criticism section

Somedifferentstuff removed information sourced to (and directly supported by) CBS news, The Chronicle of Higher Education and the New York Times, with the edit summary "Misleading. Find a better source."

Let me paste a couple of quotes from the sources, which you can compare to the removed text:

many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." That framework shapes the "I am the 53 percent" backlash (53 representing the percentage of Americans who pay income tax, a figure that ignores other forms of taxes levied). One of the "53 percent" message-based images that went viral, in an appropriation of a clever Occupy Wall Street tactic, admonishes the protesters to "suck it up you whiners." In other words, earning your way is the American way![1] "The Chronicle, based in Washington, D.C., is the major news service in the United States academic world."[2]

"The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it."[3]

But as they have, conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968. [4]

These seem to me to be just the kind of sources we should generally require for an article. Also, they are directly giving summaries of a particular position of a particular group, which is what we need for writing an encyclopedia, that is we need an overview. I recognize that people are not going to like what they say, but that's not a legitimate reason for removing the information. It might be a reason for finding similarly high-quality sources to expand the coverage or give more context. But not to remove it or engage in original research or synthesis (as with some of the other edits[5]). Having read the quotes from Rush Limbaugh and others, and noting the other quotations used in the sources, I do not have any impression that the removed text was inaccurate in any way relative to how conservatives have criticized and portrayed OWS. I would appreciate people's comments. B^e——C_ritical 21:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Posted at the NPOV noticeboard B^e——C_ritical 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A criticism section should be sourced from the critics, not from someone who states that they "support the protesters". The misuse of the Chronicle piece is sufficient reason alone to exclude this, even ignoring it's utterly unencyclopaedic tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies not on primary sources, such as you are suggesting, but on reliable secondary sources, such as I used. B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find some sources (primary or secondary) that actually offer criticism rather than insults? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those offering the criticisms should have phrased those criticisms differently. But that is not up to us to decide. We merely report what our sources tell us. If they tell us that the criticisms are insults, that's what we report. We also report what those insults were. You're asking that Wikipedia not report the sources faithfully, or else that we only use sources which report something we think is correct. But that's not how it works. I'm trying not to use the word "censor" here, but isn't that what you're suggesting? B^e——C_ritical 01:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that a section entitled 'criticism' should contain criticism, not insults. If you think that articles should have an 'insults' section, then propose it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Insults are a form of criticism. If you want to paint conservatism in a more rational light, I suggest you find some good sources, rather than taking out the good sources I found. I've been searching again for some reliable sources that show conservative criticisms of OWS in a better light, and so far I haven't found any. B^e——C_ritical 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If your intention is to paint conservatism as irrational, as you seem to imply, I think you should maybe find another article to edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I never implied that, and I'd love to have reliable sources on criticism of OWS that had more substantive criticisms. But I didn't find such sources. I did find RS that said certain things, and I faithfully reported their information: just read the quotes above. It's up to you to find something better or different or additional, but it's not up to you to remove reliably sourced material from the article for no other reason than that you personally don't like it or disagree. B^e——C_ritical 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is the other way round. If you wan't to include material, you need to justify it. And the Chronicle article isn't RS for conservative criticisms of the 'Occupy' movement - because it isn't about such criticisms. I suggest you read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have to justify removing well-sourced material. The justification for including it is that it's what the reliable sources say. A source article need not be primarily focused on a sub-subject of our subject in order for us to use it. As long as the article is addressing our general subject, we can use sub-sections of our source. Now, the Chronicle article is about Occupy Wall Street and culture war. That's fine. And it specifically addresses your objection here: "By focusing on caricatures of pot-smoking, drumbeating hippies, instead of on the economic messages related to the "We are the 99 percent" meme, some in the media appear to be redirecting the national debate away from what unites us and toward what divides us" and here: "At first glance, that kind of thesis might seem convincing in light of conservative attempts to slander Occupy Wall Street as an anti-American counterculture." In other words, yes, the criticisms have been mostly insults. So that's what we report. B^e——C_ritical 03:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You are cherry-picking the source to provide the 'criticisms'. If these are actually the only reliable sources commenting on criticisms of the 'occupy' movement, they hardly merit inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT. Actually, I'm sure they aren't the only criticisms - find some better ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not cherry picking sources, which you can disprove by providing some others. The WEIGHT is fine for a small sub-section, especially because these sources are very good: The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the major news service in the United States academic world, CBS news, and The New York Times. B^e——C_ritical 04:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love the timeless Wikipedia debate as to whether the burden of proof rests on the person who adds or the person who removes. That aside, one of the key priciples here is to never state opinions in Wikipedia's voice. There are a couple of places such as the Erickson paragraph and the text that was just reverted by AndyTheGrump that stray from that requirement. It would be more encyclopedic to summarize the criticisms rather than use extremely inflammatory quotes, but in some cases it's not possible to agree on such a summary, and so a couple of quotes from prominent critics, that convey some ideological or practical objection rather than simply being derogatory, should be included. I think the charges of anti-semitism need more context because it implies that some people think anti-semitism is a major theme of OWS. I think the last paragraph about a majority of Americans supporting OWS is not a criticism and should go someplace else. Brmull (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! That's what was taken out long before my summary was taken out [6]. The problem here is that our RS summarize the criticisms, but the original criticisms were so inflammatory that even the summary of our RS's summary is inflammatory. B^e——C_ritical 04:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that version is better than the one that currently exists, but maybe it would be best not to lead with the demagogues Limbaugh and Beck? Are they really the most prominent critical voices? Brmull (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Aren't they? Who would you suggest? I've heard Limbaugh is in fact the mouthpiece of the Right. B^e——C_ritical 05:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I found another source [7] It's not helpful except in that it confirms my suspicion that the text I put in is probably an accurate reflection of what's out there. B^e——C_ritical 06:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with editing this article Becritical is correct. The criticism about the neutrality of the article started right off the bat from both editors that seem to be sympathic to the protests and those that seem to not be. Many politicians that have been willing to speak up at all are well-aware that the protest is popular with voters and are not willing to voice criticisms. Most "intellectuals" seem to be supportive. Early on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., were added but their comments were so inflammatory that we got demands to delete them such as, "But it's not true!" and one editor even said that "we" were only including such comments to make fun of them. It is difficult since it seems that the notable "for" people sound well-thought-out while the "against" people sound (to some of us) just plain nuts. I have looked for criticisms myself, and they are hard to find - as Becritical has said. IMO Limbaugh, etc., should be included, using direct quotes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The quotes would be a step ahead at least. But keep the sources I found in the article to help prevent further challenges along the lines of our cherry picking our quotes. The meta-summary I put in is more encyclopedic and uses secondary instead of primary sources but people seem to feel as if it's putting the criticisms in the voice of Wikipedia. There is also the issue that what we have are conservative criticisms, people speaking at least in their own opinion for conservatism. That will be more difficult to convey with direct quotes, but if we don't convey it then we just have a few people mouthing off. So the best solution is to summarize the reliable secondary sources like we're supposed to here, but if we can't do that then let the primary sources speak for themselves. B^e——C_ritical 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Gandy, that user with the Chinese symbols as a username said he just added the Glenn Beck and Limbaugh quotes to make them look bad. @Critical Every source that you claim are the only sources you can find of criticism are left-leaning sources that are making their bias analysis of the criticisms. I think we should "summarize" the actual quotes themselves and not whatever the Huffington Post or CNN says about the quotes, because that is not NPOV. Also, not all polls find that most people support the movement. The latest poll, found here, http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1670 finds that most people don't agree with the movement.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said in the previous section above, I too think inflammatory terms like "ingrates" should not be in wikipedia's voice. Regardless of whether these criticisms are couched in qualifying terms like "critics have said..." because that's just a weaselly way of getting them in there. As someone said above, these petty insults are not worthy of encyclopedic criticism. "Messy"? Really? Protests aren't meant to be neat and orderly. It might be interesting to compare regular editors here with their comments on the Tea Party articles. I would also like to note that BeCritical has responded to every single post in this thread and the one i link above, a pattern which appears to crowd out natural discussion. I would suggest that he let others weigh in more before replying. -A98 98.92.189.139 (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Three times I have changed the word "ingrates" to "people" because there isn't actually any quote of a conservative using the word ingrates, it was just a word that the liberal sources used to describe the conservative viewpoint, and each time it was reverted. All the criticisms in the criticisms section are presented from an OWS supportive kind of view, trying to make the critics look wrong. It certainly isn't encyclopedic or NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"NPOV" is by definition whatever the reliable sources say it is. So if they are what you consider "left" or whatever but are RS, then WP just summarizes what they say. That's how it works.

Terms like "ingrates" were never in Wikipedia's voice, but were attributed to others. And if that's what the RS say, that's what we say.

It's all about the sources, and the only way you can legitimately argue about whether we should summarize them (without whitewashing) is to either say they are not RS for Wikipedia, in which case we can go over to WP:RS/N, or else find other reliable sources which cover these things differently. But what the arguments above boil down to is that some of the editors here don't want to cover the criticisms because they don't like their tone, or else whitewash them, or else use primary sources. So I would call on you to find good sources or accept the ones I found, and to not whitewash what those sources say. B^e——C_ritical 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV in a nutshell: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." No where in the npov page does it say a neutral point of view is what RS says it is. I don't think what you had met those requirements at all. It wasn't fair and without bias nor was it said with an impartial tone. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I reported what the sources said in an entirely impartial tone. People just don't like what the sources said. And they can't find any better/other sources. If I were to whitewash what the sources say (whether they be the primary sources such as Limbaugh or secondary such as the ones above), for instance by refusing to describe the issues in the same or similar words to those which the sources use, I would be guilty of placing my own POV ahead of the facts, and that is what you are asking me to do.

Words used by the primary sources: "parade of human debris," "They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you," "stupid," "Abject tools," "idiots," "great threat," "Doink rank amateaurs," "they think they're so tough," [8], "“jealous’ Americans who "play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac," "mobs," [9]

Words used by the secondary sources to characterize the view of the primary sources: "ingrates," "growing mob," "shiftless," "class warfare,"messy," "indolent," "drug-addled," "anti-Semitic."

Words used in my summary: "ingrates,""shiftless," "indolent," "messy," "anti-Semitic" and "drug-addled" "mob" "class warfare."

Now, you would have us not relate that bad words such as the above were used. They aren't "encyclopedic." But what's unencyclopedic is to whitewash. To whitewash would be to take sides. B^e——C_ritical 02:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is all about impartial tone. Words like "ingrates" and terms such as "drug-addled" should be recast without the inflammatory tone. You can say the people were ungrateful. You can say they were thinking unclearly because of drug abuse. The whitewash you are afraid of is exactly the guideline we are all given. If the article wording angers the reader, you have failed in writing an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only say again that our impartiality is in reporting our sources, not in changing what our sources say to fit a particular mold. B^e——C_ritical 05:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Have you looked at WP:NPOV lately? No one has suggested changing what sources say, just how we report it. Editors control the tone here through word choice. Encyclopedically, "ungrateful person" is much better than "ingrate" even though they have the same effective meaning. The former is critical of the person's behavior, the latter comes off more as a personal insult. I thought you understood this distinction but your persistence here leads me to believe otherwise. -A98 98.92.185.156 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You define the difference well, and you show exactly how your approach would perpetrate inaccurate information on the reader. Insults were hurled, not intellectual evaluations. The primary and secondary sources on this say that conservatives portrayed OWS in a particular way, and we report that without sugar-coating it. We report the insults, because that's what they were. B^e——C_ritical 06:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See section below

Summary question re criticism section

For anyone coming in here fresh, here's the issue in a nutshell: I found some very high quality sources which say that conservatives have portrayed OWS in an insulting way. They use certain harsh words to describe how the conservatives portrayed OWS. The primary sources of conservatives throwing insults reads much the same as the RS descriptions. The question in contention is whether we are allowed to say, based on the summaries of the situation given in our reliable sources, that conservatism has portrayed OWS as *blank*, *blank*, and *blank*, instead of trying to leave out the offending insulting words.

• Quotes and sources are given at the beginning of the section above.

Here is the text in contention:

Many [This non-specific characterization is directly from the sources] conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work. Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream. However, polls do not back up such a characterization, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression.

B^e——C_ritical 06:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really surprised at some of the comments, such as, "If the article wording angers the reader, you have failed in writing an encyclopedia." I agree with Becritical. It is not our job as editors to change the tone of the comments. Certainly if the news report used the word "ungrateful person" I'd hardly think it would be correct to change it to "ingrate". Gandydancer (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All in all, I would not agree to this edit. It is too broad, has combined too much information into one small bit of info and then says it's not accurate by using one (of many) poll to prove it. I see no way to rescue this edit to make it acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) PS: (wish I had time to say more but it late here...I just wanted to get a short note in so that it did not seem that I supported the edit by my above post) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Gandydancer (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attached to any particular way of summarizing the sources, I just don't want notable criticisms or RS rejected or whitewashed. There are different ways one could summarize. But in some way we're going to have to give the reader the broad-spectrum info on conservative/Right-wing criticisms of OWS. B^e——C_ritical 06:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The first source you provide, which is also where the word "ingrates" comes from, is The Chronicle of Higher Education, which I've never heard of. Can you explain why you are using this source? and why it is appropriate to cite them for this article? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, The Chronicle of Higher Education is a news service in academia. Unless there are objections, it looks to me like an especially good source per WP:MAINSTREAM, probably better than the CBS News one. I looked it up on the WP:RS/N, and it's been mentioned several times. I didn't see any objections to using it as a source, although using its forums was questionable. B^e——C_ritical 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there actually quote of a conservative actually using the word "ingrates" or is it just a left-leaning source trying to make conservatives look bad by putting words into their mouths? I would like to know what quote your source is "summarizing" and if that "conservative" actually used the word "ingrates" which I doubt. And if they did, does that person have notable authority or was it just some guy off the street? None of your sources are primary but rather are a bias analysis of quotes taken out of context and I am not sure whether this is POV pushing UNDUE weight or both.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We could use direct quotes from primary sources, although that's not the kind of sourcing we're supposed to use in Wikipedia. But if you read above a little more closely, you'll see that the words that we would use from the primary sources would be no more intellectually stimulating. I'm sure you've seen the quotes. But here's a bit of Rush if you want it [10], and here is Cain. You seem to be contending that using the RS secondary sources is causing us to be less kind to the critics, but the quotes will tell you that the source's characterization is an accurate reflection of the reality. B^e——C_ritical 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cherrypicking will do more harm than good because it will make this article appear less neutral. All Wikipedia articles are to adhere to an apparent Neutral Point of View unless you want to undo the hard work may of us on the pro-OWS side have conceded on the grounds to better our credibility as editors. If we make this article blatantly biased, it will be ineffective, compared to the more cogent use of subtle bias. Think about it from a perspective of how to peddle influence. If we make the article seemingly biased, then we have none.완젬스 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to make it biased. What you're saying is that the way the Right has responded to OWS is so horrible that if we openly portray it as it is then we will be accused of being anti-Right. Maybe, but that's not our concern. We might find common ground however by using quotes from Conservative leaders. B^e——C_ritical 21:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How does WP:MAINSTREAM apply to the first source? The Chronicle of Higher Education specifically targets academia. I would suggest using sources like The Wall Street Journal for the conservative view. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MAINSTREAM applies because Wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopedia, and takes academic sources more seriously. The Wall Street Journal would be fine, but it looks like we're not going to get away from the name calling: You know how they have been pigeonholed...the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots. It's not a good idea to feed wild animals, ragtag protest movement. Whatever, the more research I do, the more appropriate the "bad word summary" I wrote looks. Here you have your preferred source summarizing that the Right has pigeonholed OWS as "scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots." B^e——C_ritical 21:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't understand the context of the first article you cited. Look at it again and read the beginning of the next paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I did, what's important is that WSJ says that that is how they have been pigeonholed. Whether WSJ agrees or not is irrelevant, my point is that WSJ says that that's how they've been criticized. Confirming the other sources above. B^e——C_ritical 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So how does "ingrates" accurately describe that? Again you find sources that are left-wing, can you not find any primary sources? you are intentionally finding bias sites that portray the conservatives' criticism, first of all as wrong, which is not NPOV and second of all as more hostile than they intend. Your bias is clearly shown in your versions of the paragraph, and it doesn't accurately describe the criticism, I am not trying to whitewash it, you are trying to blackdry it.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you don't like the word, you need to find other equally RS sources that contradict it. Not that it's necessary to include that word, just that it's fully allowable. It's also accurate in fact, but that's my own opinion. B^e——C_ritical 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the Chronicle source [11] and I notice that the line about 'ingrates' and 'fear of responsibility' is actually framed within a comparison to the Tea Party. But this context is lost in Becritical's summary criticism: Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envioust of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work . Worse, the second half of that summary refers to a Tea Party leaflet. And the next sentence is more criticism from the TP -- "shiftless, messy, drug-addled, anti-Semitic" -- Is this RS? I'm not convinced that petty insults from the TP belong in this article. And one more thing: as it stands now, the criticism section starts with conservative bloggers -- is this appropriate? At minimum it should be moved to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. -A98 98.92.184.135 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a point about the conservative bloggers. I see no relevance re the Tea Party context. The quote is "Replicating this decades-old culture-war paradigm, many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." The Tea Party quote is picked out as representative of the whole "As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it..." But you and Jacksoncw are getting down to what you think now, and that's not how we work at WP. What I wrote is a summary, accurate I hope, of how RS say OWS has been characterized by conservatives. Whatever we may think of it, whether we think it's accurate or morally acceptable or whatever, if I correctly summarized reliable sources then there should be no problem. B^e——C_ritical 04:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it's not about whether my summary was perfect. It's about whether we are allowed to simply summarize how our sources characterize conservative criticisms. If yes, then let's rewrite it so everyone agrees it's an accurate representation of the sources. B^e——C_ritical 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the Chronicle source, I was referring to the WSJ source you provided recently[12]. After the "pigeonholed" remark read the beginning of the next paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. "Instead, a deeper look at those who sympathize with those two movements—one largely of the right and the other largely of the left—suggests they are more accurately seen as expressions of economic anxiety and anger that have spread well beyond ..." But that's not a description of criticisms which have been made, so not part of our criticism section? Is this what you mean? B^e——C_ritical 15:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Critical,you keep telling me what I am saying and what I mean but you're wrong. I'm not "getting down to my opinion" you have inaccurately misrepresented an already bias representation from sources that are questionable, that's my point, not what I think, what it is.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not questionable. Your suggested sources -primary sources- are. If you think the summary was a misrepresentation, then help me write it better. But don't try to keep the info out of the article. B^e——C_ritical 23:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

60 day wonder

Apparently it's over. Given the origin (a "causes" publicist), the lack of awareness, program, etc. only the underlying need for something like this, the left version of the tea party, explains what success was had. Note that Chomsky on his FB feed referring to it (Boston) in past tense. This is apparently the inflection point at which the thing can become less a current event and more of something that can be addressed as a normal historical wiki article rather than the political hot potato this talk space shows it to be. A shift in perspective should date from this point, when Zucotti park was cleared, assessments of impact, directions for remnants, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, filthily wrong, 100% wrong... They are just not allowed to sleep there. Bloomberg is on a press conference right now saying the protesters will be let right back in to be allowed to protest, once the health/safety issues are fixed. They'll be allowed back in today (Mayor Bloomberg originally planned for 8am) so please make sure you have WP:Reliable Sources backing you up, when you believe something from the fringe. 완젬스 (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about but it appears that you are suggesting that I look to WP policies to form my beliefs! That's what's "Wrong, filthily wrong, 100% wrong". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum to ventilate your unfounded beliefs on. 212.64.106.232 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No in spite of the content of this talk space, it isn't. And my comments were about the editorial direction of the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be over. That didn't take long. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Accounts of its death have been greatly exxagerrated, not surprisingly. It's not over. And it's more than unbecoming of WP editors to be gloating here about it. I'm not sure what the OP above means by "more of something that can be addressed as a normal historical wiki article" except to couch an editorial bent. -A98 98.92.184.135 (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I neither gloat nor mourn. But I do take a basic human satisfaction that the ill prepared and poorly thought out albeit "good" are slapped back by the "evil" establishment embodying what capabilities human society has achieved by this point. This is just a grim satisfaction in the expression of superiority by the better assemblage of human energy, thought, labour, etc. I'm completely in sympathy with OWS in principle, however my comments here are within the established conventions and policies of this site. What you have here is people who took revolutionary action, literally occupying land and settling on it in the heart of the NYC financial district. That action was never going to go without a response which you now have from Bloomberg: 'stay there 24x7 if you like but no establishment of a settlement with tents and the like'. This pushback which occurred first in other locations, now moves the whole thing from a ill-prepared revolutionary movement into the channel of a standard protest movement with which wikipedia and other institutions better can deal using their established procedures. In that sense it is over, although of course the underlying process isn't, it will reemerge, hopefully in more capable hands. The "AdBusters revolution" though that does appear to be in clean up mode and the changes already made to the article reflect that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is a Point of View....yours. It doesn't work that way here and even Wikipedia policy is a matter of consensus as to how they are applied. Thanks for the suggestion but clearly you'll need the consensus of contributing editors for such "direction change" to the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That is so damn Church Lady lame, it appears I've been an editor here at least a year longer (2006) than you, I'm certainly aware of how the site works. Anyway as I said, others are already doing this as far as this article is concerned. For OWS I wish an early and complete recycling of it into something better founded and thought out. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was referring more to the other editor who is notoriously activist-minded, but your initial post above (as well as your reply) leaves enough room for doubt -- "60 day wonder" and "Apparently it's over" despite (a) re-occupation [who says it's limited to camping?] and (b) the direct action planned for tomorrow, a plan which may have been what finally set off the eviction yesterday. I can understand your frustration over what you deem "ill-prepared" (repeatedly) etc., and I agree with at least some of the sentiment, but this isn't the place for it. Fwiw, I think you're wrong about the lack of preparation to a certain degree. Note how fast the lawyers guild for OWS got an injunction against the NYC eviction, for example. Anyway, you say you've been here awhile, so you should know about WP:NOT#FORUM etc... I say let the article progress more naturally instead of arguing here that it's over (in your opinion) and we need to frame it differently -- the latter approach is more suited to op-ed pages and blogs than wikipedia. Nonetheless, I suppose I should ask if you have any reliable sources which discuss this 'direction change'? And what specific "established procedures" (policies, guidelines, templates, projects?) are you referring to by this "channel of a standard protest movement" ? -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to this article. Going forward, I will be giving attention to We are the 99% or as far as the subject of this one is concerned Occupy movement. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Flags in the International reaction section

The use of flags in the International reaction section is implying that the reaction is in some way official, which is fine for the countries where it was made by a current member of government, however in the case of comments made by Lech Wałęsa (Poland), Mikhail Gorbachev, (Russia/Soviet Union) and Gordon Brown (United Kingdom) they are ex-members and are not even party leaders.

I propose that that flags should be removed and that the country name should only be used for comments by a member of the government. Mtking ^(edits) 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that without the flag then the endorsements would seem less official? If you want to remove the flags, I have no objection. By the way, you're speaking mostly about politicians. 완젬스 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Without both, those that are not official would not appear as if they are eg :

• Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said, "We agree with some of the expressions that some movements have used around the world [in] demonstrations like the ones we see in the US and other countries."
• Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that because there was nothing like a Canadian TARP program, he did not think Canadians were as angry as Americans. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty expressed sympathy with the protests, citing high unemployment amongst the youth. Comparing Canada to the U.S., he said that unlike the U.S., Canada has a progressive income tax system that favors the vulnerable, and the government has regulated and supervised its financial institutions.
• Former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev compared it to the perestroika period and the collapse of a superpower, calling the protests justified. He said Americans should put their own house in order before attempting to do such with other countries.
• Former president of Poland and cofounder of the Polish Solidarity Movement, Lech Wałęsa has expressed his support for Occupy Wall Street and is considering a visit to the site.
• Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown , said the protests were about fairness. "There are voices in the middle who say, ‘Look, we can build a better financial system that is more sustainable, that is based on a better and proportionate sense of what’s just and fair and where people don’t take reckless risks or, if they do, they’re penalized for doing so.’"
• Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized the movement, stating, “a protest is not the same as a policy. Someone who’s demonstrating will often make demands, but they don’t necessarily have answers.”

Mtking ^(edits) 08:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think removing the flags makes sense. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I never did like the flags. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I always thought they were purely decorative myself.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I like the flags, I think they add to the readability. And no I don't think they connote any official approval. Flags represent more than just the government voice. -98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mtking ^(edits) 02:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's chopping up the talk page and deleting entire discussions...and why?

I have to object to the removal of an entire discussion on deleting an image. I am returning it.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The archive bot has been archiving discussions with no activity for three days. I adjusted it to leave threads until they're inactive for seven days.--~TPW 14:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was a bot but couldn't understand it's logic in archiving.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The activity level on the page made that rate of archiving seem appropriate; indeed, you're the first person to suggest that it's too fast. I think that's pretty clear evidence that the activity level has dropped a bit around here. Since the threads are all archived, you can feel free to restore a single one (the links to the archives are up at the top) to continue the conversation, but if you don't add to the thread, it will be archived again the next day unless the parameters are changed. In other words, with the present settings if you or someone else doesn't comment on the image thread again, it's off to the archives again in four days' time.--~TPW 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have always felt that Wikipedia discussions remaining for seven days was the norm.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably true, but there have been periods where this page saw vastly more activity than a normal page. I'd guess that is what prompted the selection of a different setting for the bot. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Time delay for archiving is set in the wiki-code at the very top of the page. As far as I know there is no norm, it is dependent on activity/frequency of posts and can be changed by anyone, though its best left to the more experienced (imo). I've seen it range from weeks to months. Three days is awfully short, but the tradeoff is more manageable page. 7d seems a reasonable adjustment. -98 98.92.186.80 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Alleged "collaboration" of cities in "cracking down" on protests

The following text was inserted into the "Other Politicians" section:

Local authorities in the United States have collaborated to develop strategies to respond to the Occupy movement and its encampments, and political leaders in eighteen United States cities consulted on cracking down on the Occupy movement, according to Oakland Mayor Quan, who participated in a conference call.[123] Within a span of less than 24 hours, municipal authorities in Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland, Oakland and New York City sent in police to crack down on the encampments of the Occupy movement.[124]

The two sources cited are at least a bit questionable, but more importantly, they are contradicted by claims in more reliable sources.

It's debatable whether discussion of this claim belongs in the article at all, but if anything is included, it should not be reflected by unbalanced text that simply repeats loaded claims. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a "contradiction" of the other sources. It's a source in which the allegations of collusion are denied. It's appropriate to include Quan's comments, reaction which inferred collusion from those comments, and the subsequent denial of said collusion by other mayors. However, it may be better to put that information in the Occupy article, and refer to it here more simply in the context of the New York crackdown, such as, "after comments by Oakland Mayor Quan about participating on a conference call with other mayors in which the protests were discussed, allegations of collusion emerged" or something along those lines.--~TPW 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I would generally avoid using the words collusion or collaboration since they generally have negative connotation. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

TPW, the removed article text didn't say anything about any allegations. It said, matter-of-factly, that local authorities "collaborated to develop strategies". This claim is, as I said, contradicted by more reliable sources, or, more precisely, contradicted by other claims in the more reliable sources. I would also caution against using general language like "allegations of collusion emerged" when it would be more accurate to attribute the allegations to the sources that made them. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source that contradicts the collaboration/cooperation of local authorities, let's see it linked on this page. The MSNBC source actually confirms in part the sources I added: "The conversation was focused on general information-sharing and best practices surrounding the challenges and opportunities this unique situation presents to every city," Amber Miller told KUSA

A denial, especially a lawyerly denial such as this one that denies only an action that is cast in particular terms "a strategy session to coordinate the sweeping of demonstrators' encampments" by one or more official does not "contradict" the sources I added.

Here is another source on coordination with federal law enforcement officials by many local authorities that we should add to the article:

According to a federal Justice Department official, "in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present." Minneapolis Examiner, 2011 November 15, "Update: 'Occupy' Crackdowns Coordinated with Federal Law Enforcement Officials" by Rick Ellis.

If there is no further objection, I will restore.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I watched the interview with Mayor Quann of Oakland and she said exactly that. A discussion among mayors took place and it was about a 30 minute conference call she said. Sure the conspiracy theorists and tin foil hatters will believe the most outlandish version of these conflicting reports, but centrify is 100% spot-on with what he said above. The mayors are not colluding or plotting or conspiring. To say these things on our article would be done horribly in bad judgment. They mayors simply are asking each other for advice of what works, what doesn't work, etc. 완젬스 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So then is our question whether this has sufficient WEIGHT to go in the article as one of the controversies?

The Examiner.com was registered by The San Francisco Examiner, So that's http://www.examXXXiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies this source, which is on Wikipedia's blocklist.

This source points us to this source, which is the RT (TV network), which is a questionable source, but has garnered notice by other sources.

The takeaway seems to be an RS as it's co-produced by Public Radio International.

The original alternet sources are from a highly liberal/biased website which isn't sufficient.

The incident has also garnered attention on the Atlantic wire, which is owned by The Atlantic Monthly, a highly reliable source

So that's The Takeaway, and MSNBC as reliable sources, plus possibly The Atlantic Wire.

It may not have enough WEIGHT for this article yet, but we should stay tuned don't you think? B^e——C_ritical 03:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Which msnbc source are you referring to? There was a better source than this one I saw from msnbc earlier today, must have clicked on it from another source. Does anyone else have it? 완젬스 (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Spelling fixes, edit request

Resolved

Someone please fix the multiple spelling errors:

• protestor --> protester (13 times -- including one of the sources, cbsnews. Perhaps should add "[sic]" to the reference at page bottom?)
• Zucotti --> Zuccotti (at least twice)

Thanks. -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Done 완젬스 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Financial inequality" vs. inequality in total wealth

I've never heard of this term "Financial inequality". Is this just parrotting the source without understanding the term? And then WP:SYN with another source which has slightly different numbers, and then contrasting the two as if they are different concepts?

Financial inequality was 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%.

If they are in fact different concepts, could we have a different wikilinks to these articles? Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed new wording. If the consensus is to discard my proposed wording and revert the original, I would recommend linking directly to here [13] so the reader doesn't need to go through two sources to find an explanation. Ufwuct (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the definition in parenthesis. What this means is that the poor don't have liquid assets, they don't partake in the windfalls of the stock market or even rental properties etc. Most of their financial wealth is immediately spent on necessities, and they don't have anything left over to make investments to better their financial situation. That is why it takes money (liquid assets) to make money. The rich can make money because they have liquid assets outside of their houses. It's an important advantage of the rich, and you're in the 99% (or really bottom 80%) if you don't know about it. B^e——C_ritical 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Toronto

Change caption

Occupy Bay Street in Toronto was inspired by Occupy Wall Street.

to include Occupy Toronto? 99.181.134.6 (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The lede currently doe not summarize the article, there is no mention of the rapes, attempted rapes, sexual assaults, drug dealing, weapons, defecating in public areas (such as on a police car). Nor is there mention of the people who have endorsed the protests. All these need to be mentioned in the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it doesn't mention the individual subjects or a critical opposing view represented?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added more.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the lede is meant to be an overview on the article in brief, as such anything in the article should also be mentioned in the lede, as in the specific items I mentioned in my previous post. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand you feel there should be more weight to these issues but they don't have that weight in the article. They are brought up in the lead however.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It doe not matter how I "feel", it is policy. The lede must reflect what is in the article, currently none of the criminal activity is mentioned at all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines are not absolutes in regards to lead content. Please link the guideline that you refer to for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet...what's the main stuff you object to not going in besides full lists.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That was all in the body of the article already and i moved it all into a controversy section and added a line in the lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that writing "there has been some complaints" actually covers rape, attempted rape, sexual assaults, drug dealing, defecating in public, drug dealing and other random acts of violence? Please stop whitewashing this article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear the word "whitewash" used in reference to a WP article, alarm bells go off in my head. Are you really making the claim that these events have been high-profile enough that they need to be not just mentioned, but actually enumerated, in the lead? Assuming you are, I'll object that listing specific criminal allegations and police reports in the lead would be undue weight to incidents that have received comparatively little attention from the press. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comparatively little attention? How about this, this, this or this? The crimes are very well covered and have received attention in major news outlets. These allegations wouldn't be undue in the lede.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure of that? 514 hits on G News 45 mill odd on google [14] Seems widely reported to me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, comparatively little attention. Meaning, relative to pretty much every other aspect of the protests, it has received little attention. By definition, we can't give full-detail coverage in the lead of everything that's significant and discussed in RS's and mentioned in the article. Putting these details in the lead would basically be cherry-picking and highlighting one of the most negative aspect of the protests just because it is negative. This would be undue weight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really, for NPOV you have to have some of the bad stuff in the lede as well as all that sugar. Also you seem to forget the majority of reports are the same old same old, the press is more or less repeating itself. But for neutrality you need to have some controversies in the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw man, or just a bad argument. Mentioning controversy in the lead doesn't mean we have to list out every kind of allegation there's been. Again, undue weight to something that has received comparatively little attention from the press. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Some mention of the controversy specifically naming the most egregious incidents is required by WP:LEDE. Last Angry Man should have also noted the public nudity, public sexual intercouse and robberies at the protest. There are ample reports in RS. Ignore them all you want--but the fact is they happened.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Centrify. There is no WEIGHT argument for having these minor facets in the lead unless the lead were greatly expanded, which is not necessary. You can have various levels of summary in the lead: you can just hit the high points, preferable with a large article, or you can have a small mention of every point. This is a large article. B^e——C_ritical 01:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds like some anti-Occupy editors want to paint the movement with overreaching judgements of its worst/fringe elements. While you're at it, why don't you add those juicy tidbits to the leads of other articles about New York City, Manhattan, and public parks. Oh, and then fix the lead of the Tea Party protests to reflect its own worst elements, please. -A98 98.92.186.80 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What worst elements of the tea party? The link you gave linked to a random article about a murderer, there was nothing about the Tea Party in the entire article. There are no fringe elements about the Tea Party, just Nancy Pelosi calling them nazis. And this isn't just worst/fringe elements this is significant support from very questionable groups and it has been widely publicized and just because becritical things it isn't necessary to expand on these points, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be expanded.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

November 15 raid

Right afer Midnight on Nov 15, police raided the camp and evicted the protesters. However, can someone edit that they are now back and are angrier?--Fknp0nd (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

At 1am on Tuesday Nov 15, the NYPD raided Zuccotti Park to clear out the protesters. Over 200 protesters were arrested. See reference: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nypd_raiders_roust_rabble_Dp5jSkaFLwGXYElqsxsWjO — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriteMe12345 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(indented above entry). In response to the first entry, their anger doesn't seem to have translated into a reoccupation of the space. With two months for the local governments to consider a response and a thetic assertion of a lack of organization, program, I think the outcome for this article is as I outline in the prior thread, with which this thread is redundant. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Only if reliable sources state that it's over should that language be used in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's nowhere near over. They are calling in bombthreats to the subway systems and/or the NYSE building on Nov 17th (source, facebook page wall post) so let's all be patient for more to come or this to play out. Doesn't anyone know or belong to "affinity groups" for direct action? There's a whole lotta people on this discussion page who are trying to declare it's over, which it won't be until election night on Nov 2012. I tried to delete the last post which was another attempt to silence the disbelievers that this thing is over. Unless the New York Times says it's over, then it isn't over. The smaller you look into the "core of the core of the core" of the leaderless movement, you'll find some people are unwilling to see the occupy movement fail. So many people have nothing left to live for if this movement doesn't succeed. Who wants to hold a degree in psychology or liberal arts, be 30 years old, with Obama having failed us to bring about "hope and change" well this is the movement Obama supports, and it's from his own core supporters. It's up to us to bring about the "change" and all you gotta do is like their facebook page and you can read the wall posts for hours. Next time, don't call the OWS movement over, unless you have a WP:Reliable Source. 완젬스 (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are the above two posts meant to be in the previous thread "60 day wonder" instead? Just wondering... -98 98.92.186.80 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh. Bomb threats? Please explain. The poster you linked promises "non-violent" action. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't calling in a false bomb threat non-violent? (to shut down the nyse building and/or subways?) I'm not stupid enough to commit a felony, but only a real bomb would be violent, right? It's the same as pulling a fire alarm in the absence of a real fire, it would just clear the building. Aren't both of these examples non-violent methods of direct action? 완젬스 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. This may be splitting hairs. Like yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire. I'd say it counts as violent because it is a threat of violence. Empty threats are still threats. By the way, I think we'd need a better source than a Facebook wall post (!). -98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cityofeastlansing.com/Home/Departments/Fire/FalseAlarms/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.81.177 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah. A bomb scare is potentially dangerous regardless of whether it's a sincere threat to actually blow up a building. If you have any communication with these people, suggest to them that it's a very bad idea. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I told them (although I thought it was a felony, but this link says it's only a misdemeanor) because if they're going to do it, why are they so dumb to post it on facebook? There will be extra security tomorrow all over New York either way, and they said they're up against the ropes and don't want to go to jail for this. I feel sorry for them because the Nov 15th raid indirectly made everyone scramble, when it was supposed to be a day full of planning for direct action events planned at the 3 times cited on the poster. I feel bad that the best they can come up with is bomb threats to clear out the NYSE building--I recommended they just do stink bombs instead, like they do on Whale Wars for direct action, which nobody will go to jail for. 완젬스 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is materializing apparently

Wow, these guys were serious: http://online.wsj.com/article/APcaba350d658e4999a08e20f209387e40.html where it says "NEW YORK — Police say a 29-year-old Occupy Wall Street demonstrator has been arrested on a charge of making a terrorist threat after he was caught on video threatening to attack Macy's with a Molotov cocktail." I wonder if he got the idea off of the group's facebook wall? Any thoughts? (by the way, this article was posted 1 hour ago) The stuff came from AP--associated press. 완젬스 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to warn these guys on facebook to do stink bombs, rather than bomb threats. They're all so paranoid I doubt they will listen to random guys giving advice from Wikipedia. Is there any chance that OWS protesters might get charged with terrorism tomorrow? 완젬스 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rape, robbery, illegal drug use, and violation of public sanitation codes seems be more the speed of OWS protesters than terrorism. I don't think the movement could be taken that seriously. Kelly (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)\

Don't judge the movement by its worst/fringe elements. I know you don't do the same for Tea Party, Sarah Palin, et al. Also please see WP:NOT#FORUM and limit your posts to discussion of improving the article. Your personal views are not constructive. -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't let the minority of protesters give us a bad name, otherwise it kills the good efforts done by the majority of ows protesters. 완젬스 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame Kelly, blame the big media corporations. 완젬스 (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If a single OWS protester starts making bomb threats to advance the cause, it won't be the media's fault when public opinion of OWS splashes into the toilet . . . Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the OWS people on facebook are possibly under the influence of drugs/alcohol. They all partied all night long to prepare for today. I told them making a bomb threat is considered an act of terrorism on the facebook wall. Sighs, can't stop them now. Here we go, watch these fringe-OWS idiots go to jail now. 완젬스 (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

They're pretty well behaved at least here or we'd be getting emails from them (which I actually wouldn't have minded, but whatever). And this page has not been flooded with people trying to influence, as are many other controversial pages. B^e——C_ritical 03:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@-A98, funny how you call out the WP:NOT#FORUM policy for Kelly but but not when 완젬스 is giving a disruptive play-by-play of his facebook exploits on the discussion page. @완젬스 "blame the big media corporations"? First of all, refer to WP:NOT#FORUM. This is not a forum for propaganda or debate, if you have suggestions please make them. Secondly, all the big media corporations like CNN, Huffington Post, New York Times, etc. have all praised the movement as some revolutionary success, so even if what you said was appropriate, it is just wrong. And quit using this discussion page as an outlet to defame the Tea Party, I have had about enough of it. How many arrests were there during Tea Parties? How many complaints of trash or noise? How many sexual assaults or rapes? How many cases of violence or defecation? Before you google it, let me give you the answer, 0. Absolutely none.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

When an editor's judgement is obviously compromised, as you just illustrated, then I can certainly call them out on it. You are making the very same mistakes that critics of the Tea Party have made. I am not "defaming" the TP, I am drawing a parallel. There were plenty of criminal problems and otherwise unsavory issues with TP protests, you and others just choose to overlook them. Why? See WP:undue -- we don't frame articles by the subjects' worst elements. -A98.. 98.92.184.64 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm temporarily ashamed of being pro-OWS at the moment. I lost all respect by seeing dozens of people on facebook last night talk about breaking windows and using the shards of glass to slit throats. At first there were only 1-2 posts like this per day on facebook, but now it's 20-30. I hope that it isn't really the OWS people saying that, but people like Jacksoncw logging into facebook and writing that stuff on our wall, trying to make us look bad. I really hope the OWS people are smarter than that, and wouldn't go bragging about their plans to make bomb threats and flash mobs at the subway, halting train service. I hope these idiots know what "non-violent" means, because on facebook they have total disregard for the law, disregard for the good OWS supporters like myself, and most importantly don't care about how bad this will sabotage our movement if the whack crazies act out some of this stuff they're unabashedly posting online for all to see (well, only for those to see who like the facebook page). I feel like we're going to have to do some more censuring/white-washing/damage-control on this page after the bad stuff they plan on doing today. What can you do really, but try to dissuade them? 완젬스 (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is getting way off-topic. 완젬스, I understand your frustration with what's happening at Facebook, and I have had my own problems with Jackson's edits, but your above comment about him is simply out of line. And while I have found your comments to date more constructive than not, it's looking more and more like a COI might be getting in the way of your impartiality. Earlier you called yourself an opponent of "any momentum-destroying criticism" of OWS; FWIW, I find the concept of a political movement that is too important to be criticized very, very frightening. It's probably the case that everyone who doesn't have their head stuck in the sand has some POV about OWS at this point, but please consider keeping some of these thoughts to yourself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The United States was born in blood partly over an issue of taxation without representation. We celebrate the result every 4th. Why the shock, people? No got history? I'm not advocating one way or another, or justifying. I just don't get the squeamishness or shock. B^e——C_ritical 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Centrify, I've been trying for days to insert some criticism of OWS. If you value such freedom to use RS in this article without censorship, please try and help. The objections to the RS were spurious, though one might summarize them in a different way. B^e——C_ritical 21:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of an uphill battle, or at least it can be. By comparison, it's a relatively simple matter to keep obvious POV-pushing material out, whereas striking an appropriate balance between published criticism and praise is much more daunting. Actually summarizing or synthesizing a balance of criticism and praise (like we might wish to do in the lead) can be near-impossible without committing OR, unless there happens to be some comprehensive and neutral scholarly analysis on the subject, which there almost never is.

There is already some criticism about OWS in the article. Are you suggesting there's way too little criticism, or just that there is specific critical material that has been wrongfully excluded? If the latter, I'm glad to help, but if the former, I'm with you in spirit but feel a little more hesitant to actually dig in, because that sounds like a boatload of thankless work. That said, I'll be away for a while and probably won't be able to respond again for a few hours. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are some really good sources which give general summaries of how conservatives have characterized OWS. It's insulting. But it's an accurate summary of the primary sources. Also, there are some quotes of very notable conservatives such as Rush criticizing OWS, and either the quotes or the general summary or both should be in the article. They're notable and significant relative to this subject. B^e——C_ritical 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, you give very bias sources which give analyses, not summaries, of comments that were cherry-picked to only be insulting comments and none of the intelligent or thought out criticisms that have been said. You also imply that all of the criticism of the OWS is coming from conservatives only, but the Quinnipiac University poll done on November 3 shows that 42 percent of independent voters disagree with the movement while only 29 percent of them support it. You keep saying that it is against some policy to use primary sources for quotes, what policy is that? I think if we are going to add criticisms, we should add actual criticism and not cherry-pick the insulting words that conservatives throw out there. It's clear that you want to defame the conservatives and make the criticisms look foolish, but that's not what this article is for. You keep saying "reliable source reliable source", but there is no reason to add those quotes because it is neither an accurate representation of how the conservatives feel nor is it informative.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me be really clear: the bias is irrelevant, only whether the sources are RS is relevant. The polling thing is a minor issue, and can be worked out. And were you to read my previous post directly above yours, you will see I'm not against the quotes, I'm trying to put them in. And don't accuse me of bias for using RS or quotations. It's not my fault if it sounds stupid or insulting, it's the primary source's fault. And the RS sources do have an accurate description of how conservatives have criticized, because their summary is confirmed by the quotes from conservatives. B^e——C_ritical 01:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

With regards to me commenting about what has been said about me, I did a quick pros/cons analysis and have chosen not to defend myself and drag out this off-topic stuff. However, I hope the editors of this page know I'm a great editor and everyone still considers me an ally, despite what a handful of editors have to say. I was instrumental in getting rid of Dualus, and returning power over the OWS articles back to fellow Wikipedians, and that may have been the most instrumental "contribution" I've done here. With that said, I want to say I've taken a day off to reflect, but I still think I'm an invaluable editor and I'm sorry to anyone who gets offended by my liberal/progressive bias. I won't quit, I won't give up, I won't stop believing or editing in my beloved Wikipedia. Not now, not ever, 완젬스 (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@완젬스, Invaluable editors don't intentionally push "invisible POV" in articles to make them "facilitative" to your specific view point. @becritical, If you were to read my post directly above yours you would have read what I think about your RS. The RS doesn't convey conservative's opinions accurately, we should look at the actual quotes and put that in the article, not what the "RS" thinks about the article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference Mix-Up

Please clean up the mix-up of references "Amy Goodman" and "David Goodman", both are referred to as ref name="Goodman" which causes wrong footnote links. Thank you. -- 77.189.60.125 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this problem arises in the article - but it could possibly be moot, as they are brother & sister and do work together. Cgingold (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Economic background is undue weight?

How are this and this correct? Isn't the main motivation for the protests economic? How many of the sources discuss economics as part of their coverage? Why did they choose Wall Street? So how are economic details undue weight? Especially compared to other sections. I thought the economic coverage should be expanded if anything. That's the main issue of OWS isn't it? B^e——C_ritical 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO it is never justified to wipe out large sections of an article without prior discussion. Isn't this supposed to be a joint effort? I would suggest the editor return the copy and ask for discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of the information wasn't even referenced with context to the article (actually the whole intro to that section was un-referenced). It is undue weight to the "Occupy Wall Street" article but relevant and notable enough for due weight. I added a good deal to save the section in good faith to keep it referenced to the claim that it has to do with the movement in the manner mentioned etc. I added a few references to what was a bit of puffery.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that seems reasonable! BeCritical?... :D Gandydancer (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what he's saying. The material which was originally in the 99% section was thoroughly referenced, and was referenced to articles about OWS for the most part, with a few details referenced to sources which the articles on OWS themselves used as sources, such as the Congressional Budget Office. IOW, the sources used were about OWS, and discussed the economic details in reference to OWS, and made it clear that they were relevant to OWS. And that's OWS specifically, not just the Occupy movement. Does that answer the concerns or do I not understand? Also, We are the 99% is even worthy of its own article, so surely worthy of small section here. B^e——C_ritical 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two linked removals were 100% good. I think the article should explain, in brief summary, the main concerns of OWS, the ones that have been commented upon repeatedly by reliable sources. We should not try to research the topic of economics ourselves, of course, but our readers are coming here looking for an easily understood explanation. We should give it to them. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it explains in in a concise and accurate way how the slogan or phrase relates to the data and preserves the main essence of what was written originally with additional referenced accuracy. The portion left out simply went into more detail then was needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it needs at least its own section with a link to the main 99% article. The summary can be either pared down or divided into a general overview paragraph and a further details paragraph. How about that? I really don't understand the WEIGHT objection. This is the most important motivator for the movement, and deserves probably the most prominent placing and WEIGHT in our "background" coverage. "The Occupy movement is an international protest movement which is primarily directed against economic and social inequality." B^e——C_ritical 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure WEIGHT is the fundamental concern; the section looks like there's a fair amount of OR. We're hanging, (coatracking), content on the economy onto an article about the protests. Sure the economy plays a part in why the protests occur but unless a source explicitly makes the connection between economy and OWS, we're dealing with WP:OR. I'm short on time but I did look at a couple of sources and they don't make that kind of connection, so that kind of source and the content they reference should be removed as non compliant. I may have time in the next days to look at the sources, but if not someone else might want to take a look and see if that explicit connection is there.(olive (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I've been trying to straighten it out. Sources got removed, re-arranged, etc. I think I'm going to rewrite it and put the quotes in the ref tags so that they can't be lost. In a couple of cases, a source pointed us to a document, and I went to that document to get the details. For example, Forbes talked about "financial wealth," and referenced its source, so I went to that source for a definition when someone requested it. I believe all the text was originally sourced, but there have been too many changes and it's a section that's difficult to change without messing up. It's going to take some time. B^e——C_ritical 04:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wishful thinking, the section has been OR from the start. Sources making a connection beyond that only in the editor's mind have been lacking all along. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No it has not, there was no coatracking at all to begin with. You consistently misunderstand sourcing, for example here. The Economist source [15] is now gone from the article. Did you take it out? No wonder Littleolive thinks it's OR. Use of sources like this that don't mention OWS are not my fault. People came in and didn't understand what was going on or how to avoid OR and SYNTH. B^e——C_ritical 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I critiqued the Economist ref in detail, and no substantive rebuttal, defense or reply was ever made. (What ever happened to Mr Muza of Zimbabwe, is he still under the bus where he was thrown?) Why the Economist source is a good ref, we have not been told even once. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did you give us any reason to think it's bad? What's bad about it? B^e——C_ritical 19:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange I would be asked where I addressed the pointlessness of the Economist ref; the talk diff placed by Be in this discussion for my my benefit starts with the critique, but now it seems I'm not the one who could profit from the diff. But never min that. Why are we talking about a ref not in the article? Does anyone have a mind to restore it, or is this simply a personal resentment intruding on the discussion? I'm just not getting the point of this. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked it out on the RS noticeboard, and intend to restore it eventually. B^e——C_ritical 02:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)